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: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Jesus wasn't born with God as his biological Father either.
The bible excludes that possibility when it says that no man may look upon the face of god and live.
No man may hear the voice of god and live.

God did not impregnate Mary.


You are right about Mary. She is not the virgin of the equation. The father is the virgin, and still is, as there is no equal. He was born of that virgin because he was born of spirit. He was born of flesh by Joesph and Mary.

He also denies Mary as his mother at one point.

God has a voice you can hear, and so forth. You just can't see all of it at once and live. "You took too much man, you took too much". Basically, the son and reality is made up of limited knowledge. So your entire limited perspective would be completely blown. Son would no longer be son.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sounds good. I'll check it out. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And his "grokking" is what Jesus was referring to, the way in which he was to be "eaten", but I think he intuited that it has a biophysical correspondance, something that goes so deep, it courses in the very blood of a person circulating through the whole body at a cellular level, and so he just said what was on his mind, no matter how cryptic and strange it might sound. He lost many desciples when he starting talking about being eaten. They didn't understand and rejected him as insane at that point. But he just wanted to be deeply grokked is all.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Well see the possiblity of Jesus being eaten is not so far fetched. Why do you think some of the Apostles left if this was true. They probably didnt have the stomach for cannibalism, but then the ones that stayed around probably did. I mean if I mean friend kept saying eat me and find God over and over again I might have to take a bite granted I would probably slather him in a nice BBQ sauce and roast him on the grill pig roast style first.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Right. After helping Jubal puke, Mike tells him every little thing's gonna be alright then departs.

The Obi Wan, Yoda, Anakin thing is kind of reminiscent (borrowed?) of it. Gonna have to reread it one of these days. Not Robert's best, but a thought provoker like all of them.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


"Kid's stuff?"

Look, I have followed your postings here with a keen eye since I first noticed your avatar and until this very moment I have enjoyed everything I've read.
However, what *I* see HERE is you using a completely speculative construct piled directly upon another entirely speculative construct as a platform to RIDICULE someone else who is merely having fun.

But I digress, this kind of sentiment actually speaks volumes of you when I put it together with someone who calls themselves the end point.

An enlightened person would just smile to themselves and move on.


It is kid's stuff, because the wine, bread and his body etc were symbolics of bigger things. It's all about understanding, and that is what he is speaking of them eating. Eat from my understanding, see from my example and so forth. Notice the Proverbs verse I quoted earlier, it makes the same comparison.

By focusing on the literal, the entire point of the verses are missed and ignored.

They are not in error to correct things.



Proverbs 9

6Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.


I don't see you are a scorner, or a wicked man. But how you deal with the correction is up to you.


Btw, first verse of this chapter:



Proverbs 9

1Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

2She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.


Wisdom building a house? What is Jesus? A carpenter? What kind of houses does it show him building? Buildings of worship? Check out matthew 7, the man who does as he says builds there house on a rock and is wise? He founds the church within peter on a rock?

Do the math. You will see.






[edit on 8/6/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah that is right.. because his friend was trying to commit suicide. That was a pretty good book.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Yes, but with that understanding comes humor and perhaps the folly of man.

What is the folly of man? Apparently a lack if intellignece because we argue about the silliest things.

But when someone uses that folly for a joke, is it not funny?

Someone of exceptional knowledge would find it just as funny if not moreso. Why? Because said person has intimate knowledge of WHY it is funny to the fool.

Edit because I don't want to sound cryptic or something...
It is a lot like how people tell others about their children behaving humorously. "Oh, my daughter did this (and I have some dandies) and it was SO FUNNY!"

It is even funnier to the parent.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Good discussion guys.
Back later.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


He did say "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood" something which many people felt was intollerable language, and so they left him and walked away. Sometimes you almost get the impression that Jesus was articulating things that even he wasn't sure about, while allowing the spirit to speak through him, and so it would say strange things like that, things which needed to be evluated from a totally different perspective. To me, it means something like some form of God-NLP, which though it goes in the ears via symbols and language, it works its way into the physical body as a type of light, a type of food, something so deep and rich that it can alter your very DNA at the cellular level and then manifest causally in ways capable of changing the world around you. That kind of thing, that's the way I take it.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


The rock as foundation is what is immovable and eternal - God within.
Interesting the way he differentiates the different types of "hearings" in the parable of the sower, which is related to this statement of "he who hears these words of mine and keeps them, is like the wise man who built his house on rock".
I also find it interesting how Jesus in the sermon the mount, just speaks to the people gathered, without concern as to whether anyone is writing anything down or recording it, yet speaking with a faith and an authority confident, that it will move out, through those ears, and change everything, right across the entire spectrum. Knowing himself, he understood the true nature of the human being, and about some sort of acausal connecting principal.
"All those with ears to hear, let them hear!"



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
What I see in this thread is "kid stuff".. grow up and eat the real thing.


I find that a bit patronizing, momentarily allowing myself a normal human reaction. It is greasy kid's stuff. What is going on here is a childlike rambunctiousness, quite innocent, exploratory and without malice in the heart.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Greenize
 


so he still rose from the dead? He rose to heaven through...defecation?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I'd watch it.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
What I want to know is, would he have tasted like chicken......or bread? white, brown or wholemeal? and as they were drinking his blood to wash down the flesh, would they have ended up singing drinking songs and running naked through jerusalem, getting locked up for public order // indecent exposure and facing a charge sheet in the morning.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Humor is fine. I laugh at Jesus jokes and stuff all the time.

Just figure there is a time and place for things, and didn't think this thread was directly a joke thread.

Anyway,





posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You must admit it was pretty much a joke thread in it's absurdity. It's less insulting to assume that the absurdity was intended.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

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


You must admit it was pretty much a joke thread in it's absurdity. It's less insulting to assume that the absurdity was intended.



Perhaps under different circumstances. Saying stupid things isn't exactly funny unless you know the person pretty good to know they are being sarcastic or whatever.

As it is, these are internet forums, and many people actually do believe crazy things, or things which normally I might laugh at - so I don't know if someone is being serious or not.

For example, I say really mean things to my wife, and she does it back. If someone was just walking by us, they might think we were just 2 of the most hateful people in the world and didn't like each other at all. But we know we aren't being serious, so what would normally be considered abusive language becomes humorous to us.

But now if some lady is walking down the street and I start talking to her in the same manner, well she isn't going to think it's funny. She doesn't know me, she has no clue that I'm not being serious and so forth.

Part of humor is knowing the environment you are in and how it will be perceived IMO.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
they would have thown him straight back up again, because......




.....you can't keep a good man down.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


That is a very good question. I am assuming he would have tasted like chicken, because most meats do.

However since he was a God-man maybe his flesh would have tasted like whatever was your fav food, or what your fav foood would have been if you lived in different times in history. So maybe God, being omniscient, could have made him taste like King Don's...remember when we were kids and they were call Ding-Dongs...so basically you might eat Jesus and he would taste like you had a Ding Dong in your mouth.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join