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.

 

They Stole His Body - The Hijacking of Jesus

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

Dont know that you can call Yahweh a loan as He spoke with Abraham face to face.
The use of the name, YHWH comes from the Midianites. They were a people who lived in Arabia, close to Sinai.

Abraham called Yahweh "the everlasting God".
Whoever wrote that was assigning one of the attributes of El to YHWH.

Abraham did a lot of talking to the elohiym (plural) but didnt show them the respect that he showed Yah-weh. We see Yahweh and two elohiym meeting with Abraham.
Genesis 18 portrays YHWH as an ordinary person, who has to travel by foot in person to know if the people of Sodom are as evil as he had heard tell by others. My guess is that scribes in later times inserted the name for some reason, maybe to connect this angel with the one Moses spoke with.




posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
@Pthena, got info for a question you had on a thread quite a while back
now, on the Shaddaim(?). The Shaddayyin are the 'ones of the mountains',
according to John Day.

In the Deir 'Allā inscription. I.5-6, are two sentences which refer to them:

'I will tell you what the Shaddayyin have done.
Now come, see the works of the gods!
The gods gathered together;
the Shaddayyin took their places as the assembly.'
edit on 1-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60

Right - the real prophet Balaam ca. 840-760 BCE, as opposed to the backdated Balaam. Balaam's personal deity seems to maybe be Shagar, rather than Yahweh as the Numbers story has it.

So shaddai may actually mean "heights" or mountains after all. Wikipedia has it as a place name.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

The compiler of Gospel of Thomas did, at least, so I strongly suspect.
Is that Gospel actually about a person named Thomas? Or is it just a name of a book, as if the name is somehow fitting for a book?
Just wondering. I got a couple books in the mail today and one is The Greek of the Septuagint, a supplemental lexicon. Another book I got earlier by Kindle, is Paul's Letter Collection, where it describes how they made codices, where they would take so many pages and fold them in half. I think they call those galleries in today's terminology. If you were to look at an individual page, folded, that would be a tomos, or Thomas if you like, the twins. The related verb would mean to take a scroll and cut it up into pages. Interesting that the Nag Hammadi library is made up of codices.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 




The link to single post is found right next to the quote button on each post. It says "Reply-To"


My reply was not directed at you or this thread in general. I copy-pasted from my phone into the wrong thread.

Apologies.

Edit: But since I am here, I will respond to your OP in a bit.
edit on 11/1/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60

wiki-Gospel_of_Thomas
The Gospel According to Thomas, commonly shortened to the Gospel of Thomas, is a well preserved early Christian, non-canonical sayings-gospel discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. The Gospel of Thomas was found among a collection of fifty-two writings that included, in addition to an excerpt from Plato's Republic, gospels claiming to have been written by Jesus' disciple Philip. Scholars have speculated that the works were buried in response to a letter from the bishop Athanasius who for the first time declared a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1]

The Coptic language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[2] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while the other sayings were previously unknown. Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[3]

The introduction states: These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down. Didymus (Greek) and Thomas (Aramaic) both mean "twin". Some critical scholars suspect that this reference to the Apostle Thomas is false, and that therefore the true author is unknown.[5]

It doesn't really teach anything like typical gnostic dualism, but a rather down to earth idea of eternal life as not a personal thing at all, but rather something passed on to the living. Thus consistent with a notion such as "evolution is creation, and reincarnation is eternal life, just not personal ego self type eternal life" quoting myself there.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 





The means by which the conspiracy was carried out was implantation of false memories.



Luke24:4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 `The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " 8 Then they remembered his words.
. . .
LK 24:44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."


Or it would be more logical to think that the writers did not include what Yeshua had told them earlier. It was written that all the works and teachings of Yeshua would take up volumes.




And the poser even implanted in the disciples false memories of having read nonexistent scriptures.



LK 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.


Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 show the suffering Messiah. In Acts 2, Peter references Psalm 16:8-11 as a reference to the resurrection. The three days is in the story of Jonah and the great fish, which was also taught by Yeshua as evidenced in Matthew.




The apostle Paul also makes mention of the nonexistent scripture; he "received", without explaining how or from whom or which specific scripture he is referring to.



1CO 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,


The scriptures were not given because anyone who has read and studied Torah should already know these things.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

My current view happens to be that Paul was not sufficiently Hellenized before engaging upon his mission. See 1 Cor 15:
I found a PDF that looks like a contemporary review of Brückner's book, in a Princeton publication. In the essay, the writer says of Brückner's view of Paul's thinking:

