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.

 

Misconceptions about Jesus Chist

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k

 


And by the way, I read most of the books in the bible,. and I mean the other books like The Epistle Of Jesus, Enoch I, The book of Adam and Eve, the missing parts of Genesis. I consider myself a true christian because I dont walk around saying "Oh I read the bible", I actually Understand it. You don't get many of those, and when we do, we say that they are against christ.


Have you also tried dabbling in the Hebrew language to see how well you are understanding its original meaning and message??

And a Christian having read the Bible is a rare thing.

EVERY christian I have ever known who has read the bible in its ENTIRETY is now an ex-christian.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by Baloney]




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


THINK ABOUT THIS:

A man walks up to you with 10$ in his left pocket. Another man comes up beside him with 10$ in his left pocket. The First man asks you if you have change for 10$. You don't so you say "No". The Second Man asks you and you reply "No, Didn't you hear what I said to the first man "? And the second Man replies "Well, I'm not the First man". The First man returns and says
"Well aren't you two haveing a lovely coversation? Do you have the 10$ change or not?"

The moral: None. I was in the year 1000 BC anbd I was talking about the quantum exchange of magnetic particles at mollecular level. My soical studies teacher told me that, and she says it's impossible to fully interpret the bible, because we *SNIP* it up in the translation process.
You can't just take the KJV and say, "Abyone who reads this is stupid", because it shouldn't be considred the Bible.


Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on Wed Aug 25 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


THINK ABOUT THIS:

A man walks up to you with 10$ in his left pocket. Another man comes up beside him with 10$ in his left pocket. The First man asks you if you have change for 10$. You don't so you say "No". The Second Man asks you and you reply "No, Didn't you hear what I said to the first man "? And the second Man replies "Well, I'm not the First man". The First man returns and says
"Well aren't you two haveing a lovely coversation? Do you have the 10$ change or not?"

The moral: None. I was in the year 1000 BC anbd I was talking about the quantum exchange of magnetic particles at mollecular level. My soical studies teacher told me that, and she says it's impossible to fully interpret the bible, because we fu**ed it up in the translation process.
You can't just take the KJV and say, "Abyone who reads this is stupid", because it shouldn't be considred the Bible.


...
You were in the year 1000 BC?? What the hell are you talking about?
What in the heck does any of that about the KJV have to do with any of my comments? I also never said anyone who read the Bible is stupid.
Having read it has nothing to do with what one believes either.

I have read the Bible in its entirety twice and the new testament many times as well as some old testament books many times. So what? I am agnostic. I've also read texts of many other religions and faiths. Again...so what?


[edit on 24/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k

 


THINK ABOUT THIS:

My soical studies teacher told me that, and she says it's impossible to fully interpret the bible, because we fu**ed it up in the translation process.
You can't just take the KJV and say, "Abyone who reads this is stupid", because it shouldn't be considred the Bible.



Social studies? What grade are you in? So your Social Studies teacher is your Bible scholar?





[edit on 24-8-2010 by Baloney]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Realize. That that whole post made no sense, but you read it didn't you? Same as a guy with blue dyed skin. If he came up to you, what would you make of it?

"Well, thinks doesn't make any sense whatsoever"

But at least you acknowledged his presence? Yes of course there was a man that ran around India with blue skin that came from the sky. He gave the people advanced knowledge, like how to care for their body with soaps, and their hair with shampoos. He gave them the primitive knowledge of early guns, and bombs. And, eventually, gave them the information to build giant buildings, but it was too much, and they eventually wiped themselves out. Thousands of years later, people who are manipulated by the stories they read as a child see these people and say


"Well, thinks doesn't make any sense whatsoever"



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


Wow so you really do think there were cars , lasers, and spaceships used by people in the bible?
Did you go through all that before just to basically say that?
If not, why even mention them?
And on a side note, that sounds like you believe Ganesh with his elephant head was real too?


[edit on 24/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Interesting topic here. Unfortunately it looks like some of the responses being given just don't do it justice.

Lets try some real questions for a change. Let us be more specific about how, why, and when the Bible was changed if that is true.

For example, which parts specifically were changed? What did the text say before it was changed? And what does it say now after it has been changed?

By the way...different translations do not count as "changes" because they still say basically the same thing...just with different wording. For example, modern English versus older styles of the language.

Regarding books left out of the Bible...which ones are we talking about? Since Jesus is mentioned in the title of this thread, lets stick with the New Testament era for starters.

