the author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

reply to post by colbe

It's constant here at ATS, the attack on the true faith.

Claiming that only you hold the "true faith" would be an attack against the ATS credo.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

It's constant here at ATS, the attack on the true faith.

Claiming that only you hold the "true faith" would be an attack against the ATS credo.

edit on 11-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Are you trying to get me banned? Are you the one sending complaints?

I don't have to claim the RCC is the true faith. The RCC does and has for
2000 years. She stands alone with this proclamation because she can.

It is the truth.

Tell me jm, how is Protestantism and her thousands of divided sects the true faith? What happened between 33 A.D. and 1517?

If you deny history, people will speak up. The Remnant is Roman Catholic. Discover her, read her writings. Jesus wants us all to believe the same.


colbe

reply to post by colbe

She stands alone with this proclamation because she can.

This sounds like a description of the Woman Who Rides the Beast of Revelation.

By "protestant" do you also mean the Orthodox Church?
Your claim is a joke.

And, no, I have never complained about anyone.
For a clue, look at how my earlier post was removed.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

She stands alone with this proclamation because she can.

This sounds like a description of the Woman Who Rides the Beast of Revelation.

By "protestant" do you also mean the Orthodox Church?
Your claim is a joke.

And, no, I have never complained about anyone.
For a clue, look at how my earlier post was removed.

edit on 12-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

What!!!? Because I referred to the Church in the feminine. Absolutely silly.

Objecting again, the joke is on you, the Orthodox left the faith, Roman Catholicism. I shared, read history. If you did that, you would become Roman Catholic. But you stay with the old worn out protests. You stated one again with your "woman who rides the beast" comment.

Go read the Protestant author's words in the OP. This is why the regulars
who have read it do not reply or try to refute Woodrow's words. Take it further, for once listen to Catholicism explained and you'll toss out all your list. One on the list is removed already.

God has more for you. Do you want to base your salvation on heresy?
There hasn't been a Protestant message from Heaven in my 13 years
familiar with them that says the Remnant is non-Catholic Christianity. They all are preparing Protestants to accept the true faith.

I am glad you didn't send a complaint.


God bless you,


p.s. It's easy, it's divine, you give up juice and crackers to receive Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. You can do it.

reply to post by colbe

. . . the Orthodox left the faith, Roman Catholicism.

You have that backwards.
The Roman Catholics broke away from the Orthodox Church, and are thus schismatic and heretical.
en.wikipedia.org...
The true Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman sect of protestants.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . the Orthodox left the faith, Roman Catholicism.

You have that backwards.
The Roman Catholics broke away from the Orthodox Church, and are thus schismatic and heretical.
en.wikipedia.org...
The true Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman sect of protestants.

edit on 12-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Wikipedia, what a joke.

The Orthodox rejected the authority of the Pope and left the faith.

The Orthodox church is the Body of Eastern Schismatics that separated them selves from the Catholic Church in the year 1054, which was brought about by what is today known as the Eastern Schism.

So, you're telling me you're Orthodox not Protestant? You should understand the beauty of the Eucharist. Why do you reject the Real
Presence? Our Lord states in the messages, you remain a "spiritual
baby" without the Eucharist. Plenty of evidence of that...

If you're Protestant, Protestants, you can't pin them down. They don't
want to be specific about which denomination of 38,000 Protestant
sects they belong to, I don't know why.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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.

It is not impossible, the details we have are more and more showing it was possible (even probable).

As for "virtually no doctors, scholars or historians" believing it, that is a lie, and you know it, friend. What "motive" do those "others" (who you call "fringe loonies" so respectfully) have to deny the resurrection?

You answered Eric's question, though, in regards to your boredom with the same-o arguments; you are NOT fully up to speed with the latest research, archaeology, Biblical studies, or historians' findings which are systematically putting the Bible to question and finding answers that make sense of it (including, but not limited to, poor translation, deliberate misleading translation, omission, rearranging, and suppression).

Because you aren't interested in learning anything new.

reply to post by EricD

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

...you're going to anyway, right?

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.

