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.

 

Are you fooling yourself ?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


Wow that stuff all matters. Pagan influence can be seen everywhere in the world on the moon in Nasa.Debunk that. Doesn't mean a damn thing compared to Christ marking time.

Cogito
Salutations
I'm real good. Thanks for asking. How about yourself?



Well that's it, you've just won me. I'm off to Church!!!


Why? I mean, why would you go to church ? Or even think there is something funny there ? I might understand you going there and laughing at everyone. Hey there's an idea, do that if you want to show some real cahounnies. Have someone go with and record it. Then post it so I can laugh with you. At least we would both know what was funny.
Like I just said, horses to water don't have to drink. What you do with the rope you've been given is up to you. But free will may not be the best thing for some or most likely many. You will reap what you sow in the end my friend. That isn't a threat either. It's just what I know.

edit on 4-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Well that's it, you've just won me. I'm off to Church!!!


Way to go Randy....That's one for the good guys.


Praise Jesus

edit on 4-10-2011 by whyamIhere because: icon repair



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   



Cogito
Salutations
I'm real good. Thanks for asking. How about yourself?



Well that's it, you've just won me. I'm off to Church!!!


Why? I mean, why would you go to church ? Or even think there is something funny there ? I might understand you going there and laughing at everyone. Hey there's an idea, do that if you want to show some real cahounnies. Have someone go with and record it. Then post it so I can laugh with you. At least we would both know what was funny.
Like I just said, horses to water don't have to drink. What you do with the rope you've been given is up to you. But free will may not be the best thing for some or most likely many. You will reap what you sow in the my friend. That isn't a threat either. It's just what I know.


Good thanks Randy.

If you read the quote I was responding to and ponder on it, you might understand. Some might have savaged it (deservedly), I chose to respond to it with friendly banter. The assumptions you put forward as facts are really quite different from the truth of things. I found some humour in the fact that someone would start a thread, in the hope of following it up with friendly and intelligent discourse, with what is basically an insult. Though I took no offence and still don't. I doubt you will know for how long or to what extent I have searched for the truth in this and other areas. Not all who have a different view will do so out of weakness and ignorance. Some will have a view that is hard won.

Neither do I take your chosen subject with the austere reverence that you do, obviously. So please don't make things personal with philosophical type threatening "promises". I take them as seriously as if you threatened me with voodoo, well less seriously actually, I don't know enough about voodoo to shrug it off. I find them at odds with the whole premise of Christianity. I know you are more intelligent than that (genuinely, from experience).

If it needs walking on egg shells due to the sensibilities of believers, if you are going to take things personally, fair enough. I obviously share no part in your beliefs, I won't let such a thing lessen my opinion of you and wish you the best. Would you prefer I leave your posts without response in future, so that I can bask in my incorrigable weakness and ignorance in a way that won't cause offence?



Originally posted by whyamIhere

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Well that's it, you've just won me. I'm off to Church!!!


Way to go Randy....That's one for the good guys.


Praise Jesus

edit on 4-10-2011 by whyamIhere because: icon repair




Thanks whyamIhere. There can be something in the ability to be light hearted that I often appreciate and find worthwhile. Possibly closer to the divine than all of the religious beliefs and rules/ prohibitions that were ever invented.



edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Most historians, if not all serious scholastic historians will grant the fact that a man named Jesus walked of which the Christian faith is based off of.

Now the thing that makes this man different from any other is the resurrection. The historical documentation of this reality is something that is scrutinized by people who are believers and non-believers. One man who has done some serious inquiry on the issue is Dr. Gary Habermas.

www.garyhabermas.com...

he has documented since 1976 all major and minor scholars on the topic and has shown that most historians will grant certain historical facts such as an empty tomb, and followers of this man named Jesus believing that they saw a risen Christ. Now these things alone do not PROVE his deity. However, they are compelling nonetheless.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by randyvs
 


Most historians, if not all serious scholastic historians will grant the fact that a man named Jesus walked of which the Christian faith is based off of.