The preexistent One was to be revealed, suddenly to appear. Consequently the facts of Jesus' human birth and early life, with which Paul at his conversion was confronted in accepting the Messiahship of Jesus, constituted an element not only new but discordant with his previous Christological belief. Paul solved this problem by conceiving of the earthly life as an episode in the heavenly existence of the Son of God, to which he had voluntarily subjected Himself for the sake of mankind. This in so far modified the original conception of the preexistent Messiah, as ascribing to him this act of voluntary self-denial gave His heavenly life an ethical content, which to the mind of Paul it had not previously possessed. But apart from this the earthly life remained a mere episode, for the historic details of which, as distinct from its beginning in the incarnation and end in the crucifixion, the Apostle felt no interest. His conception of the post-existent glorified Christ virtually coincides again with his original idea of what the Messiah was as such from the first. Especially the functions of Christ at the Parousia are such that Paul the Pharisee might have affirmed them as well as Paul the Christian.
We believe that there is an important element of truth in this construction. It appears to us beyond doubt that Paul before his conversion ascribed preexistence to the Messiah.
I typed this up myself from a photocopy of this 1910 article. Why I would do this is because the actual works of Brückner are only available in German. Well isn't that funny. I wonder who the "we" is in this review of Brückner's book.
If this writer's view of Brückner is right, and in turn, Brückner's view is right, then you may be right, that Paul was not Hellenized enough.
edit on 1-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

It was written that all the works and teachings of Yeshua would take up volumes.
Hi, I noticed your post and I thought I might introduce you to a people called Christians. We believe in a book called the New Testament and in this book, it tells all about a person we believe is the Christ, and his name is Jesus.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Reply to post by jmdewey60
 


A Hebrew Rabbi named Jesus.

That is logical.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You say He is the Christ (which is the annointed one, or the Messiah). Who annointed Him? Who is He the Messsiah of? And where do you get your proof that He is what you claim?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by jmdewey60
 


A Hebrew Rabbi named Jesus.

That is logical.
the word used in the NT is transliterated, rhabbi, which is of Hebrew origin.
The definition is,
1) my great one, my honourable sir
2) Rabbi, a title used by the Jews to address their teachers (and also
honour them when not addressing them)

So it does not necessarily mean someone who went to a rabbinical school in Babylon and has credentials from a licensing board, and carries a certificate. It is just an honorary title of respect.
Hebrew was actually used to mean Aramaic, back in that time and is not meant the same way we think of the term today, and could even mean just a particular accent in how they pronounced Greek.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You say He is the Christ (which is the annointed one, or the Messiah). Who annointed Him? Who is He the Messsiah of? And where do you get your proof that He is what you claim?
Are you winning points for the Atheist side?
I said, the New Testament.
Where else would you get information about Jesus?
Do you have some magic book you found about Jesus?



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

Take Moses, One minute he is talking to elohiym and then Yahweh later.
You already mentioned how he was a man who was eating a meal with Abraham.
Why would you think there is more than one person involved with Moses? He is already a big step above the mere man in the earlier story, by now being an angel. Exodus declares this being, YHWH. The angel, YHWH.
I was going to make further comments on your post but you really lost me in your personal version of the mythology of Yah or whoever. May I suggest books by Cross, Smith, and Day, on Yahweh, those are the experts.
But really?

. . .Yehovah is chief el. . .
Seriously?
Read these books.

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith.

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel by Frank Moore Cross.

Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day

After you finish those, I can give you some further suggestions.

edit on 2-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60

I haven't done much reading on Paul since the late '70s. What I remember most is my own thoughts and interpretations of what I read, without remembering the actual sources.

A few concepts:

Pharisees: The Babylonian school dedicated to the Torah, as opposed to dedication to temple. Therefore study of and dedication to Torah makes existence or non-existence of temple a non-issue. Therefore synagogues replace temple as centers of study and worship. Therefore completely more suited for Diaspora.

Messianic Age: No more need for Rabbis or study of Torah, age of written law over.

Jer.31: 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from their least to their greatest, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."

John 4: 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah comes,” (he who is called Christ). “When he has come, he will declare to us all things.”

Therefore, in Saul the Pharisee's mind, the appearance of Messiah marks the end of written Torah. The people declaring Jesus as Messiah were threatening the Law. They were against the Law. According to Acts, it was the Hellenized believers Saul went after, even while assumed Aramaic speakers were teaching within the temple courtyard. The same ones who later were attempting to Judaize the Greeks. In Paul's mind, anyone imposing written Torah was an unbeliever in the current Messianic Age, therefore a rejecter of "Christ who has already come"

So Paul the convert was much more at home with the Hellenized for lack of imposing Torah. Rather than teaching preexistent Christ to the Hellenist, he learned preexistent Christ from them. For that preexistent concept came from Alexandria, specifically Philo, who equated Stoic Logos with wisdom(Sophia) saying from Proverbs 8:


22 “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his work,
before his deeds of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
before the earth existed.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was brought forth;

26 while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields,
nor the beginning of the dust of the world.

27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he set a circle on the surface of the deep,

28 when he established the clouds above,
when the springs of the deep became strong,

29 when he gave to the sea its boundary,
that the waters should not violate his commandment,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth;

30 then I was the craftsman by his side.
I was a delight day by day,
always rejoicing before him,

Furthermore, Philo regarded the Torah as pure(maybe semi) allegory, not literal at all.

Gospel of John is more Hellenized, in my opinion, than is Paul. But Paul was learning from the Hellenized, but maybe not enough. That pretty much summarizes my thoughts.


edit on 2-11-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60


Are you winning points for the Atheist side?


lol Yeah. No.


I said, the New Testament.


