It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Son of Yahweh. Evidence Is Irrelevant.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



Again, that the other men were even part of the equation at all is the proof. They should not have heard, seen or even known anything about it. Paul does this trying to justify himself, as if it say - look it really happened, the men are proof! And because he didn't understand, he unwittingly tells on himself. It's just not how those things happen. Unless to say he was like moses, which obviously he wasn't.

He seen the light around his men? Again, meaning - he saw with his 2 eyes, not his minds eye.

Where in Scripture does it say that visions only happen to the people that they're happening to? It doesn't. It's not there. That is something that you've made up. Plenty of times in Scripture when a vision occurs, it physically happens. For example, Ezekiel was physically brought to the Millenial Temple. John physically experienced his visions in Revelation. Peter, James, and John all three, at the same time, saw Christ transfigure.

It's ironic to me that you're doubting Paul's testimony because others saw the light. Weren't you the one who said that the virgin birth couldn't be a sign because "virginity" isn't something that one can see?




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
[more


allegorically, absolutely, but I assure you direct translations have been messed up as well. there is no easy way of going from hebrew o greek to english...

it just does not translate that correctly.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 




The point is, you have to take it on faith because if there is a God I don't think he spends all his time laying evidence around for people that won't believe in it in the first place.


..not sure where to start here, but this statement unfortunately in my opinion is one of a great mis-understanding and ignorance. (not saying your stupid or anything of that nature) just saying I dont think you have ever been given a different perspective that you are open too. thers just too many assumptions within that little part of your reply.

see. the thing is once again you are comparing "God" to a human. I know it says in the Bible "we are made in his image" and all that, but if there is a "God" the way the Bible portrays "him" to be nothing in this world could make sense or follow a path of logic... literally nothing. for example (and this is a weak one) if humans are truly "Godlike" and God is truly "humanlike" then why would there even be a universe? things would literally revolve around the world and we would not just be a spec of dust among trillions of massive stars. i would agree that would make all the sense in the world and we would not need to be guided by a path of logic. that is a weak example of why things wouldnt be as logical as they seem to be, but thats all i can come up with in such a short reply.

I know you are assuming I am athiest, though i definitely am not. i definitely dont fit into a "category" of belief systems or religion, but I am not athiest. just try to keep that in mind when replying. ill repeat myself again in fear of sounding monotonous, but i posted this thread not to say there is "NO GOD" but to say whatever thing or if anything at all had a "hand" in creating this universe and these humans on this planet it wasnt the hand of "Yahweh" the way a typical Christian thinks "him" to be.
i am an open minded indiviadual my friend so I can digress. maybe there is some divinity that can be named yahweh, but i would bet a 100 to 1 "his" message is not and has not been interpreted in its pure form.

that is not the only reason for the thread, but certainly that is what I am alluding to in a sense. we kind of got off on tangents, but thats all good.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by open_eyeballs]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Translation has nothing to do with interpretation. It is true that Greek and Hebrew don't translate exactly into English. But, no language translates perfectly into another. But, if you know what a word means and stay mindful of idioms and colloquialisms, you can come very close to having an exact translation. [To see a truly word for word translation, you can look at any interlinear Bible. Then you'll see why the translations people use aren't truly word for word!]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


i disagree. translation has much to do with interpretation. that doesnt make any sense. if you dont understand the words as they are menat to be understood how can u ever interpret the message a a whole?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 




But I must tell you that is not something any man can prove to you. It's just not possible.


in my op i did not clarify, i think, what it was i was getting at specifically. it is the commonly accepted interpretation of god and the dogma that has lined itself within the veils of christianity and other religions that can not be proven. And these must have some evidence of existance and truth before Jesus Christ can enter into the picture. It is the common interpretation of christians where I am quite sure that is an inaccurate version of the intended message. Again, my view of Christianity in todays form is a positive one. I know it has affected peoples lives on an inner level in a positive way. I have had discussions about Christianity with good friends. they have helped me to understand some of the messages that may have not made sense before. And growing up in christian schools and thinking I knew what was going on, it was a shocker and eye opener to learn different perspectives of the same teachings that I thought I once knew.

