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.

 

Jesus did not exist: we have all been fooled!!!

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Wow, okay.... I can't believe I'm lowering myself enough to reply to something like this.

Just because the practices of Christianity today here in the west are distorted with Paganism and sun and moon worship doesn't mean the Messiah and The Lord do not exist. The Bible, namely the King James Version, has had more impact on every generation, nation, religion, and lives of all people since Jesus/Yeshua's birth. There is more than enough evidence that he existed, and he did preach a religion, but look at how much time has passed since then. Of course the religion is gonna be distorted on some level... but to say it doesn't, or never did exist, is totally ignorant.




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
 


Can't you see that Christianity is just a re-hashed version of earlier religions? The Bible is a huge STORY BOOK! That's all it is! The Bible is an excellent weapon if the NWO, since it it divides us perfectly, and we have used it to wage wars of conquest. The bible also tells us to acquiesce, to not defend ourselves and to accept our suffering.

As far as Jesus goes, if a Jesus did exist, then the story about him in the Bible is a complete fabrication. It is so obvious to me know that the New Testament is just a re-modeled version of earlier, religious STORIES!!!

STORIES DESIGNED TO ENSLAVE US

DO NOT QUESTION THE PAST OF HUMANITY. DO NOT QUESTION OUR CAPABAILITIES ON THIS EARTH. JUST ACCEPT WHAT IT SAYS IN THIS BIBLE. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MEEK AND HUMBLE, AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOVE YOUR SUFFERING AND LOVE YOUR ENSLAVEMENT.

Well, guess what, I am not following the above statement any more. I have lived like a slave for too long. Not any more!!!
edit on 28-4-2012 by chemistry because: CLARITY



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

Fair enough - thanks for your response
We all have our own interpretations and I would rather focus on common ground
Yes I agree I think Jesus did exist



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
According to historians Jesus did exist, but he wasnt the son of mary and joseph, but none other than Cesar and Cleopatra. Cesarian was the son of god because because Cesar had been elevated to godhood by the senate and the empire he stood to inherit was the known world at the time. Of course he had to flee seen as the successor to the throne was not too keen on having people with a claim to the throne and influence on the loose.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
According to historians Jesus did exist, but he wasnt the son of mary and joseph, but none other than Cesar and Cleopatra. Cesarian was the son of god because because Cesar had been elevated to godhood by the senate and the empire he stood to inherit was the known world at the time. Of course he had to flee seen as the successor to the throne was not too keen on having people with a claim to the throne and influence on the loose.


Not heard of that idea before.
Many in those times had the name Jesus as many do now
I am not disagreeing just not convinced guess I should read up on Ceasarian



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
According to historians Jesus did exist, but he wasnt the son of mary and joseph, but none other than Cesar and Cleopatra. Cesarian was the son of god because because Cesar had been elevated to godhood by the senate and the empire he stood to inherit was the known world at the time. Of course he had to flee seen as the successor to the throne was not too keen on having people with a claim to the throne and influence on the loose.


Have just read a little of what you speak
If it were true it would certainly tie in with the Egyptian connection and the Ancient Egyptian Philosophy which Gnosticism updated



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
www.probe.org...


Text
Written by Michael Gleghorn

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Evidence from Tacitus
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.[1] This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."[2] He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"[3] The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .[5]
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.[7] How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.[17]
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"
Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.
5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.
7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.
9. Ibid., 27.
10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
11. M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.
12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.
14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.
15. Ibid.
16. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
18. Ibid.
19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).
20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.
21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.
24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.
25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.
26. Luke 23:2, 5.
27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.
©2001 Probe Ministries.



edit on 28-4-2012 by redneck13 because: sdfghjk



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
According to historians Jesus did exist, but he wasnt the son of mary and joseph, but none other than Cesar and Cleopatra. Cesarian was the son of god because because Cesar had been elevated to godhood by the senate and the empire he stood to inherit was the known world at the time. Of course he had to flee seen as the successor to the throne was not too keen on having people with a claim to the throne and influence on the loose.


This is not generally accepted by historians. It is a theory. It is not even proven that he was the son of Caesar, even though it appears he allowed the child to use his name. Caesar did not acknowledge him as his heir. The generally accepted theory among historians is that Octavian had the child murdered.


