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: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by wildtimes
 


His disciples left because of His teaching.


Then it was manifest that they never were His disciples to begin with. Perhaps they followed Him around to watch the show or to eat free bread and fish? Who knows, but the apostles talk about those who left:


1 John 2:19 ~ "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.



There now, it should forever be plain to you that those disciples were never a part of the true discipleship. They followed Him for whatever reason under the Sun except that He was who He said He was. Those people who left were never true disciples.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

I noticed this bit of fabric in my closet this morning and recognized it as being the pants I was wearing in the photo I posted yesterday at the Shroud Cathedral (as some call it) and seeing how this is ATS, populated by the skeptical, I thought it would be good to reassemble my outfit for that day, just so no one has room to doubt.
The t-shirt, the pants and the beret that was on top of my head (not a strange hair do)

The logo I made myself and had professionally silk screened onto my t-shirts.
Depicted in it is my own pencil drawing of Stonehenge.
When asked what it was, I would say, "something very spiritual".
edit on 15-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



He was
touched by the good thief's actions, as Dismus was dying. This one of
the three types of baptism, the baptism of desire. The other two,
water baptism and baptism by blood, martyrdom.


I wish I could just add stuff to the gospel.
Congratulations Colbe, you just called God a liar. You are claiming in fact He IS a respecter of persons. That He does require one thing from person A to be justified and a completely different thing from person B.


Ephesians 4:5-6 ~ "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all."


Paul: "One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM.


Try going by what the Bible says and not what men in the church say. Oh that's right, you believe the Bible isn't an authority whatsoever.

I remember God saying that He "magnified His Word above His own Name". And we all know how He feels about His own name.




edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then why was Judas called a disciple till he disbelieved in the Eucharist?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then why was Judas called a disciple till he disbelieved in the Eucharist?


Disbelieved in the Eucharist?? He left the Last Supper before Christ entered into covenant with His disciples. Judas betrayed Him for cash. Judas worshiped mammon, not YHWH. And it became manifest at the last supper. He chose to betray His Lord for silver. Basically dust of the ground.

"Disciple" is a synonym for "follower" not "person of faith".




edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



John 6

47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.

48 I am the bread of life.

49 *Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and they died.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any one eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread, which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.

53 The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

56 *For my flesh, is meat indeed: and my blood, is drink indeed:

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and died. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many, therefore, of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

63 If then you shall see *the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.


Jesus seems to be tie disbelief with betrayal. Disbelief in what? Context tells you where Judas failed. Context also explains verse 47. Believe in what?
edit on 15-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.


No. Disbelief IN HIM. (see above) Not the Eucharist, Christ didn't even teach that to His disciples until the Last Supper.

Peter got it right: "You are the Christ!"


John 8:24 ~ "That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins.""

Righteousness is always given only by faith. Paul said that was even the case with Abraham 400+ years before the law was given.


Context also explains verse 47. Believe in what?


Believe in what?? WHAT does the Bible say about what we are to "believe"??
(John 8:24, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians ch. 15)




edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
How can you say you believe in Jesus but have no faith in what He says about eating His flesh and drinking His blood?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
How can you say you believe in Jesus but have no faith in what He says about eating His flesh and drinking His blood?


Because I don't think He was talking about literal blood and bread, but using them as a metaphor for His death (shed blood) and beating (broken bread/body).

Time for you to get on the witness stand, let me ask you a question: Were Paul, Peter, John, and James false prophets?


edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Were Paul, Peter, John, and James false prophets?



No, but they were Catholic.

Paul said it was His true body and blood. James says that even devils believe in Jesus (sola fide out the window), Peter was a pope, and John 6 tells you what John has to say about the Eucharist.
edit on 15-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
No, but they were Catholic.


I don't know exactly which question this answer is for, no quote.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Dear colbe,

A) I'm glad I make you smile. Yes, we differ, but making people smile and laugh is something I love to do....always has been.

B)

Protestants forever stick with God only requires that we believe He is
the Savior.

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS?? I was brought up a Protestant...not the same kind of Protestant as lonewolf or NuT, but nevertheless a PROTESTANT (my Grammie was Catholic, until she married my Grandpa, who had been divorced...so she switched to High Episcopal...the earliest memories I have of church are the incense swinging, the votive candles, the Eucharist -- including the transubstantiation thing -- the whole 8.8 yards).

My mother, from a very tender age, was a real fan....used to walk there herself as a little kid....taught Sunday school (which is where my Dad first laid eyes on her, with her little flock as she brought them in for their blessing)...we went to church religiously (pun intended)....she was the acolyte director for years and years...both of my brothers were acolytes (I was not, but I might have been if I weren't totally uninterested. I did however, go to Sunday school, sing in the choir, etc.)

When I was about 16, I stopped going. After that, I started learning things outside of the faith, that helped me to understand what it was about....
Eventually even my mom stopped going. We both "lost religion."

Now, if my Grammie had been able to marry my Grandpa in the Catholic church (if he had not been "excommunicated"), I would have been brought up Catholic. But I wasn't. One of my mom's sisters married a Catholic, and their one child was brought up Catholic.