You have not had an ongoing conversation with NuT, where I have, and he engages me at his own speed and pace. We aren't enemies. I am challenging his stance because it is leaking. (He did respond, anyway).
So much has been discovered in the last ten years that the Bible is barely considered as anything more than a patched-together bunch of vague and sketchy rhetoric that is revised every time a "new agenda" comes along.

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

Surprise!

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.

Eric, with all due respect, he's here because it's his hobby, and we are discussing these things with a mutual understanding of the others' pov. If he's "bored" he can choose to stop his DAILY appearance on this forum.

It's ridiculous to think that this "debate" does not evolve along with the knowledge that is put together piece by piece. To say that any topic is the same now as it was 1800 years ago is patently stubborn refusal to look at new info.

What's it to you, anyway?

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.

Are you interested in "being sure why" I keep pushing the issue? Then read the exchanges between himself and me that have been ongoing for months now. What you seem to see as "clear disinterest" is your view.

I want to know what he thinks, so I "push" the issue. As for "not so veiled insults", and "laziness"....who is it who is reprimanding me, putting words in NuT's mouth, and too lazy to go back and check where you read what you hazily remember?

What is YOUR opinion on these things? If you want to participate, fine, but do it without personally attacking me and inventing other people's motives, reasons, and knowledge base.

Thanks

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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.

So, their "agenda" is invalid...why? The resurrection must be examined using Occam's razor. You are saying that "only" those who "reject" the idea are studying it. Perhaps another way to say it is "those who are NOT studying it are only those who accept it without question.

Doctors, based on the historical accounts in the gospels all say Jesus certainly died and tell you exactly what His cause of death was.

Only Doctors who want to believe he was resurrected from absolute death.

Sources outside the Bible also say He was crucified on a cross.

There is no question about that.

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

Where do you come up with this "stabbed in the heart" theory?

The description you gave of the shroud's examination clearly shows he was ACTIVELY BLEEDING after he was wrapped in the shroud, from ALL of his wounds, NOT just the pulmonary sack, which might have leaked stored fluid from the ordeal for a very brief time. If he had been dead, his blood would have begun to pool already, leaving lividity in his lower extremities. Your "trump" card doesn't prove anything except that crucifixion was customary, and that's all.

His legs were not broken.
He would not have died within so short a time span as one afternoon.
His friends may very well have gotten permission from Pilate to have the body.
The Centurion in charge was not the one who stabbed him, and he was stabbed between the 4th and 5th ribs on the right hand side.Was his heart in his lower right lung lobe?

They were in a rush, as it was nightfall on Pentecost.
Plus, the Centurion was frightened by the fog and earthquake, and superstitious enough to believe he oughta get outa there. I'm not disputing the fog and earthquake, just the intentions of the Centurion(s).

An adept in trance and mystic bodily control can slow their heart rate to practically nothing.
The Essenes had brought along all sorts of remedies and medicines and balms with which to treat him.

There is a lengthy letter recently discovered that gives the Essenes' version of what happened...the truth....of what they did with/for Jesus after he was removed from the cross. He had lived with them and learned from them as a child, and later found safe harbor with them during his persecution. They were his besties.

reply to post by wildtimes

He would not have died within so short a time span as one afternoon.

Really? How long can you go without breathing? Me, a minute and a half to two minutes tops. When a victim is slumped in the down position they cannot breathe. One who is nailed to the cross must lift off the foot nails, pushing themselves upwards to exhale and grasp another single breath before slumping back down.

A person nailed to the cross who isn't agonizingly lifting themselves up and down to breathe each time is DEAD. Humans must breathe to live, after a couple minutes max they will die.


You are all silly, how does one "fake" not breathing? Not more than 2 minutes tops.

Where do you come up with this "stabbed in the heart" theory?

John. He says in his gospel that before Christ was removed from the cross a spear was thrust into His side and into the heart. Water and blood gushed from the wound. That means the pericardial and pleural membranes were punctured.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


www.mysteriouspeople.com...

Taking this psychic or mind power a significant stage further, seemingly well beyond the powers of western mediums, psychics and healers, we have those in the east who, it is claimed, can enter into a state of suspended animation. Here the physiological activities of the whole body are seemingly stopped, and a person shows all the signs of physical death, with no detectable heartbeat or respiration.

