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 author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



How about we get these same doctors to attest as to how it was, scientifically, that Jonah DIDN"T die after 3 days in the belly of the whale.


Jonah did die, he drown. The whale only preserved his body. He was called back to life again like Lazarus was.





edit on 11-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



Christians have proof. The Shroud. It was tested again recently
and their findings, Science has not come up with the UV "light" needed to make the marks on the Shroud and this was 2000 years ago.

And, the shroud had blood all over it....
which would not have happened if he had been DEAD. Only a living thing bleeds.

A dead thing does not.

He. Was. Alive.
The Essenes treated his injuries, wrapped him up, and lit some incense that was a restorative mixture.

Yeah, you have proof that he SURVIVED.

And that has nothing to do with the paganism that is the basis for modern Roman Catholic practice.
You really have no idea, colbe, how far back this all goes. You don't.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Jonah did die, he drown. The whale only preserved his body. He was called back to life again like Lazarus was.


Oh, like Jesus was! So now we have 3 biblical characters that were "resurrected" after being dead? This debate just keeps getting sillier and sillier.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



There is nothing new wild, why don't you trust me when I say that?

Because 1800 years ago the Nag Hammadi texts were still hidden.

The Dead Sea scrolls as well.

Notovitch had not gone to the monastery and been allowed to look at the texts (he was lucky he was allowed to at all).

And there are new scientific methods of discovery, new archaeological finds, new linguistic discoveries.

There was no internet, and people in power could and certainly did easily suppress information.

I don't "trust" you when you say that, my friend, because it's simply false. There are scores of "new, improved" methods of looking into things, new discoveries....every day. More information, less intolerance.

You still haven't answered my other questions.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I may be wrong, but I believe that NTT was not saying that there is nothing new in the understanding of history, but that there is nothing new to these arguments.


Eric



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I may be wrong, but I believe that NTT was not saying that there is nothing new in the understanding of history, but that there is nothing new to these arguments.


Eric

I understand it's an ages-old "argument." The "new" part of it is the evidence and the more advanced science that can make sense of things that seemed impossibly "supernatural" before.

My question to NuT is what would it take to convince him that his beliefs are mistaken, and why would he choose not to keep up with new findings and hard evidence that the old "argument" is valid.

So, to him, colbe (the OP), and all other Christian "truthers",

Would you not be happy to know that Jesus DID survive?
It doesn't have to destroy your faith in who he was....he was still the best of men, a great teacher, and gave us all the same message: You are all gods. Everyone has a spark of the Divine. You are born with it. You are here to learn to master its use, to be aware of its immortality.

Every one of us, not only those who speak certain prayers, kneel in certain places at specific times, listen to archaic translations of ancient, dead languages, and use tools like beads and crosses. Not just the Israelites (in fact, new evidence shows that the Israelites did not come in and slaughter the Canaanites wholesale...but instead they WERE Canaanites.)

Archaeological digs in that place are turning up ruins and remains indicating that the "conquest" was not a blood-bath, but a smooth transition of a naturally evolving social culture.

Underwater ruins are discovered with frequency, much of it actually explaining the stories in parts of the Bible that at one time seemed preposterous.

Nothing "new"? Nah. Sorry. There's always something "NEW" to learn, to discover, to explore. I think NuT is being stubborn and a bit lazy in refusing to even consider new thoughts or theories or discoveries.

And honestly, maybe he just doesn't care about how others think, nor has the inquisitive kind of mind that wants to be continually stimulated and stretched.

Right, NuT? Wrong?
You say you're getting bored with it....I'm not surprised; I'd be bored, too, if nothing "new" were to come to mind. Maybe it's just a character difference. Some people's thirst to learn more is never quenched; others get to a certain comfortable point and think they've learned all there is worth knowing. They are satisfied with their limited knowledge.

I'm one of the life-long-learner types. And when I "finish" with one subject to my satisfaction or lose interest in it, I move on to something else. Many topics I come back to after a few years of focusing on other things (like religion), and every time I revisit those subjects or topics, I see things I missed the first time around.

