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 God Who Wasn't There.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
this is ridiculoius anyone that knew the scriptures could answer any of these question. day and night one side of the earth is day the other side in night. god would have been able to see both. modern day church said the earth is flat, not jesus or the apostles. plus as far as im aware genisis is jewish as far as im aware so by calling christianity a lie you are also calling judaism a lie. jesus was a jew so were the apostles. christianity never should have broken off from judaism to begin with the jews should have believed that he was the messiah. if they had you wouldnt be seeing christianity now would you? but dont misunderstand me jesus died for all of us. and the foundation of christianity is the fact that he died for all of us. so basically all christianit is basically judaism. all of the books in the bible are from jews who were writing the scriptures about the messiah long before he was born as human. so this would have to be a conspiracy long before jesus and we all know that, that did not happen. so you and these movies are from anything legitimate. and

p.s. jesus was not god so that was a horrible name for the movie, hahaha



Ok.. I caught some of what you were saying there, but, really, take a breath there my friend


If I understand your meaning, you're saying, basically, that since jews wrote scriptures ahead of times, that makes the jesus story true?

Seriously, can't make out what you're saying in any of that statement...

Bout the only thing i really caught for sure is that you think christianity is judaism, and that not only this movie but the OP (who has no stakes in the movie, just was pointing it out) are completely illegitimate.


Can you maybe clarify?




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
And he's asking these people such a vague question, "Do you know how Christianity spread?" Thats like asking do you know what you were doing before you were born?" I mean we weren't around then..lol..


You weren't around during the civil war, but I'm sure you know lots about it.

The point is that these people base their entire lives on Christianity, yet they know virtually nothing about it.



And that Paul works doesn't make sense. Because Paul was a committed Jew, he would have been in Jerusalem during the Passover as Jesus would have been. Thus, there is a good possibility that both Jesus and Paul were in Jerusalem at the same time and that Paul even heard Jesus teach. So its very possible Paul met him and even talked to him. Saying that their was no way he knew him is a lie and lack of research.


You're using the assumption that Jesus was a real person as fact, whereas what the documentary is saying is that there is no evidence of this, with the works of Paul backing up that statement.


edit to say that I'm not trying to pick a fight with Christians, I'm just attempting to clarify the documentary's message a little better.


[edit on 7/27/2009 by LiquidLight]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Part 2. Allagorical is correct. Take the story of moses and the staff turning into a serpent. That is not a literal story.

Serpents symbolize wisdom. A Sorcerer is a politician. They use words to manipulate people in order to gain control/power. They "cast spells" on the people like "Yes we can, change" and other hollow words. They are hollow words because they allow the other person to fill their own meaning into those words. Change sounds good, but as that change is not defined people invision their own "change" as what is being talked about. In reality, it's just a spell.

So, when moses goes to the pharoah and they all let out their serpents, it's talking about a debate of wisdom/knowledge. Moses has such a much bigger understanding and wisdom, that he puts the rest of them to shame to the point where they just have to admit it.

But people make that out to be literal and then they miss what is really being said. It has nothing to do with literal snakes. It could be that the story of Jesus is the same thing, but it doesn't matter to me. Either way, I know the understandings being expressed are true and come from the father.

The virgin of the virgin birth is not Mary. Jesus is born of the flesh from Mary and Joseph. The virgin birth is the birth of the soul, of which comes only from the father, who is a virgin as their is no equal. What is spirit is spirit, what is flesh is flesh. Jesus denies Mary is his mother. I think that part has been edited by those who have not been born again as they do not understand what Jesus represents.

Jesus represents symbolically the truth, the path and the light, not a "man". He is an expression of understanding. If you look at the OT, proverbs 8 and 9, you will see that you are supposed to go in the way of wisdom and understanding, not acceptance of men - which is to reject the father.

Those who say "Jesus" is the only way to the father do not understand. In that sentence he says specially he is the light, the way and the truth. It is only by those things, that one can come by the father, and he clears that up in the same chapter. John 14, which also describes the experience of being born again.



