Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


From what I have read the only significant archaeological find at Nazareth has been what appears to be the remains of a Roman bath house but that because of the political problems of that area no one has done an excavation of the site but more interesting is that the Vatican, has so far refused to throw its weight behind the find – now maybe I am reading to much into this but wouldn’t the Vatican be moving heaven and earth to support a dig there and since it appears they are not then the sceptic in me wonders if its because they know it’s a fools errand?

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it
Samuel Johnson




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 

Explain what you mean when you say "doing things only God could do."

They could have been angels, or any number of extraterrestrial beings that we have not been told exist, and have access to powers beyond imagination.
How is saying all of that different from me just saying "God"?
What would make you think that there is just one single person who can be called God?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


I agree with you entirely, prevenge. Thanks for chiming in. I see by your sig that you are intrigued by things gnostic -- as am I.

I wonder, have you read The Fifth Gospel, by Dr Fida Hassnain? He seems to know his stuff; I'm much convinced that Jesus' utterances were more about occult/Eastern mysticism, and the truth that we are all Divine....which is Buddhist stuff.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by manna2
 


From what I have read the only significant archaeological find at Nazareth has been what appears to be the remains of a Roman bath house but that because of the political problems of that area no one has done an excavation of the site but more interesting is that the Vatican, has so far refused to throw its weight behind the find – now maybe I am reading to much into this but wouldn’t the Vatican be moving heaven and earth to support a dig there and since it appears they are not then the sceptic in me wonders if its because they know it’s a fools errand?

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it
Samuel Johnson


as I understand it the whole thing about Nazareth comes from the mistaken confusion between the word Nazarath
and jesus the NAZARENE
Two different things entirely
edit on 10-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



Yes I have found references to the Nazarene cult

Wikipedia says

Rabbinical and modern Hebrew as notzrim (נוצרים) a standard Hebrew term for "Christian", and also into the Quran and modern Arabic as nasara (plural of nasrani "Christians").

en.wikipedia.org...

so it looks like the other two groups that would have been in contact with the early Christian cult used a word very similar to Nazarene to signify someone who is from the Christian cult

so for me the Nazareth as a place myth – busted
edit on 10-5-2012 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


allright, you need to spend more time on this word study.
Before Yah came it was a cult known as Nazirines. John the Babtist was a Nazirite, belonging to the Nazirines.
After Yah's death they were not known as Christians yet. They were Nazereens. Yah was a Nazirite but he was also a Nazareen. Wiki does a good enough job differentiating between the 2



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ciscoagent
 


Thanks again, ciscoagent. Here's an ex-text from the first link you provided, in case others have not looked at it yet (I hadn't taken the time until today)....Forged Orgins of the New Testament from exminister.org

The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:

"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)


Please note, readers, that the remarks are followed by their sources, which can be assumed to be experts until we find it stated that they are not, or they are spreading lies. Like the Church.
edit on 10-5-2012 by wildtimes because: add source



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Who on earth is yah?

If yah is Jesus and you are saying he was a Nazirite (cult member) and a Nazarene (someone from Nazareth)?

If so then sorry but I’m not buying it and I will reconsider that position if and when the archaeology is done on the alleged site



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Here's an interesting bit from www.exminister.org... again:

How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake"
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)


See that? It claims that what Constantine, who was a Sol Evictus follower, wanted was NO MORE WAR FOR RELIGIONS' SAKE. Same as what Jesus wanted....stop fighting. So, good on Constantine. Too bad his "council" weren't up to the task ....although he told them "make them [the united, selected books in this one volume] to astonish"

Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.


I was never introduced to that factoid before....instead, I had labored under the impression he was trying to rule with an iron fist....apparently he was trying to establish peace....
but, as per usual in our known history, the either ignorant or corrupt "supervisors" - the clergy - in whose hands was given the task on the ground failed. Interesting.


edit on 10-5-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-5-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
So....thanks to ciscoagent's link...it now seems that the "fabrication" itself was not "tragic," but the idea of Constatine's, as noted in my two above posts, which was to create a Universal religion, backfired.

Perhaps because the book was too "astonishing".....so now, if it were up to me, I'd say....
okay, REWRITE....It's TOO astonishing, and doesn't even make sense. They've struggled for 2000 years to get the point, but failed. War is still going on.....much blood-letting, greed, slavery, etc.

The Bible was a fail as an experiment or tool to establish PEACE. It isn't even recognized for what it was always SUPPOSED to be...an amalgamated work to contain the mythos of ALL religions, satisfy EVERYONE.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Time for a new plan.

Next?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 

He paid the price and no amount of good works can make you or I holy and presentable to a perfect and thrice Holy God.
He is our redeemer. Not works or exoteric knowledge will pass for the legal work accomplished by Him in Heaven and Earth.
Jesus was the "price" if you want to put it that way. Who paid it was God, the Father, by giving His son over to be killed by the enemy, which was sort of the inevitable result of his coming here to live and to go about telling people about God, and about his mission on His behalf.
Jesus was so good as to comply with this plan, and to willfully hand himself over at the appropriate time. Because of this "work", Jesus found himself acceptable to the Holy God.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



The Bible was a fail as an experiment or tool to establish PEACE. It isn't even recognized for what it was always SUPPOSED to be...an amalgamated work to contain the mythos of ALL religions, satisfy EVERYONE.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Time for a new plan.