Also, I often come across things in my self-paced studies that spark a new idea in another favorite topic, which adds a new layer to my world-view, insight, and depth of understanding.

I just don't think anyone ever knows everything about this type of subject, but there are certainly experts and new voices ALWAYS coming up with fresh strategies. It's part of human nature. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know everything, and never could, not in one lifetime anyway.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Robert Wright, in his book The Evolution of God, makes a point on page 102 (of the hardback Little Brown published in 2009) that is worth bringing up...

(the entire book is a jewel, I highly recommend it to ANYONE, of ANY FAITH, studying the origins and evolution of "religion")

This point refers to reading the Bible. I might start a complete new thread on it, but am putting it here as it's on topic anyway (in terms of people/authors changing their minds)....

The story of how the Abrahamic God developed, how his character changed over the millenia, is supposedly described in the Bible.

There's a problem, however, if you want to watch this story unfold. You can't just start reading the first chapter of Genesis and plow forward, waiting for God to grow. The first chapter of Genesis was almost certainly written later than the second chapter of Genesis, by a different author
(^^ that last statement in the footnotes refers to a Friedman)

The Hebrew Bible took shape slowly, over many centuries, and the order in which it is written is not the order in which it now appears. Fortunately, biblical scholarship can in some cases give us a pretty good idea of which texts followed which. The knowledge of the order of composition is a kind of "decoder" that allows us to see a pattern in God's growth that would otherwise be hidden.


Anyone studying these things seriously has to change their mind when they discover clear contradictions to what they believed prior to its discovery. And again when they come across something else later...it's a curve, by its very nature. One is never completely "finished" (except hypothetically Jesus who didn't have any trouble "getting it", and also, according to Jesus, John the Baptist).

I'll start a thread on it later....for now I'm going to finish reading it and then consider how to bring it up. Meanwhile, here's a link to order it via internet, including reviews of it and more information on the chapters, etc...
Robert Wright The Evolution of God
and a blurb at the bottom of the page "Buy the Book" (which gives various other places to buy it online):

Wright shows that, however mistaken our traditional ideas about God or gods, their evolution points to a transcendent prospect: that the religious quest is valid, and that a modern, scientific worldview leaves room for something that can meaningfully be called divine.
Vast in ambition and brilliant in execution, The Evolution of God will forever alter our understanding of God and where He came from—and where He and we are going next.




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Again, I can't speak for someone else, but...

I remember reading earlier in this thread (and I'm too lazy to go back and check, especially as I'm sitting at Panera Bread and not at home) that NTT said that he/she has engaged in similar debates dozens of times in the past 10 years or so.

If that is the case, I would be surprised if he/she isn't current on the most recent developments or discoveries. I don't believe that it signifies intellectual stagnancy to be bored with a debate that you've engaged in 24 or more times in the past decade.

I'm not sure why you keep pushing the issue (with not so veiled insults) when it's clear that he/she isn't interested.

Eric



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I may be wrong, but I believe that NTT was not saying that there is nothing new in the understanding of history, but that there is nothing new to these arguments.


Eric


Yes, it AGES old. It's called the "swoon hypothesis/theory". But they're futile attempts. Jesus was dead. The spear in the chest cavity settled the matter completely, and the emergence of water and blood is what one would expect to find from a person who had both a pericardial effusion as well as a pleural effusion from his hypovolemic shock.

And my "trump" card, which I haven't even played yet, is according to the early church father Origen in his commentary on the book of Matthew stated "according to Roman custom, below the armpit." Roman custom? Yes, Roman custom. Quintilian, a 1st-century author, wrote that a victim's relatives were permitted to take down the body and bury it if the victim was first pierced by the executioners. Crucified people were generally left on the cross to be consumed by the animals and rot in public as a testimony to the authority of Rome.

The only way they would remove a corpse was if the family requested from the government the body fr burial and approved the soldier would only let the body down from the cross if a spear was thrust into the side to ensure death. The spear in the side wasn't some afterthought by a Roman soldier, it was protocol from Rome for allowing friends and family to remove a body from a Roman cross.

