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 resurrection. Help, please.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


SO once you've come to the point you are willing to admit he existed as a person.

Than you either have what the First books say as fact, or you don't

benrl, I never doubted that he existed as a person until I started reading these forums. I always assumed he did live, but I never accepted that he was "resurrected". On ATS, I found information that in fact he may have been as much a phantom hero as Hercules.

Hence, my confusion.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 

Not a scam if it was a great work that accomplished EVERYTHING he set out to accomplish. He referenced the sign of Jonah (spit out of the belly of the beast). He WAS put to death, spent three days in the tomb and rose again, if he hung on by a thread in making it through the ordeal, it makes no difference.

Remember, his legs were not broken
A hisop or stick was used to lift a sponge to him supposedly soaked in vinigar
A roman soldier was present who was sympathetic to his plight
Joseph of Aramathea took his body into his custody and owned the tomb itself
Rich men in dazzling white were seen by the empty tomb, with prior knowledge that he was alive,

But let's not forget, at the appropriate HOUR, the moon exclipsed the sun and the sky went dark..

By his stripes our iniquities are forgiven and our wounds are HEALED!

He fulfilled all the prophecy, it's a real marvel.

It's all still just as valid if Jesus threaded the eye of the needle..

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 24-7-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ChristianJihad
 


Here is some super fine reading for you -
Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world

Yep, thanks. Something I've learned about since joining here, actually.



Interesting stuff, eh? And I'm no high-schooler....I'm over 50 years old, and still trying to figure it all out!
Again, thanks for your contribution!



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Just saying. Someone, please, show me reliable evidence for the truth! I have seen an online "letter" from an Essene brother who took the time to explain what really happened...that Joseph of A and Nicodemus made a deal with Pilate....and the Roman centurion in charge went along with it.

Could you find that and cite it, that would be helpful. I knew nothing of that letter, but this is what I've deduced myself, something to that effect anyway.

But make no mistake about it. Jesus was real and this did happen, and for a very deep and mysterious yet well orchestrated reason.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


so Jesus rolled the rock from his tomb after waking from a nap brought on by Roman crusifiction ?

Fairly certain the type of wounds one would get from such a thing would not allow someone to do that.

I mean if you want to admit to his existence, than we have to treat it forensically?

Yes, we do have to treat it forensically. IF he was only on the cross (tree or post) for a few hours, AND (as a mystic) he was able to put himself into a trance that transcends pain, AND the Essenes had plotted to have him released before he expired, THEN we have to admit that the Shroud of Turin residue (which indicates healing balms and continued blood loss) might indicate he survived.

He did not roll back the rock. He was placed in a brand new, never-used-before tomb that Joseph of A owned. I've read a theory that there was a secret passage/exi,t out of which he was whisked, to a safe place, to allow a couple days of rest and healing.

I do not in any way deny the possibility that the Divine hastened his recovery. I do believe his followers (or anyone alive at the time) would be flabbergasted at his appearance afterward.....
there is no question (according to the scriptures) that he was asking for water and food, and was seen walking around, and that his friends were able to touch his wounds.

The logic and reason and science adds up to: He was not dead, he was treated for his wounds, and after he showed himself alive to his close inner cirlce, he was hidden and then removed, left from the area, in exile, for obvious reasons.

Talk about "conspiracies"!

Yeah, I don't doubt it was possible. Not one bit.
G'night, guys.


edit on 24-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Could you find that and cite it, that would be helpful. I knew nothing of that letter, but this is what I've deduced myself, something to that effect anyway.

Yes, I will.
However, at the moment my mind is exhausted and I need to rest. Watch for it tomorrow, friend!
Thanks for participating!

To all, have at it, team ATS, I'll look forward to the debates! And thanks for chiming in. This situation really does bother me.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
This would then lead us to seriously consider a personage by the name of Issa.

The Life of Issa and the Gospels

Do not be confused when we're talking about the twice resurrected Jesus, in this case the historical Jesus (Yeshua), who is someone we can look into and investigate seriously, maybe even come to know and love without all the accompanying baggage of "Churchianity".


edit on 24-7-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


He argues against it being an actual historical event.
I also like to point out that he was on the cross for 3-6 hours. People survive on a cross for longer than that (up to a day or two).