John 14

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

...


24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


See that? "Jesus" has nothing to do with finding the father directly, it is what he represents that does.

As for other figures. Understanding is universal, the expression of that understanding changes from culture to culture, time and places. But the actual understanding will always stay the same. Those who seek to hide that understanding are those who turn things literal and they put in replacement for things which are understanding.

Take where people say Jesus founded the "church" on a rock with peter. He was not establishing a religion or such. The church is within a person, it is built out of wisdom and understanding, and no man can touch it etc. The physical building church is a replacement for the understanding and a way of blinding people.

The part about leviticus. Would you be surprised if Jesus made the same points? When you read Jesus, you need to understand that the things he dealt with are still present today. You have to look at their function, not their names. TV evanglists for example, they are just pharisees. The same kind Jesus dealt with. Money changers are just bankers and so forth. All the things are still present today if you have understanding.

But Jesus points out the hypocrisy of the pharisees with hyperbole. They say they are keeping the laws of god, but Jesus points out that they pick and choose which ones they want, and just use God as an excuse.

It's like Christians who quote Leviticus about gay marriage. But do they kill the child who backtalks? No. Because in reality they are just using god as an excuse for their own biases. If they actually gave a crap about the laws, they would be following all those. Jesus makes this exact same point. They were simply traditions of men that people pass off as rules from god anyway. The commandments are valid, and even atheists can follow them for the most part.

Christianity is based on the sacrifice and death of Jesus. It is Satanic and basically says the truth had died so that the lie may live. It is his life, not his death that understanding is to be found.

Going to finish now.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Part 3 seems to be about revelation and the end of the world. Which is not understood at all. Most of the stuff in revelation happened a long time ago already. It was the christian church that went around and killed anyone who didn't go along with it's "new religion", just like you see in the left behind series. Already been done.

Revelation itself means to reveal. The "end" is not a time of doom and gloom, it is a time of awakening as the truth becomes revealed to all. When "jesus" rules the earth, it means the "truth" will rule the earth and men will someday live based on truth, rather than lies and manipulation of this world.

Outside that, people just try to fulfill it literally as a way of confusing people.

Oh, and the bible is not the word of god. The father doesn't give in such ways, the father gives in understanding and wisdom. How people express that changes among each that gains it.

The preacher guy who thinks you just need to believe Jesus is god and such doesn't have a clue. There is a difference between blind faith(acceptance) and faith. I pretty much skipped over this part, as I can't stand to listen to such ignorance.



[edit on 7/27/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
no im pointing out that this movie is horribly inaccruate nothing is wrong with the bible and that people knew before jesus was born as a human that he was coming. its in the jewish scriptures too christianity should have been judaism. but the jews didnt believe jesus because of the jewish church.

because of the jewish church, jesus died because they wanted to be in control. if you know what i mean. it is about the greed of people and their quest for power. jesus knew that any regular person that gets a position of power becomes currupt because they are all sinners. who lust for a power that they didnt deserve to have. the ones that knew jesus was the messiah were perfect. truthfully knew. they martyred themselves because they werent fooled by the jewish church. were given the power of god to perform miracles. could the jewish rabbis perform miracles i think not. jesus was their to teach the jews the right way of living.

jesus was a jew their to teach everyone wrong from right period,jew or not
he taught that somethings in judaism were not right and tried to fix them. and because the jews didnt believe him because the jews liked their power they killed him because they liked their power.

so basically christianity should have been judaism but they didnt believe him so they had to bring the truth through cristianity because they needed the truth that jesus spoke to comeout and knew it wouldnt comeout through mainstream judaism. so they had to bring it out through christianity which had jewish ties. which means that the bible is basically a non mainstream jewish text. while still basically being judaism called christianity. i think that thats basically it but umm. it will probably confusr the crap out of you.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jomina

