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.

 

Found. The third and Final Testament.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Most recent literature concerning Christ of the Gnostic Gospels was penned by Elaine Pagels, a Jewish feminist and member of the Rockefeller cabal.

The Jesus of Ms. Pagels' paperbacks engaged in sex acts with Mary Magdalene, possibly had a twin brother (facilitating the "resurrection") all the while Pagels denied the Holy Trinity and the existence of Satan.

Ms. Pagels never had the privilege of experiencing the Holy Spirit firsthand and thus was not able to decipher the
true meanings of the parables of Jesus and His Apostles.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
John 14:16-18




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, that's why Jesus said "It's finished". He was the fulfillment of the first covenant with man, and the initiator of the 2nd. Then in Mark 18 He says He has told us everything.


Yep! His mission (as you call it) was to incarnate and give us a lesson AGAIN. He "finished" when he carried out the misson. There is nothing at all that says, "This is it. Get it this time, or go to hell."

He did tell us everything, and the religious leaders said, "No! Nonono, burn that! It's not what we want the common people to hear!"

So, what is preventing God from having another go at it?


edit on 8-3-2012 by wildtimes because: accidentally "quoted" NuT with two of the same sentence.




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Azadok
 



Your newest covenant may sound good ad feel good but it is just another trick of Satan to make you feel like you are doing the will of God but in fact and practice you chase Satan down the road to perdition.

Still just another trick of Satan?
You mean like...
the first so-called covenant as written by MEN (not God) who made you feel like you were "doing the will of God"?

And the second so-called covenant also written by MEN (not God) that made you feel like you were "doing the will of God."?
Like those tricks?

Ya know, I don't have a real firm faith in any of this stuff.
Forgive me if I seem to "blaspheme", but.... I just don't get it. I don't get how y'all (you all) just buy into this stuff so blindly and don't have the urge to look into the original sources.

Why not? What gives?

Fear? Insecurity?

It's not that hard to look up the history of all of this. It won't condemn you, either. I promise.
Just... look into it....
Peace.





edit on 8-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Azadok
 

Seems to me that you are buying into the lies of the churches of men.

I think you mean Christianity.
Apparently you have a resentment against Christianity.
You (meaning, the people of your sect) use Jesus to twist Christian beliefs though you do not accept him as the true messiah, but look for another, like the one hoped for by the Jews who killed Jesus in their disappointment over the lack of satisfaction they got from his philosophy.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The only way man is ever getting to the truth is to look inward rather then outward. So far all religious activists do is worship deitys that are nothing more then flesh and bone idols.

Whether you see them or not.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

For the new covenant, Christ initiated it at the Last Supper, it became effective that next day.

Let me quote the Mathew version:

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus' blood is connected with the covenant, but is not the covenant itself.
edit on 9-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

For the new covenant, Christ initiated it at the Last Supper, it became effective that next day.

Let me quote the Mathew version:

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus' blood is connected with the covenant, but is not the covenant itself.


That's the specific verse I was referring to, 26:28. And I realize that from the first half of the sentence. Christ entered into the covenant with man at the last supper. It became effective when His Father made Him sin the next day as He hung on the cross (whatever that process entails) and judged sin forever there at Calvary. "Shed my blood" is a euphemism for "killed/put to death/murdered", so that's what made the covenant effective.

We remember that when we partake of communion.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Christ entered into the covenant with man at the last supper.

How do you figure?
You are just making a statement as if you are God.
There is some sort of covenant, otherwise Jesus would not have said, covenant.
You make out that the covenant itself is doing communion.
Aren't you in effect then a Catholic, just without the fancy robes?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Didn't you read to the end where I said this:


We remember that when we partake of communion.


No, we remember the covenant when we partake of communion. It was that case for the APOSTLES, not us. We sorta commemorate the event when we take communion. (that's an incomplete term, communion is more reverent than any simple celebration)


edit on 9-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nOne
 



Most recent literature concerning Christ of the Gnostic Gospels was penned by Elaine Pagels, a Jewish feminist and member of the Rockefeller cabal.

Most?
I disagree. I've read several now, and never read anything by her, though I've seen the name once or twice (get it mixed up with Elizabeth Prophet, another I've never read).

And so what if she is a Jewish feminist (Jesus was, also!)?

A member of the cabal? What difference does that make? The only thing I can conceive of as significant in that (if it's true) is that she's presumably a power-monger, but I have no way of knowing that.

How do you know she never enjoyed the Holy Spirit?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1Sun3Mud6
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The only way man is ever getting to the truth is to look inward rather then outward.


In other words truth has to bow down to your opinions.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



In other words truth has to bow down to your opinions.

I know you addressed someone else with this, but...

REALLY??!

How is "looking inward", to your own heart, bowing down to his or anyone's opinions?
It's about looking ONLY inward, rather than for answers from a priest or anyone else except the Divine spark that resides within you already.

