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.

 

King Jesus

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by ralphellis2
Jesus gave the verse in Luke 19:26, as the identical verse in Math 13:12 demonstrates. So Jesus also gave the following verse in Luk 19:27. It can be no other way.

Even my local vicar agrees with that. He said the verse was "one of the more difficult verses to explain".

Theologian Adam Clarke also agrees with me.


Wow.

Way to get it completely wrong, and show you can't even read the bible correctly.

It's a STORY about a man of noble birth.

HE SAID the offending lines - it's right there IN THE TEXT :





You still don't get it do you?

Verse 26 is from the mouth of Jesus - as the similar verse in Matthew proves. Therefore the following verse is also from Jesus.

Anyway, verse 27 makes no sense for the landowner to be saying this. What enemies of his, that he wants to kill? We were not talking about enemies, so where did they come from? Adam Clarke says the enemies were the Jews and the Romans will kill them - why does this landowner have a problem with Jews, and what do the Romans have to do with this parable about finance??

Your postulation makes no sense whatsoever. The man who had Jews as enemies and was using and abusing the Romans as allies as much as he could, was Jesus himself. Verse 27 was Jesus speaking, plain and simple.

Jesus said 'bring my enemies and kill them in front of me'. It was one of the few war-like verses to survive the purges by Christian scribes, but survive it did. But it was not the only survivor, for verse 27 is similar to other war-like pronouncements:




Preparation for Civil War in AD 65.

Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.



Preparation for Civil War AD 65.

Lu 22: 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.



Jesus talking about the Jewish Civil War of AD 68.

Mk 13:7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows. Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.



Jesus, talking during the Civil War of AD 68.

Lu 19: 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and kill them in front of me.



Jesus talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Mk 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.



The assault on Jerusalem in thwarted in AD 69.

Joh 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. (spira = 1/10 legion, or 600 men)



Incidentally, the Mount of Olives affair is also given by Josephus, who says that the Egyptian False Prophet (aka, Jesus) had 30,000 armed men redy for this assault.



.









[edit on 3-1-2010 by ralphellis2]




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ralphellis2

Face facts. Jesus was a ruthless royal rebel commander, whose disciples were all armed, and willing to use their weapons. As Jesus said in Luke 19:27, those who would not have him as their king should be killed.


I gave up Christianity about 20 years ago and despise organized Religion - and I gotta say, ralphellis2, what you said quoted above is 100% wrong! I jusr re-read Luke 19 from beginning to Jesus' second parable and it is plain-as-day obvious that Jesus DID NOT say that, there are even quotation marks to end the king's statement...

pathetic

Here are the verses in question in a dozen different translations of the Bible. (I can't believe I'm actually defending the Bible because of your ignorance LOL)


Just as a side note: Christ does not mean "king" it means "annointed"

There are plenty of ways to discredit the Bible and still keep your integrity.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
it easy to portray a person presented to all as an all man based on mythos of all time prior.

i mean its easy for me to amalgamate a person and present this person to you and you draw conclusions to specific parts of the constituted amalgamation.

the white jesus that is prevalent in image as "Jesus" was probably one of the many parts that make up the portions of "truth" you present as the whole of "king jesus".

due to the amalgamation i cannot do anything but reserve my opinions; if there was a specific topic of interest on a particular person i would feel more confident in expressions pertaining such.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Doh! You lot really don't read do you?

The bible is a bastardisation of an allegorical learning book. Especially the King James version.

Jesus never existed - of the 5 legible historical written sources that mention him in a contemporary context, 1 is a proven fake, another is unreliable, and the other three cite secondary level information about the fictional character created by the Gnostic Sun-Worshipping sect in Palestine.

Jesus did not exist - there is no evidence for him. Don't even bother quoting the bible - it's a bastardisation of a fiction novel. And a poor one at that.

Religion = FAIL.

Jesus was not a rebel leader - he was FICTIONAL.

Parallex.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The Philo-sophy of Theo-philus.

It's vision is Free of Charge as E-nergy?

The blind, deaf and dumb See.....what matters.
3rd Eye atop that Pyramid.
You have One too.
Surprised?

With collective insight, One will see the Brother of Another.
G,day



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Just as a side note: Christ does not mean "king" it means "annointed"

There are plenty of ways to discredit the Bible and still keep your integrity.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Thermo Klein]




And who was anointed? The goats?


.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ralphellis2
 


Jesus wrote on the sand, not papyrus.
Words weren't necessary for His Message to Ring True to the 'people'.
The Bible was put together in a time of need during the Roman occupation of 'Euphrates', in order that a System of ethics and morality return to the people. The wise men decided it was best to enscribe the Truth or Word of God to Papyrus.

The word is Heard, Seen, Felt, not read.
A word is that of a human.
A vision is 'that' of G-od.

G=E
E is as unto a divine God as E is as unto divine Geometry
The Proof of Proofs.
KISS acro-nymally
One doesn't need to Proof it further.


Truth was lasered in stone thousands of years ago.
Don't look at Webster, he was Ab-sent.
His Angle was obsequious unto Another.
Hence 90 degrees in lodge "Blue".




[edit on 3-1-2010 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by gandhi
 





I would have to agree with everyone else. Although it may make sense in the time period sense, you can't just randomly connect things you think are plausible.