Originally posted by make.changes
this is ridiculoius anyone that knew the scriptures could answer any of these question. day and night one side of the earth is day the other side in night. god would have been able to see both. modern day church said the earth is flat, not jesus or the apostles. plus as far as im aware genisis is jewish as far as im aware so by calling christianity a lie you are also calling judaism a lie. jesus was a jew so were the apostles. christianity never should have broken off from judaism to begin with the jews should have believed that he was the messiah. if they had you wouldnt be seeing christianity now would you? but dont misunderstand me jesus died for all of us. and the foundation of christianity is the fact that he died for all of us. so basically all christianit is basically judaism. all of the books in the bible are from jews who were writing the scriptures about the messiah long before he was born as human. so this would have to be a conspiracy long before jesus and we all know that, that did not happen. so you and these movies are from anything legitimate. and

p.s. jesus was not god so that was a horrible name for the movie, hahaha



Ok.. I caught some of what you were saying there, but, really, take a breath there my friend


If I understand your meaning, you're saying, basically, that since jews wrote scriptures ahead of times, that makes the jesus story true?

Seriously, can't make out what you're saying in any of that statement...

Bout the only thing i really caught for sure is that you think christianity is judaism, and that not only this movie but the OP (who has no stakes in the movie, just was pointing it out) are completely illegitimate.


Can you maybe clarify?


calling judaism a lie i didnt see such a part in the movie. reread my statement



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


Thanks for clarifying, I see what you were trying to get across now.


I agree with you that if the jews had seen that jesus was a fulfilment of their prophecies, they would have continued on under his messianic kingdom.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Just watched the first video, thanks for posting.

As an orthodox christian and as someone who is roundly familiar with the traditional history of christianity, I'm aghast at some of the suppositions presented in this first video:

1. The Author of the video supposes that the years between 30 and 70 AD (roughly) stand "forgotten" and attributes most to what we know of that time to the writings of Paul. I think this is a severe mischaracterization. Yes, the book of ACTS, traditionally attributed to Paul, is a large source of information for this time period but the author, for some reason, forgets the extensive labors of other apostles. If christianity was forgotten in this time period, as the author supposes, why does christian tradition record the following: (from www.orthodoxwiki.org)

Apostolic era (33-100)
ca.30-33 The Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost, filling the followers of Jesus Christ with power from on high.
34 Apostle Peter founds See of Antioch.
35 The name Christian first used in Antioch.
37 Joseph of Arimathea travels to Britain and lands in Glastonbury.
40 Apostle Barnabas sent from Jerusalem to Antioch to strengthen community after persecution when church leaders flee city.
ca.42 Apostle Paul's ecstasy to the third heaven (2 Cor.12:2-4).
ca.46-48 Apostle Paul's first missionary journey, with Apostle Barnabas (Acts 13 - 14).
49 Apostolic Council of Jerusalem rules that Gentiles do not have to become Jews before becoming Christians.
ca.49-52 Apostle Paul's second missionary journey, with Apostle Silas (Acts 15:39 - 18:22).
ca.50 Death of Gamaliel, a leading authority in the Sanhedrin and teacher of the Apostle Paul (Acts 22:3).
50 Apostle Matthew finishes the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic.
52 Apostle Thomas arrives in Kerala, introducing Christianity to India.
ca.53-57 Apostle Paul's third missionary journey (Acts 18:23 - 21:16).
ca.59-62 Apostle Paul's fourth missionary journey, voyage to Rome (Acts 27 - 28:16).
62 Martyrdom of Apostle James the Just; crucifixion of Apostle Andrew in Patras.
63 Aristobulus consecrated as first bishop of Britain.
64-68 First of ten major persections of the Early Church, under Emperor Nero.
66 Flight of the Christian community in Jerusalem to Pella, Antioch, and other places in the Decapolis.
66-73 Jewish-Roman war.
67 Martyrdom of the Apostle Peter in Rome; martyrdom of the Apostle Paul in Rome; Apostle Linus elected first bishop of Rome; Roman legions VI Ferrata, V Macedonia, XV Apollinaris, XII Fulminata and X Fretensis sent to Jerusalem.
68 Suicide of Emperor Nero.
69 Ignatius of Antioch consecrated bishop of Antioch.
70 Apostle Mark writes Gospel; Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans; expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues; Rabbi Johanan ben Zacchai founds college at Jamnia that becomes seat of Sanhedrin and center of Judaism A.D. 70-135, enabling emergence of Rabbinic Judaism; beginning of Jewish diaspora; by this time the work of the Apostle Paul has planted the faith on firm foundation in the major cities of the Roman empire.
71 Apostle Mark introduces Christianity to Egypt.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
2. I take great issue with the author suggesting that Paul believed that Jesus' life, death resurrection and ascension happened in the "mythical realm." For one, the given quote of Hebrews 8:4 is critically misrepresented as a complete sentence. Here's what the author showed:

"If Jesus HAD been on Earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Now here's the same verse from two different translations:

"If He were on Earth, He would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." (NIV)

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." (KJV)

Besides, only a couple of verses earlier it's said in Hebrews 7:14:

"It is clear that our Lord descended from Judah and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."

Although the video is mildly entertaining, the author is lazy at best and at worst plainly malicious in his misrepresentations.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Great video Alaskan Man! I too looked for answers when someone one time in my life told me they did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God or that Jesus actually existed at ALL!

I was totally struck back and sought out to find the proof that Jesus existed as a person. What I did was come up empty handed. It was a pretty hard pill to swallow to say the least.

I would say that at the time that 100% of my person had a very strong investment in the belief of the Bible and the Belief in Jesus Christ and an afterlife.

It was the center stone for my entire life. No matter what happened or what I did or where I went I KNEW that God and Jesus would be standing right there with me! I had a "personal" relationship with Jesus and I would pray often. Once I came up with zero proof of even the existence of Jesus and I was forced to accept the story as being fictional my entire world crumbled and I was completely devastated. To not find any proof of something that I held more dear than life itself was a huge setback for me.

I started to question EVERYTHING that I had been taught. I searched for answers everywhere. Reading the Bible cover to cover (something that I had never done before then). Asking the really TOUGH questions about Christianity that often go unasked and unanswered.

I still ask the hard questions. I just stopped using the Bible to find the answers. For me I might as well pick up a book of poetry and try to find meaning to life compared to the bible.

It was a very very difficult thing to let go. I went from Living forever in Heaven with EVERYONE who ever existed in History that was good to there being absolutely no afterlife and I would die and that would be the end of it.

I would sit for hours upon hours and think about it. I still do sometimes. It is the hardest thought to come to terms with that I have and probably will ever have.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
For me, I went much the same way as you.

Just wanted to point out something you said...


Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
For me I might as well pick up a book of poetry and try to find meaning to life compared to the bible.



Absolutely nothing wrong with that thought at all. Some of the greatest thoughts to be found are just waiting for you to explore, everywhere you look.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


I understand what you are saying I am not part of the church or anything like that..lol.. I don't like them. But I understand your comment bout being Bias, its true, I am trying to fit into the bias of the video. But some of the things I say, I do not technically agree with, but I am listing them. Also the church thought it was their right to kill people, another reason I don't follow the church..lol.. Their crazy and thats awful to say from a christian, but its what I think
I don't think they understand how to translate the bible, I mean their are many ways and I only know five different ways. So I am just gathering the info to rebuttal from literal chirstians, so just bear with me, because I am not a literalist. Altohough I will add my own thoughts in this post a little more.


reply to post by LiquidLight
 


I think you missed the point, for instance:




You weren't around during the civil war, but I'm sure you know lots about it.


Yea that was in 1861 and Jesus was back in the 1 A.D. A huge gap and yes a lot of Catholics and Christians have no idea what they are doing..lol..




You're using the assumption that Jesus was a real person as fact, whereas what the documentary is saying is that there is no evidence of this, with the works of Paul backing up that statement.