Now the thing that makes this man different from any other is the resurrection. The historical documentation of this reality is something that is scrutinized by people who are believers and non-believers. One man who has done some serious inquiry on the issue is Dr. Gary Habermas.

www.garyhabermas.com...

he has documented since 1976 all major and minor scholars on the topic and has shown that most historians will grant certain historical facts such as an empty tomb, and followers of this man named Jesus believing that they saw a risen Christ. Now these things alone do not PROVE his deity. However, they are compelling nonetheless.



I wonder how many serious non religious historians and scholars will grant the fact that Jesus walked the earth (particularly in the way the Gospels portray)? I don't see too many non Christians wishing to specialise in this area. This area of Acedemia has historically been another arm of the Church and Clergy, which have a long history of confirmation bias and interpolation/forgery. IMO the terms like "Biblical" and "Scholar" etc.when used in the one phrase present quite a contradiction. It isn't possible to claim to be a critical thinker while at the same time have a predetermined belief, which they set out to justify under the guise of having letters after their names to add legitimacy. The over riding factor that the myth is taken as a truth to begin with, no doubt guides many of them.

None of the paranormal events can even be taken seriously to begin with due to known facts of medicine, physics and biology. Let alone the fact that these claims amount to many decades old "Chinese Whispers" of uneducated and superstitions 1st century Palestinian peasants. What of other myths? Should we take them as seriously?

Does anyone have anything that would conclusively and definitively date the Gospels at the time claimed by these Academics?



edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Thanks whyamIhere. There can be something in the ability to be light hearted that I often appreciate and find worthwhile. Possibly closer to the divine than all of the religious beliefs and rules/ prohibitions that were ever invented.


This is by far, the first thing I want to address on this page. What a bitchen thing to say. A thousand points of light for you Cog.



If you read the quote I was responding to and ponder on it, you might understand. Some might have savaged it (deservedly), I chose to respond to it with friendly banter. The assumptions you put forward as facts are really quite different from the truth of things. I found some humour in the fact that someone would start a thread, in the hope of following it up with friendly and intelligent discourse, with what is basically an insult. Though I took no offence and still don't. I doubt you will know for how long or to what extent I have searched for the truth in this and other areas. Not all who have a different view will do so out of weakness and ignorance. Some will have a view that is hard won.


Now for this mess. I say mess only because you insist on me threatening you even after I said I wasn't. I know,
there are for the most part, people here who say stuff like that and are doing, just what they say they aren't. Please scratch me from that list. Threatening you with anything in my mind would be assinine IMO. If I ever did ?
There would be no lying about it.
Please try to know me as better than that at least. I choose as you have done not to be insulted OK.
Your posts don't bother me and I rarely give salutations to anyone save those I recognise. You aren't disliked in any way Cog. Not by me.

Now if what you are refering to as a threat. Is what I said about reaping what you sow ? If you will please go back on page 1. Read the response I gave Facelift. That should be proof for you that I mean what I say. Also I don't use the term friend loosely either. Still not offended. Just understanding where you re coming from.
Let me know you read Facelifts response please?
edit on 4-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


well again, to respond to your criticisms, these claims don't outright conclude that Jesus was God or anything like that. But the "Jesus never existed" concept was not around until the 18th century. Prior to this point, historians said things like, "his miracles were parlor tricks" etc. They never denied his existence.

And to address your point, the scholars who are part of the documentation of Dr. Gary Habermas are a mix of believers and non believers. So it's not simply the bias Christians trying to get everything to fit. Furthermore, he only documents accredited scholars, no amateurs.

I think to deny his existence would mean you would have to deny several other 1st century people. Plus you have to remember that there are more copies of the New Testament than any other ancient scribe ever in history. I mean literally several thousands of them. So to show it was changed etc would be very easy to do. i believe the closest scroll to the time of Jesus is dated within 30 years after his alleged resurrection. not to mention if you pull the writings of early church fathers (pre Constantine-3rd century) one can piece together the contents of what is now known as the New Testament to like 99%. That's quite remarkable if you ask me.

Lastly, I think most people deny the bible as a historical document simply because of the "religious" stigma attached to it. But if you take that away and look at them objectively without any bias, it is the most well preserved historical document in known human history.