Why not xtians do this all the time, take the turin shroud for example



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Perseus Apex
 





The word is Heard, Seen, Felt, not read.

Then why the hell do xtians need a bible ?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ralphellis2
 


Totally nutso theory with no substantiating factual evidence to back any of it up...

would probably be a decent movie though if you could get a large-breasted babe in it..



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Perseus Apex
 


On-e to-o man-y hyph-ens i-n thi-s pos-t



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I gave up Christianity about 20 years ago and despise organized Religion - and I gotta say, ralphellis2, what you said quoted above is 100% wrong! I jusr re-read Luke 19 from beginning to Jesus' second parable and it is plain-as-day obvious that Jesus DID NOT say that, there are even quotation marks to end the king's statement...

pathetic




Sorry, you are all reading this parable wrongly. This is what the venerable theologians say of it.



McGarvey.
A reference in the first instance to the Jews who were citizens of Christ's kingdom and who were justly destroyed for rejecting Him when he ascended his throne.

So the king (lord) was Jesus and the enemies were the Jews.



B Johnson
This portrays the fate, not of church members, but of those who would not have our Lord reign over them.

Again the reference is to Jesus, not the landowner.


A Clarke
The Jews, whom I (Jesus) shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans.

Again the reference is to Jesus.


Greenhalgh
As to the citizens, the Jews on whom He had rights as king, their will was against Him, not only hating Him there while among them, but above all, sending the message after Him

Again the Him is Jesus.


.
.


Besides, you fail to see what this parable is all about. The Landowner in this parable IS Jesus himself. This is what Clarke says of the parable:


Quote:
The meaning of the different parts of this parable appears to be as follows.

A certain nobleman - The Lord Jesus, who was shortly to be crucified by the Jews.

Went into a far country - Ascended to the right hand of the Divine Majesty.

To receive a kingdom - To take possession of the mediatorial kingdom, the right to which, as Messiah, he had acquired by his sufferings.

And to return. - To judge and punish the rebellious Jews.
Endquote.


So Jesus was talking about himself in this parable. Thus Jesus was the person who wanted his enemies killed in front of him.


QED



Can we go onto a different topic now??


.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by ralphellis2]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Xtians, WHOdians and Hooligans need no written word.

How did One know of the human natural law pre-papyrus.
Intellect.
Most sold their Reason to their highest bidder.
The resulting Stress is not worth it.
It tends to Age in an entropic king O way.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ralphellis2
 





Lu 19: 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and kill them in front of me.

Interesting isn't it how this verse is never mentioned at churches or schools etc where children are encouraged to believe the reality of the bible myth.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Perseus Apex
reply to post by moocowman
 


Xtians, WHOdians and Hooligans need no written word.

How did One know of the human natural law pre-papyrus.
Intellect.
Most sold their Reason to their highest bidder.
The resulting Stress is not worth it.
It tends to Age in an entropic king O way.


Needless to say you speak in tongues as well ?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ralphellis2
 





A certain nobleman - The Lord Jesus, who was shortly to be crucified by the Jews.


Why on earth do you perpetuate a lie ? Jews didn't crucify anyone, Romans did the crucifying



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 





Totally nutso theory with no substantiating factual evidence to back any of it up...

Not unlike the jesus of the gospels then



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ralphellis2
 





Sorry, you are all reading this parable wrongly. This is what the venerable theologians say of it.


as the author of the passage is unknown and obviously long dead it is complete arrogance to make any claim to being the final word on its' meaning. Only the original author would know and as he/she is not around then no one interpretation is more valid than another.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 





Lu 19: 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and kill them in front of me.


This would be one's translation of 'events'.
Logically? how would one know the visions Jesus had had?
Could it be trusted for a man to attempt to 'perform' an 'empty' script to paper? The 'script-et' is like a surface area of a Flower of Life, a geometric figure of Divinity. The 'volume of a Pyramid X 5



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parallex
Doh! You lot really don't read do you?

Jesus did not exist - there is no evidence for him. Don't even bother quoting the bible - it's a bastardisation of a fiction novel. And a poor one at that.

Jesus was not a rebel leader - he was FICTIONAL.

.



Again I would disagree. If you wanted to create a fictional hero for a new religion, you could do a lot better than the NT story.

They start with a pacifist pauper hero, but whose disciples are armed and whose colleagues are immensely rich. He is a jew, who hates Jews, and a supporter of Rome who will not eat with Romans. etc: etc:

No. The whole thing smacks of real politics, but with a thick layer of saccharine applied. But if so, then there must have been a real Jesus. But who was he?


This is just my research, which indicates that there was a real Jesus (Jesus of Gamala) whose life-story is very similar indeed to the biblical Jesus (just displaced by 30 years.)

Likewise, there is a real Saul too. (Why do all these important people go missing from the historical record?) Saul was actually Josephus Flavius, and again their life-stories are identical.



Thus the NT is actually real history. It is just that the characters were real blood-and-guts royal/political figures, rather than the idealised fairy-story saccharine heros we have been taught about.


This, to me, makes the story much more believable - and you can give or take the spirituality as you like. Personally, I see no need for it.


.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join