And Ill state again, i am not trying to disprove yours or anyones religion. I know I can raise questions here because most of the responders are sure enough in there beliefs where it will not affect them on any kind of personal level. I personally would not want to change anyones mind about there beliefs. thats why I think online discussion is an easier venue to raise these kinds of questions. It is in my humble opinion to eachs own. And in many instances religion and dogma should be encouraged in peoples lives.

But I still have my logic. and the common interpretation of christ and more importantly the christian version of "yahweh" is in my opinion an inaccurate one. i think they are missing the bigger picture.

there are a few theologians i would offer to take a loko at and review what they have to say about christianity as a whole and common doctrine within even the church (catholic). really interesting stuff. these guys have studiede the bible and what it says about everything for their whole lives. i wish i could find their names, but i cant seem to find them on google. these are some of the smartest dudes on earth. straight up. alot of my influence has come from their interpretation of the Bible.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Here's an example of how translation doesn't require interpretation.

A: Hallo! Guten Tag meinen Freund!
B: Ah! Hallo Günther! Wie geht es dir? Wo gehtst du hin?
A: Es geht mir gut. Ich gehe nach den USA. Endlich habe ich Urlaub.
B: Das ist sehr cool! Welches Bundestaat?
A: Kalifornien, natürlich!

If I translate that, it requires no interpretation. Knowing what words mean isn't interpretation because, you know what they mean given the context. When I translate the given dialouge, based on my knowledge of the words and the context I get:

A: Hello! Good day my friend!
B: Ah! Hi Günther! How are you? Where are you going?
A: I'm well. I'm going to the United States. Finally, I have vacation.
B: That's very cool! Which state?
A: California, of course!

Interpretation comes in when you're trying to derive the meaning of what something says as a whole. Knowing what a word means is nothing. The correct interpretation of the dialogue is, two friends are talking to one another, one has vacation, and he's going to California.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by octotom]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 



i wish i could find their names, but i cant seem to find them on google. these are some of the smartest dudes on earth. straight up. alot of my influence has come from their interpretation of the Bible.


Two theologians that I love are Charles Ryrie and Thomas Constable. Thomas Constable even has commentaries for every book of the Bible up on a website.

Soniclight



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


i thinku are comparing apples to oranges. 1. you wrote the dialogue therefore you know the context.
2. seemingly you know both languages well.

but can you interpret context from 3,000 years ago (or longer depending on who you believe) written from a culture that you know little to nothing about?

and from what I understand about the Hebrew language, there is simply no correct or absolute way to translate some of these "words" even into greek, which was done far after those old testament books were written.

so, in this instance translation has much to do with interpretation.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


cool. tahnks, ill look into them when i get a chance. im always for taking a second look aor third especially if it means opening the eyeballs..haha



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 



but can you interpret context from 3,000 years ago

Context isn't something that is interpreted, it's evident because, it's the context.

polish

The above word has two meanings. If I'm reading something, I determine which meaning based on the words that come before it/after it. Assuming someone used this word several times in a paragraph, without any capitalization, neither you or I would have a problem choosing which meaning to apply in the situation.

polish chocolate is nasty. But if I polish it with some polish sausage, then the brand new polish that tastes like something polish will make the polish chocolate taste a littler better and somewhat less polish all thanks to polish!

The same is true in a 3000 year old language like Hebrew. Only people that know the langauge translate it and therefore, as they go through a line or so of text, they would know which word to choose.

 


I just had a though--I think perhaps that what you're thinking of is not interpretation, in regards to translation, but rather, what's called in the world of Bible translation, "dynamic equivalence". Basically, this means that instead of translating the Bible word for word [like translations such as the KJV, ESV ,ASV, and NASB do, which, by-the-way is called "formal equivalence"], the translators will read a sentence/paragraph of the text and translate the idea. Examples of translations that are "dynamic" are the NIV, NLT, HCSB, and NET.

When a dynamic translation is done, there is a chance that when someone is translating, his bias will creep in to word the text in a certain why that'll show more clearly what he believes. To fight this, dynamic translation teams have scholars from scores of denominaitons and theological backgrounds. After a text is translated, it will be passed on to others on the team and to review committees. The purpose of this is to weed out any potential bias in the translation. [Formal translations do this process too, but due to the nature of the translation, it's harder for a bias to slip in.]