Most people will point straight to the Gnostic Gospels. Those, however, were left out for good reason. It's because they mostly postdate the oldest manuscripts that we have of the Synoptic Gospels by at least a century or two.

I know other books were left out of the New Testament as well but I can't think of them at the moment. I'll be back after I go wrack my brain for a while.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Realize. That that whole post made no sense, but you read it didn't you? Same as a guy with blue dyed skin. If he came up to you, what would you make of it?

"Well, thinks doesn't make any sense whatsoever"

But at least you acknowledged his presence? Yes of course there was a man that ran around India with blue skin that came from the sky. He gave the people advanced knowledge, like how to care for their body with soaps, and their hair with shampoos. He gave them the primitive knowledge of early guns, and bombs. And, eventually, gave them the information to build giant buildings, but it was too much, and they eventually wiped themselves out. Thousands of years later, people who are manipulated by the stories they read as a child see these people and say


"Well, thinks doesn't make any sense whatsoever"


Are you the resurrection of a past genius member who called himself "Tormentations" who was banned not too long ago?

Your posts are starting to seem quite similar.

Are you the resurrected "Tormentations"???

If so, how is Tupac doing?



[edit on 24-8-2010 by Baloney]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Okay

1: I am a Christian, but I have also reasearched the religions of Islam, Egyptian Polytheism, Judaism, Buddhism, and most exstensively the religion of Hinduism.

2: The thing I am trying to prove in the above post is that don't interpret everything you hear literally. If I say Ground here, it could mean the floor, a piece of metal, of even the planet Earth.

3: I am in 12th grade

4: She is my American History teacher, so it's easier to say Social Studies.

5: Inever said anything that makes it seem like people who read the bible know more, I'm just saying don't say "So you think your a christian because you read the bible?". I researched the Old testament MORE than the new, which is why you can pick misconceptions about any religion, NOT just christianity.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Baloney
 


Ah, you know that would actually make this thread make sense in a twisted way. Good eye for similarity there Baloney.

Don't forget his transitional identity as xsomexonexotherx....


The join dates don't work out right though, so I guess not...

[edit on 24/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The bible does not prove the existence of 'god' .
It does not prove Jesus as the 'saviour' of mankind .
Eve did not talk to a 'serpent' , serpents don't talk , nor have they ever .
The bible is made up of history , government , and religion , religion being the least of the three .
There were TWO men named Jesus present on the day of the crucifiction .
Jesus did not rise from the grave . This is not possible , nor has it ever been .
Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead . This is not possible , nor has it ever been .
Hell , a place of eternal torment , does not exist and is not proven in the bible .

I could go on all day with this but , I won't .

The bible is nothing more than stories that were plagiarized from earlier accounts .

It is mostly a book of LAW , and has very little to do with spirituality . "Do this , don't do that , can't you read the signs ? "

A handbook for lawyers , judges and juries . Nothing more .

Go figure ...



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Basically this is a thread for people to post misconceptions about the things said and done in the Bible. This includes ANY book ( most preferably, the deceitfully misinterpreted King James Bible).


I thought title of your thread was "Misconceptions about Jesus Christ"?
Your post title is a misconception.

1. Nearly 100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree with the following statements:

* Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross.
* Jesus’ disciples believed He appeared to them.
* Jesus’ brother, James, went from being a pre-crucifixion skeptic to a post-crucificion church leader.
* The Apostle Paul believed Jesus appeared to him and he wrote most of the books attributed to him, including Romans, I & II Corinthians, Philemon and others.

2. 75% of the same scholars agree that the tomb was empty.





[edit on 8/25/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by mr10k
Basically this is a thread for people to post misconceptions about the things said and done in the Bible. This includes ANY book ( most preferably, the deceitfully misinterpreted King James Bible).


I thought title of your thread was "Misconceptions about Jesus Christ"?
Your post title is a misconception.

1. Nearly 100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree with the following statements:

* Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross.
* Jesus’ disciples believed He appeared to them.
* Jesus’ brother, James, went from being a pre-crucifixion skeptic to a post-crucificion church leader.
* The Apostle Paul believed Jesus appeared to him and he wrote most of the books attributed to him, including Romans, I & II Corinthians, Philemon and others.

2. 75% of the same scholars agree that the tomb was empty.


I'm sorry but that is patently false. There is not 100% consensus amongst historians that Jesus even existed. There is no evidence demonstrating it.

