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 Bible: Guide to Heaven or Scripture of Death?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
It's another religion for those who don't want to take responsibility for anything and think things through.


That is absolutely not true. There is nothing in Christianity about the abrogation of personal responsibility, in fact it requires it, because you are accountable for your actions. If there is no God, you can do whatever you can get away with. If there is a God, you're not getting away with anything.

If you think disbelief in God, but still acting like a decent person is noble, great, go for it. But don't criticize as "non thinkers" those do believe.



So either god does not exist, or if it does exist, then humans are the most retarded species in the universe, and even if heaven was laid down and written precise in a book and put on a altar of magic next to there feet, they wouldn't know what it was and kick it off then go throw feces at each other.


I take great offence at your use of the word "retarded", for a number of reasons. However, the fact of the matter is that people are pretty sharp. They get it. They just don't want to do it. Doesn't make them dumb, makes them stubborn. And if you read the Bible, from beginning to end, it seems like that's the battle God's fighting. Human stubbornness.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks. My experience in the faith parallels yours judging from what I've read of your comments in this thread. I was atheist for a time while breaking out of a very corrupt fundamentalist Baptist church. Like you I have experienced personal revelations that hold meaning to myself only that take my faith up a notch to the level of certainty I lacked previously.

I do however lack religion. I am not part of any community or traditions that would reinforce my beliefs unless you count the occasional encounter on the Internet with likeminded people who have additional insight and experience with which to mentor me. I'm just weary of churches. Each denomination I have tried has stood out for its desire to point out how other denominations are falling short. I married into a devout Catholic family and to my shock have learned by their standards I'm destined for hell and these kind people keep literally patting my shoulder and reassuring me they are praying for my salvation. Now I'm beginning to understand how patronizing I must have sounded doing pretty much the same thing to others during my hellfire and brimstone days.


Yes there is division among the ranks of those who go by the name of Christian. That's to answer the fellow you didn't want to answer. So I accept that Muslims are similarly divided in how they interpret and apply their teachings. We have that in common and neither side should be demonizing the other. And I would say most of us don't. I don't see it happening except in areas prone to extremist Christian sects who are always yelling about something anyway. I see secular sources demonizing Muslims, too.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





That is absolutely not true. There is nothing in Christianity about the abrogation of personal responsibility, in fact it requires it, because you are accountable for your actions. If there is no God, you can do whatever you can get away with. If there is a God, you're not getting away with anything. If you think disbelief in God, but still acting like a decent person is noble, great, go for it. But don't criticize as "non thinkers" those do believe.



don't tell me... tell that to the religious and other Christians or Islamics that. Just because you all believe in the same god does not mean you all believe in the same thing. After all you all are arguing about the same things that are said about god on this very thread.



I take great offence at your use of the word "retarded", for a number of reasons. However, the fact of the matter is that people are pretty sharp. They get it. They just don't want to do it. Doesn't make them dumb, makes them stubborn. And if you read the Bible, from beginning to end, it seems like that's the battle God's fighting. Human stubbornness.



Oh yes you could be right, but regardless "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". And some creatures take offence when they think they are being lead to anything, including salvation from thirst.
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." What is the difference between stupidity and stubbornness, one knows why it does not want to do something, the other does not. Either way it will always be a losing battle against both, because in time we are all proven to be stupid and stubborn, and we will be stubborn to the idea that we were stupid over something a long time ago. You can't fight something that does not stick around to be fought, like time or opinions or human nature. But one can always fight about god, since he is always there even if you don't see it.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by galadofwarthethird]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by galadofwarthethird]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Never confuse intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is what you know, wisdom is what you do with it. One may be intelligent enough to know that smoking is bad for them, but lack the wisdom to quit. Stubbornness comes out of wisdom, because you can't be stubborn about something you don't know.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





You are quoting the Old Testament, Jewish Law. Christians are not reconciled to God through the Bible, but through the person of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is part of the Bible as ancient testimony to the divinity of Christ,


Here we go again ,

So, are you saying that jesus and yahwhe are not the same being ?


Are you claiming that the ten commandments (jewish law) do not apply to you ?

Which part of the old testament (the jews book) proves the divinity of jesus.


For you info the jewish book who's book ? =




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by adjensen
 





You are quoting the Old Testament, Jewish Law. Christians are not reconciled to God through the Bible, but through the person of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is part of the Bible as ancient testimony to the divinity of Christ,


Here we go again ,

So, are you saying that jesus and yahwhe are not the same being ?


No.



Are you claiming that the ten commandments (jewish law) do not apply to you ?


No.



Which part of the old testament (the jews book) proves the divinity of jesus.