Again, it doesn't mean it's all true and it certainly does not prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was God in the flesh. But you certainly cannot say it's simple mythology.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 


Sorry for being slow to respond Sun. Your posts are appreciated. Sort of keeping the wolves at bay for my slow ass. Kudos to you. Helps me big time. I'll be looking at that link you gave.So a formal

Thank you FaceLikeTheSun.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

The Case For Christ 1/7

I also believe the Sun was made to form that cross, when our school was created, and the Light Endless and Everlasting flows through that mirror, that diamond, for stars are cyrstalline, their plasma, and we're in a hologram.

www.zmescience.com...

Candle flames contain millions of nano diamonds.

tf.nist.gov...


At very
high densities, the large predicted negative and positive PoissonÕs ratios might
be important for understanding the asteroseismology of neutron stars and
white dwarfs and the effect of stellar stresses on nuclear reaction rates. Giant
PoissonÕs ratios are both predicted and observed for highly strained coulombic
photonic crystals, suggesting possible applications of large, tunable PoissonÕs
ratios for photonic crystal devices.
Rubber bands, Jell-O, and soft biological tissues
share an important and unusual property
with ultradense crystals in neutron stars and
white dwarfs (1–3), vacuumlike ion crystals in
electromagnetic traps (4–6), and crystallized
colloids (7–16). ...


That Christ came more than once, and that he came off planet, as the whole concept of the Christ is Universal.

That He is His Higher Self, and Infinite Progressed Self, and was Superman in the System and showed us the way home.

And it wouldn't matter one bit if he turned out to be both metaphor and real, for he is still way home. That is walking in the Spirit of Christ. Kindness, Service, Love, Gentleness, Non retaliation, Forgiveness, Renouncing the World, seeing through all the distortions and laws, and universal laws, and karma, and the corruption running things, Feeding the Poor, Sharing out of meager belongings, Going the Extra Mile. Giving your all.

And if Karma and their gnostic universal laws and entrapmetns were true, they could never have put an innocent man to death. He freed us by entering out thoughtscape and our minds.

Love is the Way.

That last December He gave me quite the sign in the moon eclipse a foreshadowing of the seventh and the Lamb that broke this seal, and he gave it to one who only believes in Love and Everyone being healed and a perfect ending to the play. So the message seemed to be, what eye do you interpret with, what eye do you see with? Let it be Love and Kindness and See Goodness not destruction, armeggedon. Work for Peace. And that starts in bringing forth only goodness inside in all situations and striving to do so. Goodness is not righteousness, it does not demand respect, it does not have to be right, it serves others and finds ways to lift the heart of the one angry, or hurt, it does not force of judge.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 



Fair enough FaceLikeTheSun, thanks for your explanation. Seems like a reasonable and well thought out assessment, even if there are parts I might not agree with.

The contention I have is not so much that a certain person could not have existed in the 1st century. This we might never know one way or the other. We can only look at the scant information we do have and come to our own opinion, while realising the truth could be different to that opinion.

In the way portrayed in the Gospels however, I give no chance. This opinion would be consistent with what we know in areas like medicine, physics etc to back it up. So it is not without some weight behind it, while the stories themselves have virtually nothing to give them genuine credence. Not to mention the part cultural mythology has played in humanity's history and particularly in view of a modern understanding of cult formation, methods and psychology. History itself, experience and our present knowledge indicates overwhelmingly that this story would be exaggerated nonsense at best IMO. Though I can understand a belief through faith, even if I personally disagree with it.



edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Yes I reread the reply you gave to facelift Randy.

Though I cannot confess to being a similar atheist. That would require me to claim far more knowledge than I have. Though I understand this point of view.

At any rate, a simple misunderstanding. It happens. I accept that what you told me wasn't intended to be threatening and I misunderstood the intention behind it. All's well that ends well.




edit on 4-10-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by randyvs
 

Most historians, if not all serious scholastic historians will grant the fact that a man named Jesus walked of which the Christian faith is based off of.

No.
Serious scholastic historians know what a historically accurate reference is.
They also know the requirements to speak of something as a fact.


Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by randyvs
 

Now the thing that makes this man different from any other is the resurrection. The historical documentation of this reality is something that is scrutinized by people who are believers and non-believers.


There is no historical accurate documentation of Jesus Christs resurrection to scrutinize.
What we do have is historical documentation about Christians (the people who believe in Jesus Christ).
In fact thats the only historical value the new testament really holds... it gives testimony about the Christian believe system.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want to.
You can believe something to be true (even if its not)... but you cant state that therefore it is factually true.
edit on 5-10-2011 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by InshaAllah

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
Ok, I will play. I do not believe that the person described in the Bible ever existed. Please tell me who you are talking about and what was his real name? Since you bring up the calendar and it is so important, what day was he born and what year? If you did not have a book that you were told to believe, on pain of eternal punishment (brain washing), why would it be important?



its not important but im playing too. LOL

he was born August 21, 7 B.C

OK, I will play and pretend to be mr Trump?? Where is the birth certificate?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


I appreciate your ability to discuss this important subject with dignity.

We can talk about Jesus without calling each other names.

We can respect each others opinions.

It's also nice to see we can even occasionally laugh at ourselves.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Ample proof for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.
Let me suggest a 4 part test for determining the credibility of witnesses. It is based on David Hume's criteria.
1) Do the witnesses contradict each other?
2) Are there a sufficient number of witnesses?
3) Were the witnesses truthful?
4) Were they non-prejudicial?
Part #1. The answer to this question is the witnesses do not contradict each other. The Christian, Roman, and Jewish witnesses all agree that Jesus was crucified.
Part #2. There is indeed a sufficient number of witnesses. Several witnesses from Christian sources, and two witnesses from Roman and Jewish sources have been presented. There are actually more witnesses that could be mentioned, but this is enough.
Part #3. The witnesses were truthful. There is no documented evidence contradicting what the witnesses presented. All of the early sources that mention Jesus' death, all state that He was crucified.
Part #4. A case could be made for the Christian sources being prejudicial; however, they were Christians because they witnessed Christ's death AND CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. The Jewish and Roman witnesses were clearly not prejudicial.


Let me briefly answer your four questions on the crucifixion.

First of all you have no eyewitness accounts to the crucifixion. No credible biblical scholar will state that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The gospels were written in the 2nd century, admittedly, with maybe the exception of John. John is given a date of 90 AD and is said not to have been written by him. You have no authentic Roman or Jewish eyewitness accounts. Even later accounts (Tacitus, Josephus) are considered forgeries by biblical scholars.

1) Do the witnesses contradict each other?

Your hearsay testimony from the gospels does contradict itself. We have wild stories that say the sky darkened and the dead rose out of their graves to accounts with none of these occurrences. We also have the original Greek accounts of Jesus Barabbas being released instead of Jesus. The name was shortened to just Barabbas. This means Jesus son of the father was released instead of another Jesus.

2) Are there a sufficient number of witnesses?

Again, you have no eyewitness accounts.

3) Were the witnesses truthful?

Your second hand testimony can not possibly be true. It relates customs and histories of the Jews and Romans that were not accurate. It tells of fantastic events that were not recorded by the historians or any one else of that time. Such as the dead arising from their graves.

4) Were they non-prejudicial?

Obviously the accounts are prejudicial. You have no contemporary, historical, or eyewitness accounts. The gospels and other accepted biblical works all differ and were written by followers of Jesus much later in time with no eyewitness writings. You have no authentic historical account written by a non follower.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 





Let me briefly answer your four questions on the crucifixion.

First of all you have no eyewitness accounts to the crucifixion. No credible biblical scholar will state that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The gospels were written in the 2nd century, admittedly, with maybe the exception of John. John is given a date of 90 AD and is said not to have been written by him. You have no authentic Roman or Jewish eyewitness accounts. Even later accounts (Tacitus, Josephus) are considered forgeries by biblical scholars.

1) Do the witnesses contradict each other?

Your hearsay testimony from the gospels does contradict itself. We have wild stories that say the sky darkened and the dead rose out of their graves to accounts with none of these occurrences. We also have the original Greek accounts of Jesus Barabbas being released instead of Jesus. The name was shortened to just Barabbas. This means Jesus son of the father was released instead of another Jesus.