Because of the possibility of a bias being shown, I personally use dynamic translations for reading, if I do use one at all. At the moment, I'm quite happy with the translation that I use, the ESV. It's quite readable and it's word for word--the best of both worlds!



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
Christianity is the only religion in the name of Jesus. Jesus didn't say that there would be a religion that comes in his name, but rather that many would come saying that they were the Christ, denying that Jesus is the Christ. That is what the false religion will do in the future.


It is still a new religion since the time of Christ. Jesus was a jew. If you followed him, then you were a Jew. Christianity as a religion is formed long after Jesus is dead. There is no getting around this fact, sorry. It is a new religion since the time of Jesus.




With this being the case, one could easily change the word testament to covenant when referring to the parts of the Bible--The Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old Covenant referring to the Mosaic Law the New Covenant referring back to the "New Covenant" that God promised to Jeremiah. Jesus also said that in his blood was the new covenant:

Matthew 26.28 (ESV) (cf. Mark 14.24 & Luke 22.20)Jesus speaking:

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


Interesting that he said that he died for the forgiveness of sins--something that you've denied that Jesus did!


No, there is a difference between him doing it to be an example to people, and the christian belief that he did it so you do not have too. He says if you believe then you will do as he says. But that part is looked over.

If you believe he died for your sins so that you can be forgiven just by thinking he is god, then you are wrong. He died for your sins in order to show you how to correct your mistakes and live correctly. Christianity has used a play on words to distort the purpose.



True biblical Christianity doesn't appeal to nations or political power. To say it does is a joke. If Christianity appealed to politicians, government would be much smoother in it's efficientcy and there would be no greed in the walls of Congress, Parliament, the Bundestag, or whatever. Politicians use Christianity in a wrong way to get votes. Just as some may say BHO used his herritage in a false, and half truthful way, to get votes.




2 Peter 2
10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.


And here is Paul



28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?


Not to mention the verses Hitler and Nazi Germany used in order to get people to submit and go along with them. But yeah, nations hate christianity. lol, what a joker.

All are teachers?



Matthew 23

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


Jesus tells people not to put themselves into positions of authority, both Peter and Paul in this case make an appeal to government.



Talk to missionaries around the world and see if the closed nations they're working in find Christianity appealing. I know missionaries who have been stoned for preaching the Gospel.


If I talked to a missionary around the world, this is the only thing I would say to them.



15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.





Since Christianity can't be the false religion, as it doesn't deny Christ, than Paul can't be the figure that comes after. Look for someone in the future.


It is the false religion. It does deny Christ because it denies his true purpose and reason. Christianity states that Jesus did these things so that you do not have to. And that is just simply not the case. Do I need to quote the numerous times Jesus points out that people have to walk the path, and that it is not easy to get into heaven? But your false religion says oh it's real easy, just accept this "free gift". Once again, if this is true then why doesn't Jesus tell the rich man this? He tells the rich man the opposite of that.




I want to see these Christians. Sure there have been things done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't make someone a Christian. I could go and kill and rape scores of people, in the name of Krishna, but that doesn't make me Hindu.


Ahh, now you give me political BS of pointing fingers at others, as if that somehow makes the rest of it ok. Please do not insult me like this anymore. The history and the DARK AGES of the church are well known and recorded. If you want to point out that they did those things and not you, then fine. But don't pretend like it didn't happen. Such is an insult and completely dishonest.

The fact of the matter is I would have been killed by your religion not too long ago. PERIOD.



I, as a Christian, don't hate people that aren't. That would mean that I would have to hate you, badmedia, which I can honestly say I don't. I would have to hate 99% of the people that I see walking around in Germany, which I don't.


Do you really think it matters if you say you hate someone or not? It doesn't. Your actions are what would show hate. If you do or don't will be revealed not by your words, but by your actions.

If Christianity is actually of god, then why have so many demons made it their home?



The actions of a few political Christians shouldn't be construed to mean that's what everyone believes. The Christians here in Germany are quite happy living the way that they do. They're patiently awaiting the return of Jesus, just as I, and thousands of other Christians are. That doesn't mean though that I'm happy when a government allows abortion, but I understand that since government isn't Christian, it's foolish to force my beliefs on them. All I can do is make my case and sit back and wait for Jesus to establish his kingdom in his time.