Sometimes this occurs without warning, and a person thought dead will, after a trance lasting some hours, or even days, unexpectedly come back to life. There was a recent example in a village in the Indian southern state of Tamil Nadu, reported by ABC News Online on 13 October 2003, where an 80 year old man was thought to have died of old age - his sister-in-law describing him as being ‘like wood’ when she found him. He was only woken by being given the traditional cold water bath minutes before he was due to be placed on the funeral pyre.

Two extraordinary 19th century cases of suspended animation involved a Colonel Townshend, and an Indian fakir who allowed himself to be buried alive for nine months.

Colonel Townshend could seemingly ‘die’ whenever he pleased.

Using the power of his mind he would stop his heart from beating; there were no signs of breathing, and his whole body would become as cold and stiff as death itself. His features were shrunk and colourless, and his eyes distant and cold.

He would remain in this state for many hours and then slowly revive. According to his doctor, Dr. Cheyne, Colonel Townsend’s own description of the phenomenon was that he could ‘die or expire when he pleased; and yet by an effort of both mind and body, or somehow, he could come to life again’. On one occasion three medical men witnessed his phenomena, one of whom kept his hand on the Colonel’s heart, another held his wrist, and the third put a mirror in front of his lips. They found that all traces of breathing and pulse gradually stopped. So convinced were they that he was in fact dead, that they were ready to leave the room when they noticed some signs of life appearing, and slowly he revived.

Not so silly.
There are people still who can master their bodies to emulate death.
NuT, if Jesus could feed 5,000 with a handful of loaves of bread, change water to wine, heal the ill, walk on water, whatever....why in heaven's name would he not be in total control of his body?

reply to post by wildtimes

Here the physiological activities of the whole body are seemingly stopped, and a person shows all the signs of physical death, with no detectable heartbeat or respiration.

Again, (sorry), this is nothing new! You didn't read any of the links did you? Now I'm feeling a tad taken advantage of for making sure I went back to read all your links. I know people can feign death, it takes enormous amounts of drugs. But even in that case, there is still respiratory functions, they just appear very faint. Your quote above says "no DETECTABLE respiration". That means the respiratory functions are faint, it doesn't at all say the person has no respiratory functions whatsoever. That's all fine and dandy, but Christ was nailed to a cross. it would be impossible for there to be respiratory function while hanging in the slumped position on the cross.

If you want to make a comparable scenario, you'd need to have a person feigning death at the bottom of a swimming pool. the point being, while on the cross He could not exhale and breathe a new breath of air in. So it's not that He managed to need very little air by drugs or special breathing.

HE COULDN'T BREATHE.

And after 15-30 minutes of not breathing He has a spear thrust into his chest cavity that pierced the pericardial and pleural membranes causing the clear liquid and blood to gush out of His chest cavity.


He was more than dead, it was serious overkill.

reply to post by wildtimes

NuT, if Jesus could feed 5,000 with a handful of loaves of bread, change water to wine, heal the ill, walk on water, whatever....why in heaven's name would he not be in total control of his body?

Because His purpose for even leaving the throne and incarnating in the first place was to shed His blood for us all? He said that was the entire reason He came to "this hour" was to shed His blood for us. If His entire purpose of coming here in the first place was to shed His blood for mankind then why would He fake His death??

Jesus; "My entire reason for coming here was to drink a glass of milk."
Observer: "But Lord, you didn't drink the milk, you only pretended to."
Jesus: "Ooops, now this is a tad awkward."

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Okay, yes, I have looked at your links...I have read the physician reports that uphold your claim.

As for his wanting to die, yes, that is acknowledged. His friends, however, wanted to save him anyway. Further, there were points in the prophecy that said he must live...

I can't prove any of this stuff, as you know; and I see this theory has been around for a long, long time. What I'm also seeing is that newer research and cross-referencing of extant original sources are being re-evaluated all the time, every day. Ditto for the "translations".