2) Are there a sufficient number of witnesses?

Again, you have no eyewitness accounts.

3) Were the witnesses truthful?

Your second hand testimony can not possibly be true. It relates customs and histories of the Jews and Romans that were not accurate. It tells of fantastic events that were not recorded by the historians or any one else of that time. Such as the dead arising from their graves.

4) Were they non-prejudicial?

Obviously the accounts are prejudicial. You have no contemporary, historical, or eyewitness accounts. The gospels and other accepted biblical works all differ and were written by followers of Jesus much later in time with no eyewitness writings. You have no authentic historical account written by a non follower.


Very good Bill. You get a cookie. I agree on all points.
Now here's a few more questions for ya. If you don't mind ?

What if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses ? What if there were eyewitness accounts of the resurrection ?

What if it were possible that the dead were raised from their graves ?

What if these witnesses were found not to be prejudice ?

What if you were there Bill, and saw Jesus beaten and crucified for yourself ? What if you were one of his disciples ? Would you be running around after this amazing person, whom more than half the planet believes in
over 2000 years later ? Would you still be part of the 12 if he didn't exist ? Would you still not believe today Bill ?


What would the world be like if all this were true ?

Rom: 1:16 -17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes : first to the jew, then to the gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God :is revealed : a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written : " The righteous will live by faith."


edit on 5-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Very good Bill. You get a cookie. I agree on all points.
Now here's a few more questions for ya. If you don't mind ?

What if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses ? What if there were eyewitness accounts of the resurrection ?

What if it were possible that the dead were raised from their graves ?

What if these witnesses were found not to be prejudice ?

What if you were there Bill, and saw Jesus beaten and crucified for yourself ? What if you were one of his disciples ? Would you be running around after this amazing person, whom more than half the planet believes in
over 2000 years later ? Would you still be part of the 12 if he didn't exist ? Would you still not believe today Bill ?


What would the world be like if all this were true ?



This is a very strange post because you admit that I am correct and you are not. You now want me to pretend that I am an eyewitness to events that didn't happen. OK

If I were a witness and apostle, I would be able to tell you where the truth ends and the lies begin. I would be able to tell you which version has truth in it when there are contradictions. If I were a witness to a teacher of mine who was brutally beaten and killed, I would feel anguish and sorrow for him and his family. Lets even say this person revived before he was buried or burned. It wouldn't be the first time. Many people every day are brutally beaten and killed. Many people are revived every day after dying. Nothing new is going on.

Would I worship this person? Would this person be a god to me? Would this person even be my master? Not a chance. I have no masters. The best I can hope for is to master myself. Can anyone save me? Not at all. There is nothing to be saved from. My own faults and weaknesses have to be fixed by me. No god will do it for me. What about original sin? Another idea that you were taught to believe in. No such thing.

If the Bible were true, then we would not be having these discussions because scripture says the end time prophecies would have already happened.
edit on 5-10-2011 by BillfromCovina because: added sentence

edit on 5-10-2011 by BillfromCovina because: puntuation



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

This guy is so far off the mark, especially regarding the Lovecraft references in the Coon & Friends series of episodes, that it's not even funny. "Hey! Look! R'lyeh is Hell! Or Atlantis! Or maybe it's... Sheboygan!!!" I'm sure that, when pressed, the author of that website would be able to synthesize some kind of tenuous link for why Atlantis and Hell are synonymous. I believe that what nefariousness he's suggesting he sees in episodes of South Park says far more about his psyche than that of the people who create that cartoon.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

If you really think that part of South Park's agenda is to make people believe that Jesus never existed, then you should go watch the trilogy of episodes that take place in Imaginationland with a critical eye. I think you'd be surprised with how they treat the reality of his existence.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

There may have been a real person that the figure in the Bible is based on, but I don't believe that he literally turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick, etc. I think all of those things were added later as window dressing to make it easier to sell to the masses so a bunch of elites could ride his corpse into a life of power and privilege.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join