So you have no proof, other than circular reasoning?


Where else would you get information about Jesus?


I know where I can get loads more information and more proof.



Do you have some magic book you found about Jesus?


Not magic at all.

SO about the other two questions:

Who annointed Him? Who is He the Messsiah of?
edit on 11/2/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Rabbi is most commonly used as teacher.

Even the NT states that Yeshua astounded the intellectuals (Pharisees) with his ability of understanding and teaching Torah, and this was at the age of 12.

I would think that when you combine just those two facts, we can know what was really meant.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock
 

There you go. You did well to let your theology be dependent on that built up. As far as the new creation it follows with the line "the brightness of His coming".
I go along with the critical view that says that 2 Thessalonians was a forgery.
So I dropped all that end of the world theology which collapses without that one book.

Really? How convenient.
You are probably saying that thinking I changed my theology, then decided to go along with the higher criticism of the New Testament books. That would be a wrong assumption. Once I decided to accept the opinion of the critics, then I reassessed by opinion of end of the world theories.
I am a Seventh Day Adventist, and if you don't know what that means, the "adventist" part of the name is referring to the second advent, which supposedly happens at the end of the world. So my current way of thinking is a wide departure from what it was not long ago. The overriding concept I learned from my religious denominational affiliation is to go by the Bible. If I find convincing enough of an argument that certain books of the Bible do not belong, then I need to adjust my theology accordingly, even if it removes the support for long-held views. Keeping long-held views in the face of contrary evidence is the other thing I learned from my church to not practice.
edit on 1-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



I hear you and understand what you are saying. You have to know however and I believe you may, that there has been an effort to undermine parts if not all of the bible. Thats the grain of salt I use when considering ideas that provide criticism of traditional holding and have in fact ajusted ideas on many areas that I once held in a traditional frame.

There are several vains of criticisms that effect tradtional ideas. One vain is for a clearer interpretation of any given area of the bible that effect held ideas. Even amoung this vain there is thinking that challenges and upsets traditional ideas by providing, in some cases, a more profound understanding. An understanding that to grasp requires at least some rearrangement if not total jettisoning of parts or adding of part.

The other vain and there is some crossover between the two vains, is one that masquerades as scholarship. This type of criticism resides in a world of its own, demanding that its own conclusions be recognised a priori and where knowlege is demanded what is most often passed off is unsubstantiated opinons, unrelated information as if it had some bearing, fact and interpretation cooking and flat out misleading intellectual dishonesty that looks more like the work of a conjurer bent simply on destroying the bible for any number of personal reasons. They ususaly have a stench about them not unlike the pot head that thinks he is on the verge of enlightenment and the snarky attitude of a know it all in a field full of cow patties.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
As an engineer, my thought processes tend to lean towards believing that which can be verified.

I was raised as a Christian. In fact my sister's husband was a minister.

My issue is, the entire religion is based on the written documents by man. As was stated further back in this thread, there are many other documents that were "thrown out" because of a variety of reasons, all of them dictated by men.

But, how accurate are these documents?

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with the creation narrative. The earth was created in 6 days, around 5700 to 10,000 years ago.

And yet we have found evidence of the fact that the earth is Millions to Billions of years old.

When I mentioned this to many ministers (including my brother in law), they dismiss this as simply an error.

Okay, so we found one error. And yet there are many more. So, THOSE parts of the documents can't be true, but all of the rest is?

This is where things fall apart in my head.

Yes, I sincerely believe that some being(s) was/were responsible for us being here, but in my head, the real story is a completely different one, one that we have yet to hear about.

Besides this, how many "professions" were there back in the days of Jesus? Not too many. Real people, did make money, and raised farm animals.

I personally think that the concept of "Sacrifices" was invented by hungry clergy members. Tithing was introduced as a way for these people to make a living.

Once they were making money, and they didn't need to worry about where the next meal was coming, then they agreed to eventually abolish sacrifices.

Remember, being in the Clergy is a "profession". Denouncing any part of it, means that your followers will stop tithing, and hence you no longer get a paycheck.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

. . .Paul was learning from the Hellenized, but maybe not enough.
I think you are right, and I think that Princeton writer had it wrong and was making conclusions himself that Brückner did not make himself.
You told me a long time ago that I should study German and now I see why. All the good stuff is in German and we get the really weak stuff.
I wanted to comment on something you wrote yesterday that I thought was profound.

To show at least one difference between 2Thess and Paul is to point out that 2Thess has this "close of probation" , when the possibility of truth learning becomes impossible because "god" sends the strong delusion, is framed completely in eschatological linear time line terms. Paul, on the other hand, places truth and error as in operation simultaneously as in Romans chapter 1:18-32, and that "god" has already "handed them (presumably Gentiles, including philosophers) over to a depraved mind."
This is something I should use in that Day of the Lord thread (and also the other thing you brought up, for Ananke). I am looking at a book on Amazon right now that I find interesting though I don't find myself in full agreement with the author, The promised end: eschatology in theology and literature By Paul S. Fiddes. He says something that Akragon brought up on my thread, that time is irrelevant (my terminology).
edit on 2-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join