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: 17
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



Jesus said:
John 6:55
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.


What else does Jesus say in that chapter?? Like in 6:37 and 6:47?

I think you missed something:

John 6:52
"2The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus was speaking in parable to the Pharisees, He always did that in public after the Pharisees said He drove out demons by the power of satan, insulting the Holy Spirit. He's not saying we eat His flesh and drink blood. It's bread and wine. And Jesus explains this to the apostles at the last supper, He even tells them in Matthew 26:28 the purpose for Him shedding His blood for us the next day.

And I'm beginning to get worried, I've asked this 4or 5 times now. Don't we love and worship the same Jesus?




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
This is the problem with Protestantantism. You believe that because something is not mentioned in scripture explicitly it is false, when the historic evidence points out the truth. The bible is not the sole rule of faith. It's like looking into a yearbook and assuming that nothing outside of the yearbook happened.

Paul doesn't say EXPLICITLY you have to take communion but what he implies is that it is important. He calls it the real flesh and blood of Jesus but you say it is only symbolic.

Since the NT is the fulfillment of the OT can you not see that it is obvious you have to eat the Lamb of God?


1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?"

edit on 13-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


That implies the gospel message isn't in the Bible. Or that the common man cannot understand it. In fact, if something was essential for salvation do you not think the Holy Spirit would have included that?



edit on 13-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



Since the NT is the fulfillment of the OT can you not see that it is obvious you have to eat the Lamb of God?


You get your crackers at the same church supply stores as protestant churches do. When do they turn into magic crackers?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The writers of the bible tell you to follow oral teachings in addition to the scripture. By not doing so you risk falling into heresy.


1 Corinthians10:16-17 says,

“The cup we use in the Lord’s Supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ. Because there is the one loaf of bread, all of us, though many, are one body, for we all share the same loaf.”

edit on 13-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 547000
 



Since the NT is the fulfillment of the OT can you not see that it is obvious you have to eat the Lamb of God?


You get your crackers at the same church supply stores as protestant churches do. When do they turn into magic crackers?


When an ordained priest follows Holy Orders.

And you shouldn't be so disrespectful to an article of faith lest you insult the Lord.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


No, I'm saying you worship a ritual, not the person the ritual is supposed to remind you of, Jesus.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The writers of the bible tell you to follow oral teachings in addition to the scripture. By not doing so you risk falling into heresy.


1 Corinthians10:16-17 says,

“The cup we use in the Lord’s Supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ. Because there is the one loaf of bread, all of us, though many, are one body, for we all share the same loaf.”


It's an analogy man. Paul is comparing it and Christ to us.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
Actually pagan practices we're included in many Catholic holidays to get pagans more easily into religion.
Linking Babylonian symbolism in the McDonald arch, or many other company symbols is actually enforcing that paganism has never stopped being used by some of the elite.

Did he change his mind because he was threatened?
edit on 4-3-2012 by User8911 because: (no reason given)


Just like you wrote this reply because you were threatened , paranoia is a terrible thing to live with .......OH WATCH OUT their behind you now making sure you respond properly.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The writers of the bible tell you to follow oral teachings in addition to the scripture. By not doing so you risk falling into heresy.


1 Corinthians10:16-17 says,

“The cup we use in the Lord’s Supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ. Because there is the one loaf of bread, all of us, though many, are one body, for we all share the same loaf.”


It's an analogy man. Paul is comparing it and Christ to us.


I believe this verse might help you in this arguement...

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

it kinda ruins the eucharest ritual....




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Spirit means supernatural faith. Natural man cannot discern that He must be eaten. Natural man, without supernatural faith, will be repulsed.

totustuusfamily.blogspot.com...
edit on 13-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Okay, can we just forget the shroud?

You can if you like, sure!


But, since it's pretty well confirmed that it was a wrapping of a live guy who was crucified, and was hidden away by the Essenes and eventually wound up being held safely elsewhere (Italy?), and is now being scientifically examined with the newest tech, I think it's pretty important to establishing what is history and what is myth.


I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways.

Well, that really surprises me! I was under the impression you hold the Resurrection to be the utmost truth of the faith. If he didn't die, and didn't resurrect, that pretty much closes the case for Christianity. Everything I've read, studied, investigated, and been taught about Christianity is that THE RESURRECTION is the main event.
en.wikipedia.org...

The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian religious belief that Jesus Christ returned to bodily life on the Sunday following the Friday on which he was executed by crucifixion or on Saturday following the Wednesday on which he was crucified.

It is a central tenet of Christian faith and theology and part of the Nicene Creed: "On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures". [1][2]Christians view the resurrection of Jesus as part of the plan of salvation and redemption.[6] There are other accounts of the death of Jesus, notably in the Jewish and Islamic traditions. Not all of these accounts include the resurrection.