Next?



This is the most succinct, plainly-spoken summary of the Bible I have ever seen on ATS.

I applaud this assessment.


Additionally, Constantine's attempt to peacefully resolve the religious issue failed because of humankind's innate need to hate somethng. To fight something.

How can we trust the Christian god when he apparently created us with the obsession of war? We were born with the need to fight one another...how the hell was that supposed to work out?
edit on CThursdayam171705f05America/Chicago10 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Well, thanks!! I just cross-posted the same into your new thread!!
Let's take it and run with it....!

Ah, the sweet savor of enlightenment...refreshment indeed.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Who on earth is yah?

Apparently this is the result of the effort by zionists (read, anti-Christian activists) to eliminate Jesus as a distinct person by merging the Father and the Son into a single person, where God the Father is actually the same person as the Old Testament Yahweh. This is the reason for getting away from saying, Jesus.
Jesus is The Name of God, as the term he used to describe himself points out , The I Am. Jesus is the representation on Earth of the character of God, as the earlier Angel of The Lord did, but Jesus has taken over that position, while not being the same person as that angel, and he makes it clear there is a higher one than himself (who no one has seen, according to Jesus), and then logically, there was always one higher than that earlier angel we hear of making appearances in the OT stories.
edit on 10-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
So....thanks to ciscoagent's link...it now seems that the "fabrication" itself was not "tragic," but the idea of Constatine's, as noted in my two above posts, which was to create a Universal religion, backfired.


I have a doubt

Most Roman senators where also heads of the different cults/sects in Rome so Constantine must have known how religion and politics work together – I am wondering when the idea of the Roman emperor becoming the pope and the Roman Empire re-branding its self Holy Roman Empire came about

Did Constantine know his catholic (all inclusive) religion would come to re-dominate Europe with the Holy Roman Empire in charge, might that not have been the plan?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

I was never introduced to that factoid before....

Because these are not facts, but someone's fantasy.
Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to make a certain number, like a hundred, of nice church Bibles to be distributed to the more important churches in the empire. The Job was worth a lot of money, apparently enough to buy Eusebius' loyalty.
But the idea that new Gospels were composed at that time is ridiculous.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes

I would be of the opinion that Eusibius' Praeparatio Evangelica ( Preparation of the Gospel ) would be the work that met the criteria stated here:

Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

From Wikipedia:

Praeparatio Evangelica
The term also denotes a early church doctrine, praeparatio evangelica, meaning a preparation of the gospel among cultures yet to hear of the message of Christ. In this view, God has already sown the older cultures with ideas and themes that would grow to fruition through interpretation in a fully Christian context. [2] It should be noted that Eusebius' own Praeparatio Evangelica does not adopt the common notion (which occurs at least as early as Clement of Alexandria) of Greek philosophy as a "preparation for the Gospel." Eusebius instead offers a lengthy argument for the wisdom of the ancient Hebrews becoming a preparation for Greek philosophy (at least Platonic philosophy, see Praep.ev. 11-13). For Eusebius, the Greeks stole any truths they possessed from the more ancient Hebrews.

So the blame for what would eventually become theOfficial Roman Religion ending up being not peaceful may just lie with Eusebius. In my opinion Greek philosophy was far in advance of the notions of Hebrew Old Testament. Eusebius propounded the superiority of the OT. Big mistake!

Think of how different Christianity would have turned out if it hadn't imported into itself concepts of holy war, and conquering the World for some god, from the OT! Wouldn't we have been living in a more peaceful World if people discussed Greek Metaphysics and such rather than competing to dominate the World militarily and economically?
edit on 10-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Huh. Yeah? Crap, no matter where I go I find myself back at square one!

So...can you provide links showing that the excerpts above are less factual than they might be?

How do you know, dewey? You know me, can't get enough study under my belt...
tend to be gullible with each little tidbit...kind of like "National Treasure" -- it's all just more clues leading to more clues that never get anywhere.

*sigh*
Why do we bother, do ya think? I mean, psychologically...why do we bother? Is it just a puzzle? A brain-teaser? Does it really matter? Aside from the mass murders carried out over the millennia, I don't see much good come out of it. Although I suppose from an anthropological point of view, as beings aware of impending death we are bound to obsess over it.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I was looking at this a while back
en.wikipedia.org...

First off the place where Jesus is said to have been born is a cave and not the small cattle shed of myth

But there is also this

According to some scholars,[6] the church is built over a cave that was originally a shrine to Adonis-Tammuz.
The Church Father Jerome, who died in Bethlehem in 420, reports in addition that the holy cave was at one point consecrated by the heathen to the worship of Adonis, and a pleasant sacred grove planted before it, to wipe out the memory of Jesus. Modern mythologists, however, reverse the supposition, insisting that the cult of Adonis-Tammuz originated the shrine and that it was the Christians who took it over, substituting the worship of their own God.[7]



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
It is interesting to find that, when one researches the origin of God, one is lead to a plethora of other gods and religions...

What does this tell us about Christianity?





top topics
 
20
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 77 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def