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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

SO about the other two questions:

Who annointed Him? Who is He the Messsiah of?
Jesus was anointed by the prophet who declared the end to Judaism, the Law, and the Prophets, which from that point on, was met in Jesus, as the fulfillment of that old covenant, and for Jesus to usher in the new system having made the prior old by there being a new, which is better.
Jesus is the administrator of the new system under the new covenant.
edit on 2-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.



These ideas are in no way uncommon or a personal version. The elohiym plural were involved here with Yahweh doing the primary talking in Moses case. We see the elohiym with Yahweh at the beginning, all through the bible working with Yehweh, with Yahwehs Son and His Sons apostles and finally to return with Yehwehs son and the saints. An elohiym rolled the stone away at the tomb. It was an elohiym that tempted Christ.... be-El-zebub the leader of the fallen elohiym. Yehweh made all the elohiym.

Pharaoh said that he had never heard of Yahweh. We can be sure Pharaoh had heard of just about every little el out there but he had never heard of Yahweh cheif and creater of all the elohiym. He may have had some understanding of an almighty god but had never heard this name. Thats becouse Yahweh had only exposed himself to a very few humans at that point. But Yehweh always had and still does have a close working relationship with the elohiym. Even Christ at gethsemane was consoled by the elohiym.

Any adopting of local cannaanite els like say Ba-el was a regression by the Hebrews away from Yahweh to fallen elohiym worship.

And please by all means show me "Exodus declares this being, YHWH. The angel, YHWH" There are 3 beings mentioned in Exodus malak, elohiym and Yahweh. There is not indication at all the YHWH is a malak. In fact Yahweh says He will send His malak before Israel when they go into Canaan. We see this malak at the outset of the invasion and at Bochim but this is not Yahweh nor is there any indication that it is. This malak speaks to the whole nation about an agreement he made with then...to assist them in the talking of the land...but its not Yahweh here. This is the same malak that the writer of Hebrews is refering to as his word being good and if his words were good then how much more Christs words. So we see this malak is not Christ in some pre conception form becouse the Hebrew writer is doing a comparison of the two! This malak introduces himself to Moses and spoke to him through the flames i.e his angels are ministers of flame. When Christ said "before Moses was I AM" He was not speaking of the talking malak at the bush He was speaking of the talking Yehweh. Which if you go back to Genesis is refered to Yehweh as the chief creative force as Christ is called in the New Testament.



Num 20:16 And when we cried unto the Yahweh, he heard our voice, and sent an malak, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt.....

and thats what Yehweh said....That He woud send His angel before them.



Exd 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed.

Yea this angel is the same malak that Yahweh had on hand to lead Isarel out of Egypt but its Yahweh doing most of the talking. Yahweh is introducing this malak to Moses. Its the same malak in the pillar of fire.The same flaming angel is the one Samson's parents saw. But its not Yehweh.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

. . .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.
I feel that I have been well vaccinated against being a cult member.
I look at what the critics of the critics have to say.
I am not hitching my wagon to anyone in particular.
I have had a pretty good life-lesson in not doing that.
I think of Pthena as being about as cynical as they come,
so I always like to have whatever advise he is willing to offer.
I seriously think people need to think for themselves but there is a lot
out there to know and we don't have time to do it all ourselves, so we
need to look at the lifetimes of work others have done while keeping
a critical eye on everything.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
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.


I see where you are getting some of this but you are off. Balam was a prophet of whoever you like but numbers in ZERO way indicates he was Yahwehs prophet. Just becouse the malak of the Lord shows up and tells him to bless and not curse only means on that day he was going to shut his mouth and do what he was told. This guy had some measure of power and was paid well for it but today he was going to say what he was told to say and not what he was payed to say. If for no other reason than it would put the fear of what was comming into the kings that gave his words so much weight. His ways were called sin.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by matadoor
 

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.
If you read Nineteenth Century English literature, you run across the term, a living. In the upper class, the oldest son would be the Lord, and the second son would be clergy, and the third would purchase a commission as a military officer. The clergy was given "his Living" which included the parsonage, which was technically owned by the Lord of the Parish. The lord's Income was derived by rents, seeing how he technically owned the entire parish and the residents were all renters. There was a second sort of tax on the people who lived in the parish, to support the clergy, who of course was directly related to the Lord, so a nice closed system, if you are the Upper Class. Everyone else are insignificant and not worth mention.