Let me google that for you!

www.lmgtfy.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
[edit on 11/01/2009 by YAHUWAH SAVES]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I would ask anyone with proof to show and proof for all of us to see or read that would disprove any of this below:



1. The major bibles of today namely King James Version and it's offspring have removed MANY things and changed MANY things, the biggest thing is YHWH the name of YAH written with His own finger 7,777 times replaced with Lord=Baal, god/elohim which never referred to YHWH but only false powers, Je"Hovah" or Ie"Hova"=Hova(h) in ancient Abrahuw defined in strongs concordance #1943 means Destroyer-Ruin-Mischief. Je"sus"or Ie"sus" prior from the word zeus and the J was never in existence until 500 years ago and should be YaHuW-shua (MeoshiYAach) and/or YaHuW-Yasha (Savior). Im just saying DO THE RESEARCH. Anyone who denies these facts has not done the deep study required to find these basic truths. You won't find this at your dad's "sun"day school lessons... Incidentally Sunday from ancient pagan sunworshiping day. All ATSrs know that Sun worship is part of much of the infiltration in Most corporate Logo's incorporated with pyramids/all seeing eyes/stars/sun"rays" etc etc goes back all the way to King Nimrod just after the Flood.

2. There are numerous conflicts in scripture that lead to 1 of 2 conclusions.
A. The bible is completely wrong OR
B. The versions we have today are completely wrong and we need Pre- Christian scrolls that have not been changed by Yahudi Jews or Christian churches.

I encourage everyone to go back to the oldest known scrolls and texts and learn as much as you can on understanding how and what was written. There are several resources on the net to aid in understanding.

All I am saying folks is could some of this be wrong... of course, is there some truth here? Find OUT! dont trust me or anyone else for your life saving truths! DO THE WORK of research! Do not look to another man for truths, prove your truths and disprove lies. Or just keep on hangin out with all the sheeple who play follow the leader...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Wow! What a can of worms I have opened. I am thankful that I have been able to read all of these opinions on religion and faith.

Has my original point come across to anyone yet?

Do you see how any religion can be manipulated by those who know little or nothing about it, for example how Islam is used to scare Christians by our government, and use that manipulation to envoke feelings of patriotism and fear?

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, hell...even the non-theistic Jediism can have its texts and beliefs misrepresented to others to evoke hatred and fear.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Wow! What a can of worms I have opened. I am thankful that I have been able to read all of these opinions on religion and faith.

Has my original point come across to anyone yet?

Do you see how any religion can be manipulated by those who know little or nothing about it, for example how Islam is used to scare Christians by our government, and use that manipulation to envoke feelings of patriotism and fear?

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, hell...even the non-theistic Jediism can have its texts and beliefs misrepresented to others to evoke hatred and fear.


That was your point? Well, geez, Captain Obvious, that's not exactly news. Religion is all too often used as a motivator to rally people around something that those in power want but doesn't seem like such a good idea to the rabble.

However, unlike you, I do not see Islam being portrayed the way that you imply Christianity should be. When someone blows themselves up in the Middle East to kill school kids, that's news, and we can pretty well guess what the motivation is. When millions do not blow themselves up, that's not news, so who cares?

In the face of that reality, it's not surprising that some people come away with the impression that Islam has violent aspects to it. But why fault the media, when all they're doing is telling you that some goof blew himself up? In the absence of the suicide bomber, Islam looks quite a bit different to the casual observer, no?

If the tv networks were running nightly specials called "Why Islam is evil and should be wiped out of existence", you'd have a point (and, again, I would be on your side.) But that isn't the case, at least not around here (where I have the benefit of seeing two national perspectives :-)



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


A very good point.

Hence, why when one looks up the word "church" in the Yellow Pages, one finds virtually pages upon pages of listings.

The manipulation of The Bible alone has fractured Christianity into over 30,000 different "flocks". There is an estimated 5 new Christian faiths "formed" weekly worldwide.
Some believe in the Trinity, some don't. Some believe in the New Testament. Some believe in an addition to the New Testament.
Then factor in the Non-Christian denominations. You have hundreds of thousands of different beliefs in a God. But not the same kind of God, depending on the Book of that faith. Or no book at all.

Then factor in the people who do not believe in any God.

Then factor in the people who truly worship satan and celebrate Black Masses (not the kids who pretend, but the real deal satan worshippers).

There it all is.

Mind Boggling, when you think about it




[edit on 4-8-2010 by thegoodearth]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



That was always the point of this thread. I tried to stress that a few times throughout the thread but it was overlooked.

How do you know that all suicide bombers or other acts of violence are commited by followers of Islam? Can you ask him? Probably not. But every time I hear about a new bombing by the media it is said they were Islamist extremists.

Is it possible the bomber was just pee'd off and was trying to defend his homeland as any of us would do if we were invaded by foreign troops?

The media is very specific in stating the line "Islamic extremists". That is where I believe their religion has been hijacked, and the Quaran has been interpreted to convey a point beneficial for TPTB and the war.

I used Christianity/Bible to show how interpretation could be used to serve the same purpose.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by adjensen
Let's see... early Church tradition says that the Apostle John wrote his Gospel. No compelling evidence is otherwise noted.


Rubbish.
There is a great deal of evidence otherwise.
You just haven't studied this subject at all.

Here is a summary of wht modern NT scholars agree G.John was NOT written by "John", from
earlychristianwritings.com...



Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.



Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

...



[edit on 8/4/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
...


Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor

Clear and present evidence that you were wrong about the authorship of G.John.

But will you even READ that information?
Seriously, will you?


Kap

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8/4/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by adjensen
Always ask yourself, what is the motivation of saying something is correct? What is the motivation of saying something isn't correct? In this case, for 2,000 years, there was no reason for saying that John didn't write the Gospels.


Wrong.
You've NEVER studied this subject at all, have you?

Because in FACT, the Gospel of John was originally REJECTED as it was attributed to someone OTHER than John.
But you have NEVER EVER even heard of that fact, have you?

When the Gospel of John was first known, it had NO author's name attached, and it was attributed to Cerinthus (amd thus rejected by the church) BEFORE it was attributed to John, and then ACCEPTED.

So, your claim is wrong by almost 2000 years.
Don't you think you should study some Gospel history before continuing with these obviously false claims?


Originally posted by adjensen
Oh, and contrary to your statement, not "all NT scholars" agree with you, rightfully.


But still, so far, you cannot quote a SINGLE ONE who agrees with you.
Not one modern NT scholar who agrees with you.
Not one.
Why can't you cite one?


Kap


[edit on 4-8-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Chillimac
Oh Really?
Through all of your angry rantings you seem to be implying there are no historical references to Jesus,


Correct.
There are no contemporary historical references to Jesus.
There are no accounts from anyone who met or saw him.
None.


Originally posted by Chillimac
and that the bible has no historical credibility.


The bible has very little historical credibility.
Most of it's alleged events are legends and fantasy.




Originally posted by Chillimac
However, in The Annalls, Tacitus says, "Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”


About 80 years after the alleged events, Tacitus repeated Christian beliefs of HIS later time - so what?
Tacitus got Pilate's title WRONG - showing he was NOT basing his comments on records, but merely Christian claims of HIS later times.

Not evidence for Jesus at all.
Just evidence for Christian BELIEFS.

We have PLENTY of evidence for 2nd century Christian BELIEFS in Jesus.
But NO actual evidence for Jesus himself.



Originally posted by Chillimac
www.allaboutarchaeology.org...


So?
No-on ever claimed Pilate did not exist.
(Never. Even though believers claim it happened.)
We know Pilate existed - so what?
That proves NOTHING about Jesus at all.

Why do YOU think it does?


Kap



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 




Rubbish.
There is a great deal of evidence otherwise.
You just haven't studied this subject at all.

Here is a summary of wht modern NT scholars agree G.John was NOT written by "John", from


First, that is one person's opinion, not all scholars. Secondly, he hardly makes a open and shut case, and acknowledges that a case can be made for the Apostle John's authorship. Finally, I'm entitled to my own opinion, which is that the traditional view is correct. There are as many reasons for people wanting it to be not written by the Apostle as there are reasons going the other way. If it was held to be John within a few decades of its authorship, I give that more credibility than someone 2000 years later saying it was not because of inconsistencies that they are not keen on.

By the way, your massive repost of text from another web site is a violation of the conditions of ATS. Did you bother to read the window that pops up when you paste into the composition field? Would recommend that you edit your post to comply with the rules.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by babloyi
Hey Kapyong!
I do hope you realise the immense difference between "the Apostles of Christ believed what they saw with their own eyes", and "There were NO eye-witnesses to Jesus" and "Not ONE of the books in the NT was written by anone who met a historical Jesus". Your third statement really doesn't follow from the second.


I thought it was quite clear.

There were NO witnesses to Jesus.
There are NO claims to have met Jesus.
There are NO books written by anyone who met Jesus.
There was NO person to see Jesus and "believe with their eyes" at all.

What we have is STORIES about Jesus.
AND in those STORIES are episodes about people seeing Jesus.

But the persons who "saw" Jesus are PART of the stories.
No ACTUAL person EVER met Jesus.

Would you say Frodo's change of life proves Gandald is true?
Of course not.

Would you say Hermione risking her life for Harry Potter is evidence that Herry Potter is real?
Of corse not.

Would you say James Bond's reference to real people is evidence James Bond os real?
Of course not.

But that's exactly what is being done here for Jesus -

People IN the story are used as evidence FOR the stories !
How silly.

The people IN the Christian stories did not really exist and did not write anything - because they never existed in teh first place.

But
the anonymous and unknown Christians who DID wrote the stories never met anyone IN the stories because they did not ever actually exist.



I think my point is quite clear there.


Kapyong.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
But still, so far, you cannot quote a SINGLE ONE who agrees with you.
Not one modern NT scholar who agrees with you.
Not one.
Why can't you cite one?


John A. T. Robinson, Anglican Bishop

Reference his book "Redating the New Testament".



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
But the anonymous and unknown Christians who DID wrote the stories never met anyone IN the stories because they did not ever actually exist


Fine, you don't believe the Bible. Who cares?

You sure spend a lot of time researching something that you don't believe in. Maybe you should try researching something without a previous bias, and see whether that gives you more credibility that you're building up here.




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join