Octavian is supposed to have had Caesarion executed in Alexandria, following the advice of Arius Didymus, who said "Too many Caesars is not good" (a pun on a line in Homer).[5] The exact circumstances of his death have not been documented; it is popularly thought that he was strangled.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
You may have been fooled, but i knew all along



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
Although I am not very religious as it were, these passages as depicted by Barnes seem to describe David Icke to a "T".


Matthew 7:15

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

False prophets - The word prophet originally means one who foretells future events. As prophets, however, were commonly regarded as public instructors on the subject of religion, the word came to denote all who were religious teachers. See the notes at Romans 12:6. In this sense it is probably used here. A false prophet is a teacher of incorrect doctrine, or one falsely and unjustly laying claims to divine inspiration. It probably had reference to the false teachers then among the Jews.

Who come in sheep's clothing - The sheep is an emblem of innocence, sincerity, and harmlessness. To come in sheep's clothing is to assume the appearance of sanctity and innocence, when the heart is evil.

Ravening wolves - Rapacious; voraciously devouring; hungry even to rage. Applied to the false teachers, it means that they assumed the appearance of holiness in order that they might the more readily get the property of the people. They were full of extortion and excess. See Matthew 23:25.



Matthew 23:25

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

The cup and the platter - The drinking-cup and the dish containing food. The Pharisees were diligent in observing all the washings and obligations required by their traditions. See the notes at Mark 7:4.

Full of extortion and excess - The outside appeared well; the inside was filled with the fruit of extortion, oppression, and wickedness. The meaning is, that though they took much pains to appear well, yet they obtained a living by extortion and crime. Their cups, neat as they appeared outward, were filled, not with the fruits of honest industry, but with that which had been extorted from the poor by wicked arts. Instead of "excess," many manuscripts and editions of the Greek Testament read "wickedness."



Mark 7:4

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Market - This word means either the place where provisions were sold, or the place where men were convened for any purpose. Here it probably means the former.


How much profit has Icke made so far? Are you sure you want to solidify your faith in this wolf in sheep's clothing guy OP?
edit on 4/26/2012 by UberL33t because: (no reason given)
hahahahahaha \thought that was for our politicians of todays times and all the corporate exec's...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by chemistry
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I think the history you are mentioning, as well as the secular accounts, were written for the purpose of mass deception.

Clearly it has worked!


The works of icke are also written for the purpose of mass deception, and clearly it worked... Because many iwill buy his crap, what kind of a dumb and retarded fool do you have to be to really believe his reptilian, nazi, anti jew bulls.h.i.t.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Don't care much for Icke, but IMO a strong case can be built of Jesus never having existed even as a historical figure. Much of this has to do with how all the key events of Jesus' life were set on dates that mirror important pagan dates, e.g. birth of Jesus around winter solstice. However, the best argument is that no non-biblical contemporary account of Jesus exists. In fact, his name only starts popping up in literature decades after his supposed death, and some of these have later been shown to be fabrications. If he was such an important figure, then how come nobody wrote about him? I think mainstream biblical scholars take the existence of Jesus as a fact, but then, like 99% of them are devout Christians, so that probably has something to do with it. Anyway, I wish those who believe in Jesus would act more like him, and less like how their flock overlords tell them to..
edit on 28-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
To worship a person and ignore his ideas is very lazy. I worship the ideas of Christ and if he actually existed makes no difference. I could not have been fooled, as I doubt the existence of the entire planet.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Annee
 


I've never seen someone so against being in the same ball park with someone else. I don't disagree with you on the existence of the man, just what people say he was. I thought that it was interesting that there's so much I disagree with you on, yet I can find a common ground with you. Guess I won't make that mistake with you again. Good going.

/TOA


Did I in any way state you are wrong?

Or - - did I simply state my own opinion?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
To worship a person and ignore his ideas is very lazy. I worship the ideas of Christ and if he actually existed makes no difference. I could not have been fooled, as I doubt the existence of the entire planet.


Did those same ideas come before him?

There were many great philosophers before the Christ era.