I am led to believe this as well. From non-scriptural sources. I am also led to surmise that the Essene followers of his contracted with Pilate to bring him down early (Pilate wanted to pardon him), so that they might treat him for his injuries.

I do not believe his heart was pierced, or his bones broken.

Just saying. Someone, please, show me reliable evidence for the truth! I have seen an online "letter" from an Essene brother who took the time to explain what really happened...that Joseph of A and Nicodemus made a deal with Pilate....and the Roman centurion in charge went along with it.

Hence, my confusion.


My last reply to you on this topic. You need to make your own choice of what to believe and then live by it. Either the Bible is what it claims to be or it is not. There is no middle ground (shade of grey) on this. Either Jesus died and was resurrected or it is a hoax. There have been hundreds of documents found in the last century that dispute the events of the Bible or provide alternate stories. All of these documents I am aware of are newer than the oldest copies of the gospels and letters in the New Testament.

Believe me when I say that I understand your confusion. Christianity today is a mess in many ways and on many levels...in what is taught, in what is not taught, in the way it is lived by those that claim to believe, and the way it is not lived by those that claim to believe. You either decide to use reason to find your answer, or submit yourself to some other person's opinion. If you are going to reason, you need to recognize your own personal biases and ideas and how they affect your reason. You started your original post claiming that you never really bought into the idea of the Jesus resurrection. There is a bias, and any document or story that supports that bias will probably be accepted by you. Just the fact that you are on a conspiracy website, provides you with another bias...that you are interested in conspiracies...and if the resurrection is a hoax, this is a conspiracy of the highest order. I have pointed to two biases that you have that cannot be denied. And if you are really interested in truth (yes, I am repeating myself), you need to recognize those biases.

You have a choice to make, realizing that there may be consequences to your choice. If the resurrection is indeed a hoax, you can choose to believe it or not believe it without consequence. If it is real, and you reject it...you will be a busy beaver during the millennium.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dirkpotters
 


One of his arguments was that the Gospel of Thomas was about 80 years older than Mark, when Thomas is potentially written 30-40 AD up to 140 AD. But as he cherry picks, he only mentions the latest possible date. And what about all the parallels? There's quite a few of them.

He didn't mention the Roman war machine either. That's why their form of Christianity survives today and the other was almost completely wiped out. The Nag Hammadi library was found in a hidden cave, in a large pot, with a corpse next to it. Whoever that man was, he died next to those texts, possibly guarding them until his last breath. Why else be there.

They did it to the "gnostics Christians," the Cathars (igniting the Inquisition), and another group that I can't quite remember, at least. They use their superior military power as always, and shamefully brutalize people to suppress information.

All Bibles come from the Romans. I don't trust the Romans.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dirkpotters
 

It's not a hoax if it's considered within the context of Jesus' Magnum Opus, and if he was under a self-imposed double-blind and obediant unto death, not a hoax to see him go head to head with an evil empire and a corrupted temple, and in the process bind the strong man and pilfer his house of everyting of any value, not a hoax if Jesus got the last laugh at the devil's expense, not a hoax if by his blood sacrifice and atonement he won both his and our liberation, and certainly not a hoax when all the naysayers who wish to eradicate the historical Jesus are put to shame.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

I've found plenty of support for the "swoon" theory, actually, from studying non-Christian writings and such. What we know of resurrection is that it takes a long time (days), and the fact that he was taken down a few hours after his being pinned up there gives credence to the concept that he was not really dead...

Fair enough, in other situations (such as a random crucifixion not involving the rest of the baggage with a man being taken down and immediately receiving medical care) I may likely even agree with you, assuming the spear thrust was an innovation and didn't actually occur.

I have to take the matter in light of all the documentation and history that goes with it (unfortunately, it sounds like what you're actually asking for here doesn't exist - to my knowledge - as all we have is the testimony of the bible itself and a few limited outside sources), making matters inconsistent and inexplicable in the event of someone with Christ's reported beliefs and attributes merely recovering from unpleasantness - and I know it's not popular in secular circles, but I also believe the Turin shroud to be an authentic relic that testifies to the actual dead victim of a first-century crucifixion from the palestine area matching the specific details of Jesus' alleged execution.

Sorry I can't be of more help - speculation aside, I don't think anyone else can offer much up here either. This discussion seems to be based entirely in the realm of supposition given the restrictions you've put in place and the limited information available.