Well there actions are certainly separate from your own, and will certainly be seen as that. But I am looking at what enables such manipulations in the first place, and it's never the words of Jesus, but the words of Paul etc that is used for these things. Just as it was the book of Romans and it's appeal to politicians that was used during WW2 and who knows how many other times in history.



It is sad to me that there is a trend toward ecumenicalism. It is something that is needed to happen though before the lawless one can be revealed. One must stay alert and make sure his beliefs line up with Scripture.


Hold up. Are you seriously trying to say that Pagan beliefs and astrology hasn't been built in?



I refer again to the missionaries that risk their lives in places like Iran, Iraq, and Nigeria. I know people who have been stoned. I know missionaries who have been executed. When I was in high school, I knew people who hated me because I was a Christian--and I hadn't done anything to make them hate me.


Don't think I need to quote that matthew verse again. I grew up in the bible belt btw, and when I was a kid I would never in a million years think of saying that I wasn't a christian. You have no idea. All it proves is that people could care honestly give a crap less what any religion says. The only reason Christianity gets any play at all is because of it's false promises and "free gifts". If these same people thought they had to walk the path and actually do as Jesus did, you would find very few Christians.

Truth of the matter is, Christians do everything Jesus warns against. Just like the missionaries traveling the seas for a single convert.



The fact that people as a whole haven't accepted Christianity--remember, including Catholics, it's only about 1/6th of the worlds population--it can't be the false religion that is run by Antichrist. Remember that people will be forced during that time to be a part of this religion--something Christians today don't do.


This is because you only focus on the literal. Not on the fruits. In fruits, all religions serve the same master. I don't look at what people say at all. I look at their fruits. That is how I know what is true and what isn't.



Matthew 7

16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


Don't really care what religion someone claims. Their true religion is reflected in their actions and fruits. And the fruits of the church are rotten.



No, it's not the exact same book. The Catholics added books in the 1500s. Catholics don't rely on the Bible as much [if at all] as I do. They follow the word of the Pope and what the Church and Catechisms tell them to do and believe.


But you still have the same books they had before then correct? It's still all a branch off the catholic church. All one needs to do is look at history. Each different sect of christianity has formed from 1 or 2 disagreements with the catholic church. But the bulk of it has stayed.

Which books are different from yours, and the original books of the catholic church?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
Where in Scripture does it say that visions only happen to the people that they're happening to? It doesn't. It's not there. That is something that you've made up. Plenty of times in Scripture when a vision occurs, it physically happens. For example, Ezekiel was physically brought to the Millenial Temple. John physically experienced his visions in Revelation. Peter, James, and John all three, at the same time, saw Christ transfigure.

It's ironic to me that you're doubting Paul's testimony because others saw the light. Weren't you the one who said that the virgin birth couldn't be a sign because "virginity" isn't something that one can see?


www.biblegateway.com...



6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?


Makes the distinction between the physical and so forth.

During a vision your consciousness is pulled to somewhere else. You "see" things, but it is not seen with your own 2 eyes. So what you see in a vision can be described as something physical, however it is not physical in the sense of your body itself experiencing it.

So, when Paul describes the events, he talks about them happening in front of his 2 eyes. And around the physical as it includes the other men. When again, a vision doesn't happen physically. Hence, why it is called a vision to begin with. Something which is seen, but is not physical.

Moses experience was very physical, not just a vision. As it says here.

I can understand your skeptism, and it's all good. I think you would have to experience a vision to actually understand. This is another one of those areas where I was downright amazed that the bible talked about it at all.

The vision is also in itself a way of proving that death isn't real and so on as Jesus says. Because you soon realize your consciousness and what can be "reality" isn't tied just to your physical body and so forth.

Btw, have you ever read what I have said about how the universe works, and how their is an actual path to take that Jesus talks about? I think that might clear up a few things in our differences if you have not read that.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
in my op i did not clarify, i think, what it was i was getting at specifically. it is the commonly accepted interpretation of god and the dogma that has lined itself within the veils of christianity and other religions that can not be proven. And these must have some evidence of existance and truth before Jesus Christ can enter into the picture. It is the common interpretation of christians where I am quite sure that is an inaccurate version of the intended message. Again, my view of Christianity in todays form is a positive one. I know it has affected peoples lives on an inner level in a positive way. I have had discussions about Christianity with good friends. they have helped me to understand some of the messages that may have not made sense before. And growing up in christian schools and thinking I knew what was going on, it was a shocker and eye opener to learn different perspectives of the same teachings that I thought I once knew.