Wow, quite a leap you made there.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



No, we remember the covenant when we partake of communion. It was that case for the APOSTLES, not us. We sorta commemorate the event when we take communion.

Wait.
You said elsewhere that you have yet to "eat a magic Jesus cookie". So, which is it? You, personally, take communion, or you don't? Or you do, but you skip the transubstantiation bit....and just call it juice and a cracker, and say "Yo, thanks, JC!"?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Azadok
 

Seems to me that you are buying into the lies of the churches of men.

I think you mean Christianity.
Apparently you have a resentment against Christianity.
You (meaning, the people of your sect) use Jesus to twist Christian beliefs though you do not accept him as the true messiah, but look for another, like the one hoped for by the Jews who killed Jesus in their disappointment over the lack of satisfaction they got from his philosophy.



First off I am Christian and follow the teachings of the bible to the best of this flesh body allows me . When I say the churches of men I am referring to their non biblical teachings and how far they have strayed from the true word of God. You seem to think God is done with the Jews and Jesus by us following him , ,is the consamation of this age . You have to ask why James wrote his letter to the twelve tribes scattered abroad or in Revelation of Jesus to John the sealing of the twelve thousand of each tribe. What about Christianity in the same book , which is represented by 7 churches . The only churches Jesus Approves of is Smyrna and Philidelphia , you always need a second witness in the law and these two churches provide that, in Rev. 2:9 and Rev. 3:9.

Are you in one of these churches ? Does your church teach who claims to be of our brother Judah but is of Satan ? I will leave you with one final truth for you to ponder .......the Jews did not put Jesus to death ....... It was those who claim to be of our brother Judah but are of the synagogue of Satan . They can be traced all the way back to chapter 3 of Genesis and they run most of the churches today , perverting the truth of Gods word making it sound oh so Holy , ticketing your ears were you feel you do the will of God ,but have followed the path of perdition .
edit on 9-3-2012 by Azadok because: Speeling



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


When people talk about truth within they just mean their own opinions and feelings. What the hell does truth within mean from truth without? Truth without seems to mean having to accept truth outside of the subjective.
edit on 9-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



Truth without seems to mean having to accept truth outside of the subjective.


Over and over in these threads people point out that the Bible is a collection of writings by men. They are interpretations of those who wrote them.

It has also been established that the Bible is contradictory, vague, and omits much material. It is a bunch of OPINIONS and based on the FEELINGS of men. Jesus said specifically to not listen to the priests. People still listen to the priests.

For heaven's sake, at the top of this page of this very thread, there is a passage that says so!:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
John 14:16-18
Let's examine that one:
[color=12FF51]that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The truth is within, 54700. The world can't explain it to you, no man alive can explain it to you...there are no words to express it. It "passeth understanding"....remember? Beyond our capacity as humans in mortal flesh, but there for the finding of the soul, which does understand it, for it is "it.".

You must seek it where it lives, within you. It's there for the finding....not in some book of opinions, or some building with stained glass windows.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



No, we remember the covenant when we partake of communion. It was that case for the APOSTLES, not us. We sorta commemorate the event when we take communion.

Wait.
You said elsewhere that you have yet to "eat a magic Jesus cookie". So, which is it? You, personally, take communion, or you don't? Or you do, but you skip the transubstantiation bit....and just call it juice and a cracker, and say "Yo, thanks, JC!"?


Catholics believe the waffer actually transforms into the flesh of Christ. And the wine actually transforms into Jesus' blood. And basically yes, Jesus said to do it to remember Him, to remember His sacrifice. The bread and wine are symbolic, of His broken body and shed blood.

So the point of communion is to remember Christ's sacrifice that next morning for our sins, not to eat Him like He's a tasty magical cookie.


edit on 9-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Blablabla, your own feelings, got it. No different when some dude starts a new church because he thinks the Holy Spirit is leading him.

Christ said to listen to those He sent btw. I am thoroughly unimpressed with this line of reasoning. Christ wouldn't chastise people for doing their own thing and ignoring the prophets if that is what He taught.
edit on 9-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



Blablabla, your own feelings, got it. No different when some dude starts a new church because he thinks the Holy Spirit is leading him.

Christ said to listen to those He sent btw.

And not one of those people he sent (his apostles and disciples) were Roman Catholics! Christ was a dude who started a new church because he thought the Holy Spirit was leading him btw. He expressly dissed the priests and said the acquisition of wealth and the power-mongering of those who judged fellow men were wrong.

But your 'channelers' are to be taken as Jesus' spokespeople? Your priests?
Whatever.

*Notes to self: 54700 is unwilling to discuss, so expect rejection of further blabbing.*

You are clearly in the youthful process of self-agrandizement and differentiation-rebellion. "Grown-ups are idiots." Right? You'll outgrow that someday.
Maybe.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


It's not all grown ups who are idiots. It's the adults who can't accept authority who are. You have to really twist scripture to come to the opinion that you are your own pope. In order to escape from having to submit to any authority, people call themselves "free thinkers".
edit on 9-3-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join