Well, their is evidence he is real. From a variety of sources, but I will get into that a little later. The Paul statements didn't real back their case as evidence as made apparent in his texts. Of course this is a literalist statement.

And I am not trying to fight with anyone either


But I will say this, so far the video has better arguments then zeitgeist..lol..
As long as it doesn't start comparing...


Part 2

I didn't understand what they were trying to say in the first 5 minutes. I think that’s on me and not on the video.

But here are some matches, which I was hoping he would avoid:

1.His mother is a royal virgin. Flemming’s evaluation: Match. My evaluation: Virgin, yes. Royal, no. (0.5 match)

2.His father is a king. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Joseph was a carpenter, not a king. It has to be noted that the Gospels report Jesus calling God his father. But this is not similar to the hero tradition.

3.His father is a relative of his mother. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: We wonder how Flemming sees in this a match. Perhaps Joseph and Mary are distant relatives as Jews. But this is unimpressive and a strain at best. Moreover, if Joseph is regarded as the father of Jesus, he was no king. So, there would be no match in number two. No match.

4.Circumstances of his conception are unusual. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: This seems to be a bit of an overlap with the first point.

5.He’s reputed to be the son of a god. Flemming: Match. YES!...lol..

6.At birth, an attempt is made by his father to kill him. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Herod was not the father of Jesus. Notice that Flemming has employs three different fathers for Jesus in order to find his matches (God, Joseph, Herod). Nevertheless, an attempt was made to kill Jesus.

7.He is spirited away and saved. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: I don’t know what Dundes means by “spirited away.” Although there was no real escape, Jesus’ parents fled with him to Egypt. So I will say a match.

8.Foster parented in a foreign country. Flemming: No match.

9.We’re told nothing of his childhood. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Although Luke’s Gospel mentions little of Jesus’ childhood, the amount is insignificant compared to his adulthood. This is easily explained given that the genre of the Gospels is ancient biography, which typically only spoke of the subject’s adulthood. (Much like Beowolf, I believe?) Thus, this attempt is unimpressive. No match.

10.Upon reaching manhood, he returns to his future kingdom. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Although Jesus spoke of God’s kingdom being in the present, he realized that the kingdom in which he would reign was in the future and not of this world. Maybe half of a match at best.

11.He has a victory over a king, giant, or dragon. Flemming: No match. My evaluation: Jesus did resist Satan and Paul later speaks of Jesus’ having defeated Satan. And Satan is king of hell. No match.

12.He marries a princess. Flemming: No match. My evaluation: No match.

13.He becomes king. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Heroes become king on earth during their lifetime. This is not the case with Jesus. Nevertheless, since he was considered at least a king by his disciples. I will agree to this statement.

14.Reigns uneventfully. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: The life of Jesus was filled with conflict, which led to his execution. No match.

15.Prescribes laws. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Match

16.He later loses favor with his subjects. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Jesus was not king on earth. Thus, it is difficult to lose favor with subjects you do not have. Granted, early in Jesus’ ministry his hard teachings led many to abandon him. But this is not a parallel to a king who loses favor with his subjects, having reigned for a while. One may point to Jesus’ positive reception in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday followed by those who called for his crucifixion on Good Friday as being a loss of favor. So I will agree.

17.He is driven from the throne of the city. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Jesus was not driven off of his throne to a place outside of Jerusalem. No match.

18.He meets with a mysterious death. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Death, yes. Mysterious, no...lol.. How is Crucifiction mysterious...


19.His death is often at the top of a hill. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Match. Although I have never seen this in many folklores..lol.. I will agree.

20.His children, if any, do not succeed him. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Jesus had no children, unless you believe The Da Vinci Code. Which the author clearly said was fiction mixed with loose fact mixed with fact. That this is a match is a strain at best. No match.

21.His body is not buried. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: All accounts, from the early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-7 through all four Gospel accounts report Jesus’ burial. Unless he meant not in the ground, but they didn't usually put you in the ground, they put you in rocks. Or at least I am pretty sure of this... Maybe I am thinking of someone else anyway, I will agree but hesitantly.