Early Christian sects during the first three centuries (that later became heresies) rejected a physical resurrection, believing that Jesus Christ could not have been crucified because he had no physical substance. Basilides promoted the doctrine that Simon of Cyrene substituted Jesus at the crucifixion, and that Jesus himself took the form of Simon, and stood by and laughed at them. [7]

Skeptical scholars have questioned the historicity of the resurrection story for centuries; for example, "nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century biblical scholarship dismissed resurrection narratives as late, legendary accounts."[8] Some contemporary scholars still express doubts about the historicity of the resurrection accounts and have debated their origin,[9] and others consider that the biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection were derived from the experiences of Jesus' followers and of Apostle Paul.[10][11]

But yeah, let's drop it.
So, it seems the answer to my question is that if you found out it was true that he survived, it would not affect your faith at all.
Okay!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


No dear, I never said the resurrection isn't important to Christianity, I meant to imply the Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity.


So, it seems the answer to my question is that if you found out it was true that he survived, it would not affect your faith at all.


No, my faith doesn't rest on the shroud. If it's His cool, if not of well, no biggie. I don't really even think about it that much to be honest with you. it's not critical for my faith for the shroud to be real or not. Like I said, it didn't die for me, Jesus did.


edit on 13-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



No dear, I never said the resurrection isn't important to Christianity, I meant to imply the Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity.

Oh. Okay then.
But if it is the linen in which the crucified Christ was wrapped, and it's covered with blood that would not be there unless the contents were alive.....that wouldn't change anything for you?

I see. Thanks, friend.
We'll just move on. That's cool. btw, what denomination of Protestantism do you attend?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Akragon
 


Spirit means supernatural faith. Natural man cannot discern that He must be eaten. Natural man, without supernatural faith, will be repulsed.

totustuusfamily.blogspot.com...
edit on 13-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


I believe he said "the words are spirit"... he did not say "the bread you eat has my spirit within after its blessed"

also he did say this...

27Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

28If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

29And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

30For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.

31But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Non-denominational. I don't like denominational Christianity.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



that would not be there unless the contents were alive.....


That's not true, there would have been blood still on Him when He was pulled down from the cross and laid in the cloth to be wrapped. there is only faint staining, had He been alive when wrapped in the shroud it would be blood-soaked/stained all dark. Clearly a dead body was placed in the shroud, there's minute stains, as if the deepest wounds still were open a bit.




edit on 13-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 



Jesus said:
John 6:55
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.


What else does Jesus say in that chapter?? Like in 6:37 and 6:47?

I think you missed something:

John 6:52
"2The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jesus was speaking in parable to the Pharisees, He always did that in public after the Pharisees said He drove out demons by the power of satan, insulting the Holy Spirit. He's not saying we eat His flesh and drink blood. It's bread and wine. And Jesus explains this to the apostles at the last supper, He even tells them in Matthew 26:28 the purpose for Him shedding His blood for us the next day.
And I'm beginning to get worried, I've asked this 4or 5 times now. Don't we love and worship the same Jesus?



I am sorry NTT, yes, praise Jesus Our dearest Savior. He is the same, the one and only and why He desires we all believe the same. He wants
you to believe in the Real Presence.

Your personal opinion. Jesus didn't always speak in parable. And those people he was speaking to, most of them were desciple plus the Apostles. Look at the words of Scripture, it doesn't say Pharisees, it says "desciples" walked away.

Jesus didn't run after them and correct them to say, no, I meant "symbol",
NTT, He let them go.

And so interesting, God is trying to get your attention. In the Douay-
Rheims Bible, the English translation of the Latin Vulgate, the first
Bible, John 6:66 is different. Look at it and then at John 6:66 in the
KJV Bible. John 6:66 is the verse where those who didn't believe
walked away. A hint from God for Protestants. Catholics believe Our
Lord, we don't walk away.

www.drbo.org...


John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



Your personal opinion. Jesus didn't always speak in parable. And those people he was speaking to, most of them were desciple plus the Apostles. Look at the words of Scripture, it doesn't say Pharisees, it says "desciples" walked away.



It isn't my "personal opinion". There is no time after the Pharisees insulted the Holy Spirit where He teaches publicly without using a parable. From that moment on whenever He taught publicly it was only in parables. And you misunderstood almost everything I said. He was addressing the Jews, as the verse says, and when He said that to the Jews some of His disciples also left because of what He said to those Jews.




edit on 14-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Way to take scripture totally out of context. He taught His disciples to have the Eucharist, and His apostles taught their successors. He repeated 4 times that He must be eaten and drunk. He then later told them to not worry about life's necessities while they preached, but to trust in God.

Can you point out another usage in scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic"?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join