And Ill state again, i am not trying to disprove yours or anyones religion. I know I can raise questions here because most of the responders are sure enough in there beliefs where it will not affect them on any kind of personal level. I personally would not want to change anyones mind about there beliefs. thats why I think online discussion is an easier venue to raise these kinds of questions. It is in my humble opinion to eachs own. And in many instances religion and dogma should be encouraged in peoples lives.

But I still have my logic. and the common interpretation of christ and more importantly the christian version of "yahweh" is in my opinion an inaccurate one. i think they are missing the bigger picture.

there are a few theologians i would offer to take a loko at and review what they have to say about christianity as a whole and common doctrine within even the church (catholic). really interesting stuff. these guys have studiede the bible and what it says about everything for their whole lives. i wish i could find their names, but i cant seem to find them on google. these are some of the smartest dudes on earth. straight up. alot of my influence has come from their interpretation of the Bible.


If you would like to know logically how the path of Jesus works and all that, I can do that for you.

I am not a christian and don't belong to any religion. I only see Jesus teaching and showing the same things I learned. The religion itself is evil and a manipulation.

Here are 2 posts I made in regards to this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are things one can logically understand.

When it comes to creation itself, we can use logic and should use logic in order to understand it. The only place logic isn't useful and doesn't work is when it comes to god and consciousness. There just isn't any logic that can give the ability to "observe" and to know what it means "to be". Thats what seperates robots from humans. Consciousness was called soul back in those days.

I do agree, they are missing the bigger picture. As you can see in my 2 posts, it's not a matter of what you worship, but a matter of what choices you make and where they lead you. AKA you will reap what you sow. Others have called it Karma and have other ways to describe it, but the same basic principles.

Christianity is the religon about Jesus. I am more about the religion of Jesus. IE: I am more interested in the understanding and wisdom of Jesus, rather than worrying about having a cross around my neck and going to church and worshipping an idol. Does no good to give lip service.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



I do agree, they are missing the bigger picture. As you can see in my 2 posts, it's not a matter of what you worship, but a matter of what choices you make and where they lead you. AKA you will reap what you sow. Others have called it Karma and have other ways to describe it, but the same basic principles.

Christianity is the religon about Jesus. I am more about the religion of Jesus. IE: I am more interested in the understanding and wisdom of Jesus, rather than worrying about having a cross around my neck and going to church and worshipping an idol. Does no good to give lip service.



looking for some sort of applaud icon... these were the closest I could find. thanks for sharing those words...very cool.


edit to add:

ultimately, this is what it boils down to most definitely..all the rest is semantics. i like the wqy you put it. i think if more people took this kind of stance the world really could be a better place.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by open_eyeballs]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing that knowledge. i had no idea these were things done when the Bible has been translated. you are right about context, and i see what you are saying. unfortunately, i dont have the education to always express what it is exactly im thinking...
and im probably not identifying correctly or using the correct word..because like i said your point with context makes plenty of sense.

but even with the smartest of theologians working together, there is still room for error. maybe i give too much credit to some of the alternative theories when it comes to different interpretations of the Bible. I can say without hesitation though, that not all historians and scholars agree on who, what, where and when the authors of the bible lived. And this is my main point when it comes to the commonly accepted interpretation that christians seem to have so much faith in.

when it comes to the old testament, in my opinion there are factors that most christians seem to ignore. for example. who these words are directed to. why those words were directed to them and the timing of these words. i have heard arguments (as i have pointed to in previous posts) that the "Hebrew" people were never held in captivity in Egypt. There is actually more evidence pointing to them not being in captivity and were more considered a "second class citizen" because of the way they "assimilated" into different parts of egypt. even the Bible gives many a clue about this with Joseph becoming...vizier??? not sure of the exact position at the moment, but I know he is appointed a high position and became close to the pharaoh. but many historians are looking at this age in Egyptian and mesopatamia history and finding different ways of looking at the Bible. then coming away with different interpretations of some of the classic biblical tales.

anyway, obviously i like to take a subjective position and would definitely like to learn more facts about that era in Egyptian history, but theres never enough hours in the day, right!?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join