Here are the Ten Commandments of Solon (638 BCE - 558 BCE)


The Ten Commandments of Solon (founder of Athenian democracy)

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

One things I find remarkable about Solon (638 BCE - 558 BCE), other than the fact that when repealing the laws of Draco he re-wrote Athens Constitution in poetic verse (in 594 BCE), making him the first person in history to formalize democratic principles in government, is that after doing so he went into self-imposed exile for ten years to ensure that he would not become a tyrant.

dailydoubt.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by yougetwhatyoudeserve

The works of icke are also written for the purpose of mass deception, and clearly it worked... Because many iwill buy his crap, what kind of a dumb and retarded fool do you have to be to really believe his reptilian, nazi, anti jew bulls.h.i.t.


What kind of fool do you have to be to turn a blind eye to any information - - - because you think its crap.

Information is only information. IMO - - a critical thinker would not be closed minded - - but curious.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by earthdude
To worship a person and ignore his ideas is very lazy. I worship the ideas of Christ and if he actually existed makes no difference. I could not have been fooled, as I doubt the existence of the entire planet.


Did those same ideas come before him?

There were many great philosophers before the Christ era.

Here are the Ten Commandments of Solon (638 BCE - 558 BCE)


The Ten Commandments of Solon (founder of Athenian democracy)

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

One things I find remarkable about Solon (638 BCE - 558 BCE), other than the fact that when repealing the laws of Draco he re-wrote Athens Constitution in poetic verse (in 594 BCE), making him the first person in history to formalize democratic principles in government, is that after doing so he went into self-imposed exile for ten years to ensure that he would not become a tyrant.

dailydoubt.blogspot.com...

Yes, there is a universal spirit of goodness, but no philosopher or prophet has had such popularity. We all want to go with the popular things, as they seem to have been proven. The fact remains, the Bible is the most popular work of all history, true or not.
edit on 28-4-2012 by earthdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Ancient Egyptian test of the soul for the afterlife - dating back thousands of years

1. Have you done wrong?
2. Have you robbed with violence?
3. Have you stolen?
4. Have you slain another?
5. Have you defrauded the offering?
6. Have you reduced measures?
7. Have you plundered the Gods?

8. Have you spoken lies?
9. Have you spoken evil?
10. Have you caused pain to another?
11. Have you committed fornication?
12. Have you caused the shedding of tears?
13. Have you dealt with deceit?
14. Have you transgressed?

15. Have you dissembled?
16. Have you laid waste to the land?
17, Have you discussed secrets?
18. Have you brought false lawsuits?
19. Have you been angry but for just cause?
20. Have you defiled the wife of any man?
21. Have you caused terror?

22. Have you polluted yourself?
23. Have you been hot tempered?
24. Have you been neglectful of truthful words?
25. Have you cursed another?
26. Have you acted with insolence?
27. Have you stirred up strife?
28. Have you judged hastily?

29. Have you gossiped?
30. Have you sought for unearned honors?
31. Have you been garrulous in speech?
32. Have you done evil?
33. Have you disputed the King?
34. Have you fouled the waters?
35. Have you spoken scornfully?

36. Have you cursed a God?
37. Have you carried off goods by force?
38. Have you damaged the offerings to the Gods.
39. Have you plundered the offerings to the Blessed dead.
40. Have you stolen food from a babe?
41. Have you harmed the God of your place of birth?
42. Have you slain the cattle of the Gods?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

Yes, there is a universal spirit of goodness, but no philosopher or prophet has had such popularity. We all want to go with the popular things, as they seem to have been proven. The fact remains, the Bible is the most popular work of all history, true or not.


Unfortunately religion is a political tool.

I would say - - there is No Accident - - in why Christianity became popular.

Got a Pagan holiday? Just cover it up with a Christian one. Sadly - most people are sheep and will take the road of least resistance.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
Wow, okay.... I can't believe I'm lowering myself enough to reply to something like this.

Just because the practices of Christianity today here in the west are distorted with Paganism and sun and moon worship doesn't mean the Messiah and The Lord do not exist. The Bible, namely the King James Version, has had more impact on every generation, nation, religion, and lives of all people since Jesus/Yeshua's birth. There is more than enough evidence that he existed, and he did preach a religion, but look at how much time has passed since then. Of course the religion is gonna be distorted on some level... but to say it doesn't, or never did exist, is totally ignorant.


Uh, Paganism came about Long before Christianity was ever invented.

Though I'll agree that the Bible has had an impact... A very long and very Bloody one to this day.

"Totally ignorant" is right.




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join