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.

 

What If the Apostles Ate Jesus - Would He Still Have Resurrected?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I'm reasonably certain that he did exist.
But I am pretty much a minimalist in these regards. While the stories may be somewhat true, they are most likely highly embellished upon. That whole God in the Flesh part is iffy.



But yeah, the gist of the story is what is important. It is a moral lesson.

The lesson of the Bible, don't be a douche and act like the American Government. Occupying lands only creates more of what you are trying to rid yourself of. You create heroes. The heroes being those brave enough to openly oppose your hegemonical ideals.
Our gallivanting around in the middle east waging staged wars against enemies we created is only creating real enemies for our future generations.

We have literally become the Biblical evil in Modern America. These stories do hold good value for everyone. The kicker of it is, I also believe that a lot of the Biblical stories are true to the point that SOMEONE is watching our affairs. Now whether those people represent God or not it is abundantly clear that they will step in and mediate if they need to. And I also expect they are probably growing very tired of the way things are going now.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by JayinAR]




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


That whole God in the Flesh part is iffy.


The only reason the whole "Son of God" claim is significant after that period is that no one used it anymore. At the time they all thought of themselves as "Sons of God". I think that had to do with Catholic Social Engineering to create some credibility for themselves.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Yeah, but he didn't really claim it for himself. It was more like others claimed it for him.

I mean, yeah, he said it in a roundabout way, but he spoke more like you mentioned how everyone thought that way.

It was the Apostles who claimed that he was a God incarnate. Hell, he told people repeatedly that John the Baptist was a more righteous man than he.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 






I think that had to do with Catholic Social Engineering to create some credibility for themselves.


I disagree. If you read through the first four books of the NT you will see that it was the Apostles who systematically wrote him into God-like status... not the Catholics, who came along later.

The myth was already there. He was a neohistoric William Wallace...but a William Wallace who more closely resembled Zeus than Bill Brasky.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


And what if Jesus was in fact a purple dinosaur with saurkraut for hair? You get where I am going with this?


Your's is classier. You win. Star for you.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Um Talmudic scholars agree that "Son of God" was a common way of refering to one's self back then.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Yes, I understand that.

This is what I said.
However, when one reads through the Gospels one only needs to compare the Birth of Jesus in each story to see that as time went on Jesus was written into God-like status by the Apostles themselves.

Before the Church even existed Jesus was already cast into that mold.

To repeat, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, or God, whichever... but it was the Apostles that wrote him into that Godlike status with their Gospels.

What is also known is that the term "Lord" was meant for a teacher. Or a Rabbi.
Jesus was a Rabbi.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Um, you say you understand yet you continue argue as if you do not. Good day.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I am a son of God, you are a son of god, all are sons of god.

Jesus calls them "brothers".

The difference between Jesus and the multitude is that Jesus knew the father and had the wisdom and understanding of the father. Jesus see's that he is really of the spirit, knows it and so forth, rather than how the world itself see's itself as flesh.

I also do not know if Jesus was "real" and the stories are exactly told. In the end, it's all a story as we weren't there to know. But I do see the father within him, and his words so if it is just a story then the writers had to know the father atleast.

I wouldn't at all be shocked if it turned out the writers were just personifying truth, understanding and knowledge, and to show how the leaders of the time(and today) kill the truth in order for their lie to live and so forth, or how the religious leaders were using the Roman empire/authority to do their dirty work etc.

And it wouldn't shock me at all to believe someone like that did live. I'm sure many good people have lived and so forth. And the above part would still be true either way.

IMO, the whole son of god stuff was dropped as it would be required for someone to someday up and claim and be accepted as god. Afterall, if people knew god was within and such, they wouldn't fall for such a thing.

Recently an atheist for example made a list of things that would prove "god" to them. Each and everyone of them were things that could be done with an advanced technology.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Good day to you as well.
Just to make it clear though, I think perhaps you are confused.
You see, the Gospels of Christ were written within 100 years of his life. The Catholic Church did not EXIST at this point.

What I took contention with was your point about how the Catholic Church "threw in that god in the flesh stuff to further their political standing"... When IN FACT, he was already written into God-like standing by the folks who had indirect contact with the man many years previous.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Yeah, Jesus was an enlightened cat. No doubt about it. He was also a vocal opponent of a hegemonical Government. This made him not only wise but admirable. A hero.

He may or may not have been God on Earth. It is possible either way. However, I don't think he was. I think he just spent a lot of time thinking.

Probably afflicted with OCD.

As for the advanced tech.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as if magic." I don't know who it was that said that, but it is very true. This is why I think there is another element at work here possibly. But whatever.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I was talking about one aspect of which you said you understand you keep adding this argument to things I never said.
I said NOTHING about "godly aspects" I merely talked about the history of the title "Son of God".

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Oh sure. There we are in complete agreement.

I was embellishing upon what I had said in the rest of the same post that you were commenting on.
What I said was that while Jesus called himself the 'Son of God', it was the Apostles who actually CALLED him GOD.

I have now told you that we are in agreement three times, I think, what is it you object to?

*I* merely said that I disagreed with your statement that it was the Catholic Church that threw in the JESUS WAS GOD part because it furthered their political standing.

I don't understand your objections.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Alright you two its time to kiss and make up




1.John 14:6 (Whole Chapter)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.


So by saying this he is basically claiming to be the only path to God. So He wrote Himself to be God-Like.

[edit on 8/5/2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Ok so Jesus was half Spirit and half human, so if the Apostles ate him then would the spirit half recreate itself but the human half couldnt then maybe he would have came back as like a half dead Zombie Jesus dragging his human leg behind him as he walked. God that would be terrifying.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


And what if Jesus was in fact a purple dinosaur with saurkraut for hair? You get where I am going with this?


that jesus would be pretty smelly?
and maybe some people would want him on their hot dogs?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I never said the Catholic Church threw in the "Jesus is God" thing. I said they made the title of "Son of God" mean something due to it's lack of use anymore.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Alright you two its time to kiss and make up




1.John 14:6 (Whole Chapter)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.


So by saying this he is basically claiming to be the only path to God. So He wrote Himself to be God-Like.


2nd time today I've had to debunk that verse.

He is saying that only by the way, the truth and the life and by seeking those things can one come unto the father.

Proof of this is found later in the same exact chapter. SAME EXACT CHAPTER.



John 14

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.


What you say is a marketing ploy of the church. It's also completely ignorant, and is an insult to the father, as it suggests he only cares about a certain group of people in the world. It feeds your bias, it feeds your hate, and as it promotes ignorance over understanding it hinders and separates you from the father.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


And who is to say that wasn't added in to perpetuate the church?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


With all due respect, you didnt debunk anything.. so why did he say I AM the way, the truth, and the light?

He is saying that without following him and being in relationship with him there is no way to get to the father and it makes total sense if you tie in other verses in the bible.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join