I'd suggest providing sources to back your above claims or stop spreading false information that you've made up.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

I'm sorry but that is patently false. There is not 100% consensus amongst historians that Jesus even existed. There is no evidence demonstrating it.

I'd suggest providing sources to back your above claims or stop spreading false information that you've made up.


Yes - as far as I know there is zero proof of Jesus - anywhere.

And zero proof of anyone being crucified on a cross during that time period - in that location.

Even the writings of Flavius Josephus as proof - - have been deemed forgery. Likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm sorry but that is patently false. There is not 100% consensus amongst historians that Jesus even existed. There is no evidence demonstrating it.


There you go again not reading what I wrote. I stated "nearly" not a "There is not 100% consensus".

So please start over again and read my post closely.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'd suggest providing sources to back your above claims or stop spreading false information that you've made up.


I am not spreading false information. My info comes from Dr. Gary Habermas.
Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University has studied over 2000 scholarly sources published from 1975 to 2006 in French, German, and English, on the resurrection of Jesus. Though these scholars range from atheist to theological conservative, Habermas found certain facts that virtually all the scholars agreed upon concerning the person of Jesus:
Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross.
* Jesus’ disciples believed He appeared to them.
* Jesus’ brother, James, went from being a pre-crucifixion skeptic to a post-crucificion church leader.
* The Apostle Paul believed Jesus appeared to him and he wrote most of the books attributed to him, including Romans, I & II Corinthians, Philemon and others.

traditionaldrummer, when you study over 2000 sources then we can talk.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - as far as I know there is zero proof of Jesus - anywhere.
And zero proof of anyone being crucified on a cross during that time period - in that location.


Then why do nearly 100% of scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?


Originally posted by Annee
Even the writings of Flavius Josephus as proof - - have been deemed forgery. Likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century.


That is not true. Josephus historian Steve Mason stated that he will testify in court that the statements made by Josephus about Jesus are historical.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig


I am not spreading false information.


You most certainly are. There is not "nearly 100%" agreement on the existence of Jesus.

Secondly, 2000 "scholarly sources" tell us nothing, but your 70% figure means only 1400 of them reached the same conclusion about certain aspects. People who present such findings perform a little statistical trick called "creaming the data": very dishonest.

Here's a fact: there is no evidence whatsoever confirming that Jesus actually existed and walked the earth. Your claim that there's "nearly 100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree" that Jesus existed is false information that you are spreading.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
You most certainly are. There is not "nearly 100%" agreement on the existence of Jesus.


Not true again. The data even comes from your side of the fence. Atheists and agnostics scholars even agree with the historical data.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Secondly, 2000 "scholarly sources" tell us nothing, but your 70% figure means only 1400 of them reached the same conclusion about certain aspects. People who present such findings perform a little statistical trick called "creaming the data": very dishonest.


Do you think scholars would waste their time? Atheist and agnostic present the data also. Do you think they are "creaming the data"?


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Here's a fact: there is no evidence whatsoever confirming that Jesus actually existed and walked the earth. Your claim that there's "nearly 100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree" that Jesus existed is false information that you are spreading.


You have no scholarly facts. Again, it is not false information. Atheist and agnostic scholars believe that Jesus existed because the data is there.
Historian Michael Grant surprisingly states that "the historian cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb" because normally applied historical criteria indicate that, "the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."
Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (N.Y.: Collier, 1992), 176.

[edit on 8/25/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - as far as I know there is zero proof of Jesus - anywhere.
And zero proof of anyone being crucified on a cross during that time period - in that location.


Then why do nearly 100% of scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?



You tell me.

There is no proof - none.

There are no writings during the time of Jesus - that indicate he existed. If he caused so much turmoil that he should be executed - - why is there no record of any kind? All writings are many years later.

However - was there political upheaval during that time period? I'm sure there was. Were there leaders against injustice? I'm sure there were. Could certain events mentioned in the bible actually happen? I'm sure they could.

The political history of these times - - has played over and over for centuries - in all parts of the world. To say the events in the bible happened - - really proves nothing.

Could there be history records mentioning specific names. Yes - I do believe I have read things along that line.

But there still is no proof of a single man named Jesus or alternate name - - in the official records of that time.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

That is not true. Josephus historian Steve Mason stated that he will testify in court that the statements made by Josephus about Jesus are historical.


LOL - - and he will defend this how?

By going back in time in a time machine?

Follow the money.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join