There is a lot of vague cryptic talk in the Bible that glosses over things which any normal, educated adult would scratch their head to read. I've told you this is new to me, so I appreciate your patience in pointing me to your sources. That said, if the "swoon" or "coma" theory was to be shown as not only possible, but probable (hypothetically, of course) by a source that you trust already,

what would be your reaction? Can you even just consider the hypothesis for a moment, long enough to answer that question honestly? I am at this point not so much trying to discredit your beliefs as I am in trying to "decode" your thinking. What if....just...what if? What would you, personally do with that information?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, yes, I have looked at your links...I have read the physician reports that uphold your claim.

The medical doctors all say it's impossible given the details, that Christ survived the ordeal. You post as if you didn't read them saying that, or that you just plain reject the opinion of the doctors. If you did in fact read them, I apologize.

As for his wanting to die, yes, that is acknowledged. His friends, however, wanted to save him anyway.

Peter said that, but Christ rebuked him sternly saying he savored the things of men and not God.

Further, there were points in the prophecy that said he must live...

What prophecy are you referring to? The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah is prophesied to die, but not for himself.

I can't prove any of this stuff, as you know; and I see this theory has been around for a long, long time. What I'm also seeing is that newer research and cross-referencing of extant original sources are being re-evaluated all the time, every day. Ditto for the "translations".

The details of the crucifixion haven't changed any.

There is a lot of vague cryptic talk in the Bible that glosses over things which any normal, educated adult would scratch their head to read. I've told you this is new to me, so I appreciate your patience in pointing me to your sources. That said, if the "swoon" or "coma" theory was to be shown as not only possible, but probable (hypothetically, of course) by a source that you trust already,

The swoon theory has never garnered much support throughout history. Certainly not from historians, scholars, or medical doctors. It's the "fringe" folks who adhere to it, and they do so in an attempt to discredit the resurrection, not the death by crucifixion. they cannot provide a suitable answer for the resurrection, so they back it up and try to envision a scenario where Christ didn't die to begin with.

But it's kinda absurd. That Jesus, after a Roman scourging, being nailed to a Roman cross, then once dead having a spear thrust into His chest, somehow without being in an ICU unit at a hospital, managed to just get up and walk away without no ill effects, even walking around Jerusalem, walking on the road to Emmaus, and eating and drinking with His disciples.

ABSURD! Even if the cross didn't kill Him, He'd be in an ICU unit for a few weeks just from the scourging itself!

Can you even just consider the hypothesis for a moment, long enough to answer that question honestly?

I've already considered the possibility. Like I've said, this swoon theory is nothing new. I've dealt with it numerous times when talking to Muslims. They believe Christ only swooned on the cross. I have considered it many times, it's not plausible based on the details we've been given of the crucifixion and the beating beforehand.

I am at this point not so much trying to discredit your beliefs as I am in trying to "decode" your thinking. What if....just...what if? What would you, personally do with that information?

I'll be honest with you, I do think you're trying to discredit my beliefs, and I think you're grasping at any straw you can to do so. If I'm wrong, I do apologize, that's just the impression you've left me with. I hope my assumption is wrong, that's just how you make me feel.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I'll be honest with you, I do think you're trying to discredit my beliefs, and I think you're grasping at any straw you can to do so. If I'm wrong, I do apologize, that's just the impression you've left me with. I hope my assumption is wrong, that's just how you make me feel.

Not at all my intention to discredit you or to "make you feel" any way at all. I've learned a tremendous amount that I had no knowledge of before by participating in this forum.

I have looked at your links, and read them, yes. I am not above doing that. The "straws" I am grasping at are things I am reading and thinking about and learning now. Remember, I was baptized, confirmed, and married in the Episcopal church, my eldest is likewise baptized in that church. My youngest is not. My husband, their father, was not baptized either. His family was non-religious completely, but still celebrate the big-bucks holidays in the customary fashion (pagan rituals). I have thanked you for your patience in addressing these "old news" issues with me, to whom they are "new."

And yes, I do dismiss those doctors, because other doctors have come up with differing possibilities, and have dismissed the resurrection-supporters as well.

It is very doubtful (to me) that anyone can claim (from looking at a Shroud, some historical descriptions, and hearsay), to have absolute authority that they KNOW how he died, when, and of what. None of them were there. John's written words dispute the words written by Essenes and Easterners. I actually think the entire debate is not solved conclusively either way.