22. Beats me..lol

I understand the comparison factor, but we must also remember that Jesus was stated to be coming by prophets of the old days and they did state how he would be coming, this is apparently used by many folklors and pagans back in that day. Which would account for some of his similarities and a reason why he has some similarities with the past. And that was my doing..lol.. Anyway, continuing on!

And then he lists all of these similarities.. I wish he would have said who they were similar too, but whatever.. And then Price says that the early church saw this as a problem with the Pagans? I'm not sure they did, I've never seen that written anywhere and I am pretty sure the Pagans were upset because the Church was putting their holy days on the Pagans holy days..lol.. Thats fighting dirty. And if this was an issue, I wouldn't be surprised if they did say that of course their are similarities, but you copied off of Prophets of the ancient times. Infact, I think and I could be wrong, but I think some Pagans killed Prophets that spoke of Jesus. And of course your going to get similarities out of real life. I mean lets really get technical now:

Consider the following often-cited parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy:

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both of their wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are comprised of fifteen letters

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

Before Lincoln was assassinated, he visited Monroe, Maryland.

Before Kennedy was assassinated, he visited Marilyn Monroe.

And how did they get to the conclusion that Satan did this comparison.. Sigh, if the church stated that, thats another reason I don't like them. Doesn't it make more sense that Prophets who stated that he was going to come and getting killed by Pagans and other people, that they could have spread this knowledge out? That makes more sense and is more reasonable then, Satan did it. Thats BS to me.

And did he bring Mithra in here.. Sigh. I understand Dionysis! Thats probably the best similarity I have seen, but Mithra, sigh...


Continued.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Also Osiris, does not match unfortunately.. I ran out of characters..lol. And blood sacrificing is not the story, they miss the point if thats what they think it is.. Come on, the Passion thing was true, but ridiculos. I mean come on. I've never seen the movie, but even I know that blood is not the point. It does play a factor, however, but not a major factor as him dieing and resurrecting is. And of course the crazy radicals are going to preach death..lol.. thats how they operate because they cannot function with opposing views
Kind of sad in a depressing way.

As I keep saying religion does not kill people or oppose people, people use religion to justify their evil needs. The bible conforms with all interpretations, even atheism. Because it could be a good read to an atheist, correct? Am I wrong. It could teach him how to stand tall in opposition an dother factors. The bible is a very interpretable book and reaches everyone on different levels.


And how are the Jews bad in the bible? Ok, I get how they were bad, but not all were! Of course their were tensions between the Gentiles, Jews and the Estrcuans and others. We still have that today, but the film maker took a cheap shot at Jews. Because not all Jews were bad in the bible, just the radical leaders were....

And why are they ripping on what people believe? If they believe the world is going to end, let them and global conflicts? Blaming that on Christians? But if you have a balanced mind you are not going to run around and start the end times. Your going to try and prevent it! Stop talking to the damn radicals and talk to an actual christians who knows what he is taling about.... LOL, an dthen they went to 100 end time prophecies, damnit, I haven't seen that book in ages and its wrong in quite a few places, but whatever, if thats what they believe let them, more power to you. Wait we are talking to a JEHOVAH WITNESS/Christian or baptist mix?!..lol. that even worse. Those are very radical folks that i do not agree with, not to say I don't like him, but I do not like that combination. Very stubborn and not very open minded at all. But I don't know the guy, so I cannot say what he believes, I have to go by what the radicals of that religion say.

And denial in the holy spirit does not send you to hell, unless your a radical, then you believe that. Its a lot more complicated then that and has a lot more factors. And about that camp, I have no idea, so I cannot comment on that. And how does he expect a Faith statement to be turned into science? A trapdoor question.

And that was probably the bets QUESTION of the entire video, have you told your studnets that you don't have any evidnece of this and that this is an alterntive view? Of course the radical denied it, but damn that was beautiful
Props to the director. If your not questioning, your doing something wrong an dif your not presneting alternative views your brainwashing! Perfect. I'm loving the video again.