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



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

These ideas are in no way uncommon or a personal version.
OK, fine.
Tell me who these people are.

Read the book by Smith and you may be convinced to stop using mlk in your posts.
edit on 2-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Exactly.

When the clergy explains to the people that either you tithe, support your church, and do exactly as I say, or you burn in hell, to lay people this is a rather large incentive to do the above.

A closed system.

As stated, I'm not an atheist, but I DO have an issue listening to people who tell me that I need to pay them 10% of everything I make in order to stay out of hell.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Yea I dont jerk the knee so much anymore when someone calls some else a cult. So just love to toss that around for any number of reasons.

I was a baptist and knew a guy my age as a young teen ager. He was adventist. We sat down one day and compared notes on denominational positions. In the main we had no disagreemet.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by matadoor
 
The thing about the tithe is that it has a curse attached to it. And I dont care what anyone says thats out of line with the New Teasament. You cant call yourself free in Christ and worry about trying to duck the tithe curse. It shouldnt be a reason for giving anymore. There are other reasons.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


When I was a kid, we attended every Sunday at Pittsburgh "First Presbyterian Church", and the minister would remind everyone, that they needed to tithe to make sure their ticket to heaven was ready for them.

As I grew older, I started to ask questions about that and was chastised (by him) for even questioning him.

Sorry, I'm allowed to ask questions and expect accurate answers...



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Isn't the simplest answer usually the best..
I mean isn't it just as likely that three day later they went back to the cave and found it open and he was gone.
What if they simply forgot which cave it was? That first day when he was entombed they were sad and grief stricken. Three days later they were still morose maybe they just went to the wrong cave. and seeing it open with no body figured he got up and walked away.
Or maybe some thief with the help of his thieving friends moved the rock and stole the body. He was a leader of a big cult maybe they were searching for treasure. They found nothing so out of spite moved the body..So when they got to the cave found the body missing they made up and eleborate story or even a simple one." We got there the stone was moved and he was gone.. Next person " they got there and the door was opened, they found nothing of his body.. And so on down the road til it became." They got there and upon seeing the Stone block they new the angels had come for him." You can see the line of thought until they wrote it down. Sounds much better when you say lightning dressed angel with silken hair did indeed remove the giant cave rock and breathed life back into him.

Ever went fishing caught a fish. I used to catch trout by hand fishing. Was self taught. Reach down tickle a belly pull out fish. Not as hard as you think. A month later according to my dad I had caught a dozen. A year later I had three dozen as long as my arm waiting for him to clean. I had actualy only caught 3 and they weren't much bigger then 12 inches. But that just isn't as interesting as me being Half cherokee and channeling my indian ancestors inorder to catch three foot fish saving my whole family from starvation. Leaving out the fact we had a camper stocked with food and I was just bored and decided to see if I could do it. It all sounds pretty cool.


Jesus the ultimate Fish that got away story
Therian



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

Rather than teaching preexistent Christ to the Hellenist, he learned preexistent Christ from them.
There seems to be a competition between preexisting Christs.
I've been looking at some books over the last few days on the "son of man" debate.
One candidate is from 4 Ezra and the Enoch parables.
Those seem to me to have arisen as the counter to real Christianity to subvert it with their own version as Enoch being this prototypical son of man. Right at the moment, this view (accepting those pseudonymous books as the source for the Christ) has lost favor with the academics but is gaining ground among the unschooled masses. The up to date idea being that Jesus was just using an idiomatic Aramaic saying as a way commonly used to identify themselves in a round about way. This is probably too ordinary for the inflamed imaginations of the messiah seekers so it looks like another uphill battle. Flee with all possible speed the supporters of Enoch. That is the divine judge to hand people over to be dealt with by the "punishing angels".
I think Paul was running away from that and towards what was as close as he could find to the opposite.
Right now I am reading a PDF of a doctoral dissertation,
WHAT IS THE SON OF MAN IN JOHN:
THE SON OF MAN LOGIA IN JOHN AND IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IN THE LIGHT OF
SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM TRADITIONS
by Jay Harold Ellens
deepblue
"More precisely, I shall attempt to describe the transformation of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John from heavenly eschatological judge, as he is in the Synoptic Gospels, to divine savior, which seems to be the intended outcome in John."
Well, Hurrah for that!
edit on 2-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus was anointed by the prophet


From whence did this prophet get the power to annoint?


who declared the end to Judaism, the Law, and the Prophets



Oh really?

--Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.--

So how do you explain that?



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

From whence did this prophet get the power to annoint?
Oh really?
--Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.--
So how do you explain that?

There is a God who is above all other gods and this God of which I speak anointed Jesus, while John the Baptist acted mainly as the witness.
The holy scriptures were made for various reasons but God through His power was able, through various prophets, to put enough valid information in those scripture where people could discern through them that this was in fact a person who had a major role to play in the salvation of mankind, and was the Son of God even though from all outward appearances was a person like any other person.
Once this person came and fulfilled his mission, then those scriptures are mere artifacts which documented a past event and no longer serve any other purpose.
edit on 2-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Therian


I had actualy only caught 3 and they weren't much bigger then 12 inches. But that just isn't as interesting as me being Half cherokee and channeling my indian ancestors inorder to catch three foot fish saving my whole family from starvation. Leaving out the fact we had a camper stocked with food and I was just bored and decided to see if I could do it. It all sounds pretty cool.

Jesus the ultimate Fish that got away story

That deserves a Jesus joke!
---------------------------------------------------
Jesus visited a church one day, to discover what these people did in these meetings. The preacher got up and was saying, "And Jesus said..." "Then Jesus did ..." "And yet Jesus is still going to ..."

And Jesus was sometimes impressed with the wisdom of this Jesus; and sometimes shocked at the obviously superstitious Jesus; and outright outraged at the callous and cruel Jesus.

Some of these things sounded vaguely familiar to him. When it finally dawned on him that the preacher thought he was talking about him, Jesus quietly slipped away again.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think that the simplest explanation is that we don't know the man, or very much about him.

If we met him and found him ignorant, would we still treat him well? If superstitious? Deluded? Would we still be interested in helping him out? Even if the only help we can come up with is to disagree with him occasionally?

The problem is, how to redeem him, when we don't really know where he is.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
On that dissertation by Jay Harold Ellens, he concludes that John was written as counter to the Enoch (which was written after Jesus, probably) style vengeful murderous Judge that the son of man is "exalted" to.
That is all well and good, as far as i am concerned, but it makes me feel ill in that the author seems disappointed and that the purity of the "original" version is tainted.
In the John version, Jesus comes down from heaven and that is apocalyptic in that this very coming down is part of the judgement, then he goes back to Heaven and does not kill everyone, or whatever.
Ellens seems to prefer this very ordinary man who is exalted to this high position and gets caught up in the spirit of the eschatological situation and destroys without restraint, which is his take on the synoptic versions.
Which one do you like, or which one do you think is original and "pure"?
There is a war and if you (not meaning anyone in particular) are so foolish as to think the Bible is exempt from it, you will go down hard.
I stand by what I wrote earlier: First came Paul, then came Acts and the synoptics to counter Paul, then came John to counter the synoptics.
The real Christianity is not the warrior god who is no different than the one Jesus died to free us from.

edit on 3-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Nice. Can you imagine meeting him. What was he 37 years old before he found out he was Gods son. Guess before that he was just an average man with average talents wanting an average life..

Suppose you might have already met him and never knew it. I mean if he came back and didn't even know himself yet. He could have been some bum on the street. They say he was average looking and didn't have much flare..

I like your story its sounds about right. Jesus walking around listening to all these religious fanatics. He prolly ignores knocks at the door when the mormons come round preaching the word. Yep Just like the rest of us. Reminds me of the show with Jay and Silent Bob about the Lady who was Jesus's descendant and worked at an abortion clinic. Found out who she had god blood and was like I don't even Like Church..

Therian



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So even though Yeshua said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them," you still believe He abolished the Law and the Prophets.

That is logical.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


This is the problem man tries to make God into what they want instead of just reading his letter to you , the BIBLE. It is all in there if you take the time to rightly divide the word and yes in many instances you have to go back to the original language because of misinterpretation. You all just keep on molding into what fits your train of thought and drive yourselves into further delusion.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So even though Yeshua said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them," you still believe He abolished the Law and the Prophets.

That is logical.
I have no idea who you are talking about.
I was talking about Jesus.
If you want to talk about whoever that other person is, I am sure you can find some like-minded people on this forum to discuss your alternate cosmology.
I said earlier I am a Christian and our Bible is a book called the New Testament.
You might want to try picking that up some time and learn about Jesus.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join