The soldiers broke the legs of the thieves so they would die, Jesus was already dead. Which makes sense, the man was beaten to a pulp before even being nailed to a cross. People who come up with these swoon hypothesis theories do so because they cannot explain away the resurrection. So they must back it up and explain away the death by crucifixion.

There is nothing new with these arguments, and if you take into account the historical record of the most documented death in antiquity it's completely and utterly humanly impossible. That's why virtually no doctors, scholars or historians believe it, only others with other motives and backgrounds of training.

Based on the details we have it's impossible Christ survived the cross.


edit on 11-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 



If that is the case, I would be surprised if he/she isn't current on the most recent developments or discoveries.


It's not about that at all. Based upon the information we currently have from the gospel accounts it's humanly impossible for Christ to have survived the crucifixion. The spear in the side and the clear liquid and blood that gushed out is the final nail in that coffin. Scholars and historians throughout history have laughed off the swoon theory as absurd. And even atheist and agnostic ones as i've previously pointed out. They are what is called "hostile attestation" sources. That's very strong evidence for a fact of history to be true, when competing sides do not deny it happened.

The swoon theory is impossible.


edit on 11-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I still wouldn't say it was "impossible" for him to have survived...

People have been documented as being "clinically dead" for long periods of time... and then just comming back out of no where. It happens a lot actually...

www.dailymail.co.uk...




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



I still wouldn't say it was "impossible" for him to have survived...


That's the doctors and scholars and historians that say this. "Indisputable fact" was the exact wording of an atheist historian. The spear into the chest cavity is the nail in that coffin. It was protocol from Rome for removing a dead body to give to the family for burial. They knew Christ was already dead, they didn't bother with the effort to break His legs. And one cannot fake not being able to breathe air, well for more than a minute or two. But Christ was in critical condition after the scourging, let alone the heart attack, the non-breathing of air for upwards of 15-20 minutes, then a spear through the side and into the heart.

He was dead, very dead.


It happens a lot actually...


Any that were scourged with a flagellum, then had a heart attack, then had a spear thrust through their ribcage and into their heart sac?

I don't think so. It's impossible.





edit on 11-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Herereply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon, read this buddy.


The following is from "Report on the Shroud of Turin" pp 2-4. Dr. Joseph Heller, the author, a former Harvard professor of Internal Medicine and Pathology, simplified some of the medical terminology in this forensic report written by Dr. Robert Bucklin, the deputy coroner and forensic pathologist of Los Angeles County, a report concurred in by Dr. Joseph Gambescia, a pathologist in Pennsylvania:

"Irrespective of how the images were made, there is adequate information here to state that they are anatomically correct. There is no problem in diagnosing what happened to this individual. The pathology and physiology are unquestionable and represent medical knowledge unknown 150 years ago.

This is a 5-foot, 11-inch male Caucasian weighing about 178 pounds. The lesions are as follows: beginning at the head, there are blood flows from numerous puncture wounds on the top and back of the scalp and forehead. The man has been beaten about the face, there is swelling over one cheek, and he undoubtedly has a black eye. His nose tip is abraded, as would occur from a fall, and it appears that the nasal cartilage may have separated from the bone. There is a wound in the left wrist, the right one being covered by the left hand. This is the typical lesion of crucifixion. The classical artistic and legendary portrayal of a crucifixion with nails through the palms of the hands is spurious [i.e., wrong]: the structures in the hand are too fragile to hold the live weight of a man, particularly of this size. Had a man been crucified with nails in the palms, they would have torn through the bones, muscles, and ligaments, and the victim would have fallen off the cross.

There is a stream of blood down both arms. Here and there, there are blood drips at an angle from the main blood flow in response to gravity. These angles represent the only ones that can occur from the only two positions which can be taken by a body during crucifixion. [A momentary 'T' position to breathe, until the pain on the feet becomes too great, and a "Y" position with bent knees, which quickly paralyzes the chest muscles from strain and pain.]

On the back and on the front there are lesions which appear to be scourge marks. Historians have indicated that Romans used a whip called a flagrum. This whip had two or three thongs, and at their ends there were pieces of metal or bone which look like small dumbbells. These were designed to gouge out flesh. The thongs and metal end-pieces from a Roman flagrum fit precisely into the anterior and posterior scourge lesions on the body. The victim was whipped from both sides by two men, one of whom was taller than the other, as demonstrated by the angle of the thongs.