I think there are texts that have been hidden, and held secret, on both sides of the debate. You seem to think there is no debate at all. I'm just not there yet. But thanks again.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The medical doctors all say it's impossible given the details, that Christ survived the ordeal. You post as if you didn't read them saying that, or that you just plain reject the opinion of the doctors. If you did in fact read them, I apologize.

Again, I did read them, and they appear to be credible if the "details" are accurate. Therein lies the rub....
the "details" as given in the Bible are very much possibly "altered" to suit the proponents' agenda.

As a Christian-oriented child, no one ever suggested this "stabbed through the heart" theory.....and frankly, if I have lived 53 years and never heard that, I have to wonder why not. Is that so abhorrent?

I am still wondering when you closed the door to new discoveries.

reply to post by wildtimes


There is also the possibility that he was not stabbed through the heart...

IF one is stabbed through the lung, you could expect the same result... water and a small amount of blood.

I also consider the fact that the Soldier would have had to have been very accurate to hit his heart from the right side... His arms were over his head and thus his heart was also not in the usual position.

reply to post by Akragon

There is also the possibility that he was not stabbed through the heart...

IF one is stabbed through the lung, you could expect the same result... water and a small amount of blood.

Precisely. I hoped I had gotten that across in my earlier post.
My husband nearly died 18 months ago of pulmonary empyema, where the pulmonary (lung sac) lining (lies next to the sac) became infused with fluid due to external influence and pneumonia. Over the course of 11 days, he had a tube inserted into that place between the lung and its lining, to withdraw the fluid that was built up. I was there, every day, watching the extraction machine....and the fluid being withdrawn was "watery blood".

Perhaps that's one reason (not considered before this very moment!) that I personally and up close know what would have leaked out of his lung, (EDIT: remove "even") if the lining was punctured.
I know what would have leaked out of the lung lining.

Besides that, if he were dead, he would not have continued to bleed all over the shroud to the extent that it rendered an image of him!

I was present at my father's death-bed, and his body began to cool, the color began to drain, within minutes of his obvious separation of soul from body (my brother and I were racing to get there, but Daddy expired just moments before we arrived.) We did get there before the undertaker; and I spent some time with his exited body, grieving.

I suppose those are two reasons I justify defiance of the "impaled heart sac" theory.

If he had been dead (especially prior to the stabbing!, and taken down carefully and meticulously from the cross, and treated gently and with herbal balms and bandages...that process would take some time), he would not have bled all over the Shroud.

Ya know, what I really don't get is why some persons of the Christian persuasion simply dismiss, out of hand, links and information that they suspect will refute their beliefs. "I don't need to read that", or "This seer is legit, but that Eastern mystic is not" (regarding 'channelers').........What is with the determination to squelch every legitimate challenge with "confidence that this is the TRUTH."

I have yet to receive a response to the question...."if you found out it was true,..." (the idea contrary to your beliefs) "....what would you personally do with that information?"

For my part, I think of it as one of the "rhetorical questions" like in the Big Book of Questions (meant to be a conversation-starter sort of guide to abstract ideas), where it asks if you were to go to a desert island and could take ONE PERSON, who would you take? And such-type moral/ethical/philosophical issues.

But it appears they just don't want to be bothered. I dunno.
Anyway, everybody, thanks for playing!

reply to post by wildtimes


The heart stabbing isn't a "theory", it was Roman protocol for letting a body be taken down from a cross to give to family. Two sources from antiquity confirm this, most notably Origen. Joseph of Aramathea wanted the body, so the spear was thrust first before they took Christ's body down to give to him. It wasn't like some afterthought by a guard.

reply to post by wildtimes

Besides that, if he were dead, he would not have continued to bleed all over the shroud to the extent that it rendered an image of him!

Only the dark spots are blood, the "image" was rendered from the resurrection.

No, do you think the family took Him down from the cross and laid Him in the dirt? Would you do that with your loved one? No, they took Him down and laid him in the cloth, and wrapped Him right there at the foot of the cross. The blood on the shroud, if it's real mind you, would be the blood that was still wet on Him at the time he was laid in the cloth. I think they said some from the chest cavity was still seeping a bit but that would happen.