Ignore the reality of God? Is their is no evidence that he exists where did he get that reality from an dthen BAM the director gets him again. Its beautiful, very beautiful... Go get him Flemming! lol, that debate and that attack was amazing so perfect, I didn't like the inaccuracies stated above, but that was pretty damn good.
That was perfect.

The only thing I didn't like was that he kept nagging him, if he says turn off the camera, turn it off and don't be a bully about it. Just have the respect and do it. And then he just said that he denied the holy spirit in church which bothered me, only because he has a complete lack of respect for that religion. I understand his anger, but that was wrong. At least have respect for it.

Overall it was a good video
But I didn't like his arrogance in parts, it would have been better if he was bias in parts. But none the less pretty good. The only problem I had was the inaccuracies in the video and few white straight up lies. But they weren't really that bad. Anyway, Some questions of what evidence is their that he existed and why is the evidence lacking?

Well lets take a look ladies and gentlemen.

Jesus, is mentioned in a few works of people. Buddist documents talked about him briefly and to some people, they believe Jesus was a Dahli Lama and a few others such as Lucian who lived shortly after Jesus, does mention him directly (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, translated by H. W. Fowler (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949) vol. 4 ). Also Josepheus mentions Jesus as well. One in a very negative way and the next in a very positive light.

Many people ask why he wasn't talked about SO MUCH if he lived that long ago and was so important. If one actually reads the bible and old ancient texts of that time, they will see that Jesus's followers were very small. He did not go around with 1,000's of people. He was only with 14 people regulary and had maybe 5 friends, outside of his disciples. Also, they crucified the man, the PTB at that time wanted to make sure that his story of hm being God's son was not passed around and they made sure that no one wrote about him or mentioned him in any kind manner, to promote Rome as the top authority. Of course works were written, but hidden until later, works that went against the PTB. Kind of reminds me of Nostradomus in a way and how his prophecies had to be hidden, because if he was caught he would be killed.

FINISHED..lol.. I'm done for now.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 





I still ask the hard questions. I just stopped using the Bible to find the answers. For me I might as well pick up a book of poetry and try to find meaning to life compared to the bible.


Yea, I agree with you. Eventually, the bible will show that it has a lot of answers, but not all of them. Some must be explored by you and if you found something different then more power to you
And poetry books have GREAT texts!..lol.. Where are those atheist quotes at again:

"We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it." -Sam Harris

“A religion without a goddess is halfway to atheism." - Dion Fortune

I love that one above..lol..

“If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color” - Mark Schnitzius

That ones pretty good..too.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


But, what really happened is that Judaism did turn into Christianity. But it was in the same manner as the Jewish Churches, not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught people to not make themselves into authority figures.

All that Jesus says ill of the pharisees is true in Christianity. All they really did was change their names/titles.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
their are books that have been ommited from the bible that contain the life of jesus at a young age. i cant find them right now but ill put them up when i do.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
In all the world, across the whole of history is there any person whether real or just fictional but based on a real person that was written about and became famous but later found to have never existed?

Shouldn't the real question concern the nature of the books where his name was found...then it would make sense. If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were never intended to be talking about a real person, but were fictional works from the very beginning.

Seriously though, how could a person go about writing about an entirely fictional personality? Wouldn't we at least suggest that the fictional character is an aspect of the author/creator?

For example, is not the Incredible Hulk just an aspect of Stan Lee?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


Hi Alaskan Man. I watched the video with my girlfriend today, and we both agreed it was a interesting video, so thx


The film had some stuff I need to check more into. I did not know that Jesus says he will kill those who don't see him as king (double checked that one in the bible). But I didn't think the film ha a clear red line. It moved quickly over the topics. I think it needed more different views to be taken more seriously, but HEY! its a good start.

Many of the topics reminds my of: “Richard Dawkins interviews Bishop Harries”
video.google.de...


BTW: Do anyone know of any good docu about Council of Nicaea?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join