Take care, friend.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Let me tell you something pretty cool.

ODIN was hung on the world tree (but upside down) for 9 days. He "sacrificed himself unto himself." He was also pierced in the side by his own spear.

Sound familiar?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
For me I just can't get over the magnificence of Jesus' divine ingenuity, capable of placing a double bind on human sin and evil while upholding a universal standard of the very height of justice and mercy, whose ultimate aim was our liberation in his love - extraordinary!

"God's compulsion is our liberation!"
~ C.S. Lewis

It's enough to make me want to start running around jumping up and down clapping my hands in glee like a little kid.



edit on 24-7-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The first thing you need to realise is what was the true mission of Jesus. No, it wasn't to start a new religion. It was to tell and show people the truth of themselves. What they were, what life was about and what would happen after death and how death could be defeated.

Jesus came to preach and teach the FACT of immortality. He taught that if people followed his advice he would show them the 'way' the 'truth' and they would have 'life everlasting'. Immortality.

By the time Jesus started his public ministry, he has already changed his human body to an immortal physical body (This transformation was accomplished during the 'missing years' when Jesus travelled and studied in India and various other locations)

Having attained the exalted state of being an immortal, Jesus had gained full control of his body and the nature forces coursing through it. This explains the ability to perform miracles (the ability to control nature forces) but more to the point of this thread it also made Jesus immune to injury, pain or death. Unless Jesus allowed these things to take place.

Jesus taught his disiples and followers that they too could do the things he could do. Now, however there was a slight problem with the teachings of Jesus about immortality. How do you prove to people that you have changed your body to the extent that you have conquered pyhsical death.

You cant just dissapear into the clouds. What does that prove to people....nothing.

There had to be a very public death....lots of witnesses. There also had to be a very public reserrection. Jesus appeared to many people after he had risen, including Paul on the road to Damascus.

So the crucifiction and reserrection was the 'proof' of the teachings about immortality. Proof that an ordinary man could by following a certain way of living, change his/her mortal physical body subject to pain,sickness and death, to an immortal physical body, no longer subject to pain sickness or death.

All of the teachings of Jesus have not come down to us. Those that have have been missunderstood, mutilated, mangled and maimed to such an extent they no longer make much sense to those that give them but a cursory glance. However if a careful study is made, it becomes clear of the true purpose and teachings of Jesus.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by wildtimes
 

Let me tell you something pretty cool.

ODIN was hung on the world tree (but upside down) for 9 days. He "sacrificed himself unto himself." He was also pierced in the side by his own spear.

Sound familiar?

Please cite that at source thank you. If so we know where the spear came from.

But have you considered the possibility that Jesus was a highly trained "Magus" initiated into most if not all the ancient mystery traditions and set out to sum them all up within himself, is that a possibility, and if so is it something that you've ever considered before?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Let me tell you something pretty cool.

ODIN was hung on the world tree (but upside down) for 9 days. He "sacrificed himself unto himself." He was also pierced in the side by his own spear.

Sound familiar?

Some of it, yes.

Then again, being sourced from the 1200s CE, I'm not really sure what it's supposed to illustrate here...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Thank you for the intelligent response. Sorry I had to be somewhat belligerent to get it.

I agree with some of what you stated, especially when it comes to the Romans (ultimately Roman Catholicism).
Whether they admit it or not, most of the non-Roman Catholic institutionalized "christian" religions are still based on that history and mind set.

You may find it odd/funny or perhaps a synchronicity, that I saw the same video I posted only last night. I am truly struggling to make the same kind of choice that the OP is making. Having just finished (a week ago) "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (which I wish I had read 30 years ago), Rand's Objective Philosophy is against what she calls "mysticism" of many kinds...religion, psychology, economic theories, sociology, etc. I have been searching to reconcile what is known with what cannot be known.