So, I do know what I'm talking about. Please, colbe, stop lumping all Protestants together. It's just unfair, inaccurate, and shows belligerent intolerance and .... well, please.

Just .... stop. The Protestant bicker among themselves the same as you do with "Protestants."

That is my issue with religion.
We are human, we really don't know. Each of us is different, unique, and MUST find our own way....just as we each lead different lives, even within the same household, we are completely unique.

Why would anyone expect that we ALL share the same spiritual knowledge, awareness, needs, or doubts?

Love,
wildtimes



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Were Paul, Peter, John, and James false prophets?



No, but they were Catholic.

Paul said it was His true body and blood. James says that even devils believe in Jesus (sola fide out the window), Peter was a pope, and John 6 tells you what John has to say about the Eucharist.


Try again. Paul makes NO mention whatsoever of baptism or communion as necessary for justification in Romans or 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Peter makes NO MENTION of either as well. John declares EXACTLY what it takes to be justified, and it's clearly in John 6 and John 8. James makes no mention of baptism or the eucharist.

You say these men are not false prophets, and I wholeheartedly agree. So why is there no mention of baptism or the eucharist for justification from these men? You cannot have a person hiding certain essential truths and still be considered a good teacher or true prophet of God.


James says that even devils believe in Jesus


DO NOT lie. James didn't say that. James said even the devils believe in God, and tremble. James was mocking people who think they are okay simply because they believe in God that He exists. James wasn't even talking about Christ and the demons. Demons cannot be redeemed because Jesus never incarnated as a demon to die for them. Same with angels.


edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


They hid nothing. Heretics did by hiding the fact that the word of God includes Sacred Tradition. Paul in fact tells you to listen to oral teachings.

So, how do explain Eucharistic miracles if it is only symbolic?

Jesus IS God, so yes, demons believe in Jesus. What did they say of Him when He cast them out? James basically said faith alone does not save.

Jesus can save without the Eucharist, but it is just poor form not to listen to Him and take it. It is not symbolic either. Once you know the truth you ought to take baptism and the Eucharist. Otherwise ignorance is no excuse.

www.catholic.com...

edit on 15-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



They hid nothing.


Okay fine, then if that's true, please show me where Christ, Paul, Peter, James, or John says that either baptism in water or the eucharist is required for justification and I'll go down the street and become Catholic today.


Once you know the truth you ought to take baptism and the Eucharist.



I have chosen to be baptized and take part in communion. This was all choices I made after being saved. I wanted to be baptized as a show to the world that I am a follower of Christ. I take communion when it is offered because I want to remember His sacrifice to the world. It's also a testament to His death on our behalf.

500 years ago I would have been murdered by the RCC for wanting to be baptized after conversion. (Even though there isn't a single instance of an apostle baptizing an unbeliever in the NT.)


But okay sure. That must be yet another essential truth desperately needed for Justification the gospel and NT authors inadvertently forgot to mention.


edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



(sola fide out the window)


Ahh, so by your own admission you think Paul was a false teacher?

“For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Paul says we are justified freely by God, and that "faith" is the catalyst. "Through faith" and "by grace", period. To add to the gospel of Jesus Christ is blasphemy. People doesn't get baptized and partake of communion in order to be saved, baptism and communion is simply things people who are already saved DO.

I suppose in a round-a-bout way my question has been answered. We apparently don't love and worship the same Jesus. My Jesus completed the work of redemption at Calvary, your jesus could only do his part but desperately needs us to do our part to complete the deal. Interesting, I was always under the impression Catholics and Protestants worshiped and loved the exact same Jesus and merely differed on the role of the church and praying to Mary. Guess I was in error in that department.






edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


IF Jesus was the bread that came from heaven to "give life to the world"... how could the eucharest be required if only Catholics believe in it?

"he that cometh to me shall never hunger"... meaning no bread is required?



48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.


Does this mean IF you don't eat the little cracker and drink the wine you WILL die? OF course not...

This verse was well before the "last supper"... So no man could live forever before the last supper? Of course not, they didn't even know about this ritual at this time... which is why people were Questioning him about this practice....

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

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

The flesh and blood symbolically represent Jesus, his life... and his sacrifice... Jews believe the blood holds the essence of life... Thus the blood represents HIS life... and the bread represents his body

IF you drink his blood, you follow his life as an example....

IF you eat his body, you take up your own cross (as he put it)... And suffer through this life by denying the needs of the flesh... or being "selfless"

This is totally supposed to be symbolic... the ritual is simply for rememberence AS HE SAID...

19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


See what absurd folly comes about when people take the literal and make it figurative, and take the figurative and make it literal?


edit on 15-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


LOL of course...

I've ran into this arguement hundreds of times... My favorite is when people say "Jesus lied"... no man can move a mountian....

Which of course is not true.... Change the heart of a man, and that mountian has moved...

I find it hilarious that people believe he meant that litterally.... as if anything could move a real mountian.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


LOL of course...

I've ran into this arguement hundreds of times... My favorite is when people say "Jesus lied"... no man can move a mountian....

Which of course is not true.... Change the heart of a man, and that mountian has moved...

I find it hilarious that people believe he meant that litterally.... as if anything could move a real mountian.



Of course. Another perfect example.




top topics



 
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join