There is a swelling of both shoulders, with abrasions indicating something heavy and rough had been carried across the man's shoulders within hours of death. On the right flank, a long, narrow blade of some type entered in an upward direction, pierced the diaphragm, penetrated into the thoracic cavity through the lung into the heart. This was a post-mortem event, because separate components of blood cells and clear serum drained from the lesion. Later, after the corpse was laid out horizontally and face up on the cloth, blood dribbled out of the side wound and puddled along the small of the back. There is no evidence of either leg being fractured. There is an abrasion of one knee, commensurate with a fall (as is the abraded nose tip); and, finally, a spike had been drive through both feet, and blood had leaked from both wounds onto the cloth. The evidence of a scourged man who was crucified and died from the cardiopulmonary failure typical of crucifixion is clear-cut."



Here.


edit on 11-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





"Indisputable fact"


The ONLY "indisputable" fact here is your religious bias. There is a lot that's in dispute about Jesus, including the virgin birth, his temptation, his death and certainly his resurrection, not to mention his purpose. All this is in dispute, and will be till he comes back around and explains it himself.

You can shout your truth from the hilltops all you like, it don't make it so. I, and others will continue to disagree with you.
edit on 11-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



The ONLY "indisputable" fact here is your religious bias.


That was the statements of an atheist and an agnostic, I just repeated it. They don't have a "religious bias". That's why it's called "hostile source attestation". (Attestation = agreement) I just brought it up for discussion. What is the "religious bias" of atheists or agnostics? Perhaps Secular Humanism?


You can shout your truth from the hilltops all you like, it don't make it so. I, and others will continue to disagree with you.


Dude, believe whatever you wish. No one is saying you can't. Christians will not behead you if you don't convert to Jesus. That's the other team. It's quite alright,




edit on 11-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



All this is in dispute...


Only by people who reject the resurrection and have no answer for it''s probability. SO they back up their argument to theorize a way for Jesus to have survived the cross. Doctors, based on the historical accounts in the gospels all say Jesus certainly died and tell you exactly what His cause of death was. Sources outside the Bible also say He was crucified on a cross.

He was dead, crucified, scourged, stabbed in the heart. DEAD.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword
 



All this is in dispute...


Only by people who reject the resurrection and have no answer for it''s probability. SO they back up their argument to theorize a way for Jesus to have survived the cross. Doctors, based on the historical accounts in the gospels all say Jesus certainly died and tell you exactly what His cause of death was. Sources outside the Bible also say He was crucified on a cross.

He was dead, crucified, scourged, stabbed in the heart. DEAD.


Going against your false doctrine of Sola Scriptura stating "Sources outside the Bible."

All this is "dispute" and "protest" by people who reject the authority
Christ gave His Church while hypocritically taking the RCC's book,
Holy Scripture and now calling it their authority.

Is that nuts? Yes!!!!! Prideful men. They must come home, the
Remnant is Roman Catholic.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I have tried to bring the subject of the thread back to discussion and these
two keep arguing over whether Jesus' existed, resurrected. Never a complaint from anyone about them keeping the rules.

One of my posts was "REMOVED" for being off topic and these two continue on...

It's constant here at ATS, the attack on the true faith. Let this be a major
"hint" to you all.


colbe



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Colbe,

The purpose of your OP was to discuss whether or not Christianity, specifically Catholicism, copies or mimics ancient pagan symbolism.

The virgin birth, a vision quest or temptation, a baptism, annointing or deification, death an resurrection are all repetitive themes in many ancient, pagan religions. Discussing whether these thing actually happened to Jesus or if they were just inserted or incorporated into already existing religious belief and rituals, is critical to the discussion.

I assert that the above is true. That these were imposed on the "Myth" of Jesus, in order to appease the pagan masses to convert to Catholicism.

I've made my arguments and opinions known, and unless additional information is presented, I'm done here. Thanks for all the fish!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join