For years, I have studied the Bible for the purpose of determining the truth of that which is taught by many of the worlds Christian sects with that appears within the pages of the Bible...and then looking at what appears to be contradictory and finding alternate interpretations of understanding to reconcile those contradictions. Therein lies my bias. This trek of searching for truth is because of the hypocrisy I experienced within the Roman Catholic church specifically, and watching the hypocrisy of many in the "religious right". I decided several months ago to attempt to reconcile the libertarian philosophy with what I know of Jesus' teachings...as I got ticked at watching both Democrats and Republicans claiming that Jesus was a liberal Marxist, and the other claiming that he was conservative or neo-conservative. Of what I know of Jesus' teachings, he seemed to be more of a libertarian...allowing us free-will to make our own choices with certain individual responsibilities instead of collective responsibilities. As such, you can see that I am in the minority of the population on many many levels. Therein lies another of my biases, that of being out of the mainstream on all sides. My only consolation over the years has been the BELIEF that there was a small minority of TRUE Christians pushed aside or unknown to the Romans and that this small minority might still exist today. As such, the Gnostics have been a source of inspiration on some levels. My conclusion has been that it is not that the Gnostics are/were right, it is that mainstream Christianity is wrong in many of the things being taught. They have the basics right, but push it aside for all kinds of strange doctrine...something that was happening even during the time of the Apostles as written in the NT.

My journey continues...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Thank you for the intelligent response. Sorry I had to be somewhat belligerent to get it.

I agree with some of what you stated, especially when it comes to the Romans (ultimately Roman Catholicism).
Whether they admit it or not, most of the non-Roman Catholic institutionalized "christian" religions are still based on that history and mind set.

You may find it odd/funny or perhaps a synchronicity, that I saw the same video I posted only last night. I am truly struggling to make the same kind of choice that the OP is making. Having just finished (a week ago) "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (which I wish I had read 30 years ago), Rand's Objective Philosophy is against what she calls "mysticism" of many kinds...religion, psychology, economic theories, sociology, etc. I have been searching to reconcile what is known with what cannot be known.

For years, I have studied the Bible for the purpose of determining the truth of that which is taught by many of the worlds Christian sects with that appears within the pages of the Bible...and then looking at what appears to be contradictory and finding alternate interpretations of understanding to reconcile those contradictions. Therein lies my bias. This trek of searching for truth is because of the hypocrisy I experienced within the Roman Catholic church specifically, and watching the hypocrisy of many in the "religious right". I decided several months ago to attempt to reconcile the libertarian philosophy with what I know of Jesus' teachings...as I got ticked at watching both Democrats and Republicans claiming that Jesus was a liberal Marxist, and the other claiming that he was conservative or neo-conservative. Of what I know of Jesus' teachings, he seemed to be more of a libertarian...allowing us free-will to make our own choices with certain individual responsibilities instead of collective responsibilities. As such, you can see that I am in the minority of the population on many many levels. Therein lies another of my biases, that of being out of the mainstream on all sides. My only consolation over the years has been the BELIEF that there was a small minority of TRUE Christians pushed aside or unknown to the Romans and that this small minority might still exist today. As such, the Gnostics have been a source of inspiration on some levels. My conclusion has been that it is not that the Gnostics are/were right, it is that mainstream Christianity is wrong in many of the things being taught. They have the basics right, but push it aside for all kinds of strange doctrine...something that was happening even during the time of the Apostles as written in the NT.

My journey continues...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


The spear is Gungnir most likely, crafted by Dwarfs.

As for being a "magus," I find it to be a possibility. From my soulsearching and research, I find that he may be one of the first to try and amalgamate special teachings of the west and the east. He was very much mystical in my eyes, a mystic that is, as he did everything in mysterious ways: spoke in mysterious ways, and did mysterious things.


reply to post by Praetorius
 


I guess the point is that they assimilated the people's beliefs, and turned them into Christian ones. Christmas, Easter, that story of Odin, and whatever else out there, all come from other people's beliefs. They tried very hard to reconcile the different religions in the world, and so it's logical to say that they just absorbed some of the core beliefs and made them their own. It's like putting the cross atop an obelisk or a "pagan" place of worship.


reply to post by dirkpotters
 


You're most welcome. It warms my heart to see that others are beginning rub their chins on these things. Not to simply accept what's being told to them, but to actually think for themselves, do their own research, and so on. If something doesn't smell right, then it's worth investigating. But I find those Christian sources are often very biased, because they go into this with the premise that there isn't anything to question. That's bad science.

And yes, it may just be synchronicity working it's "magic" here, guiding us to seek and find truth in our lives.


May your journey be a splendid one.

edit on 24/7/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 

I guess the point is that they assimilated the people's beliefs, and turned them into Christian ones. Christmas, Easter, that story of Odin, and whatever else out there, all come from other people's beliefs. They tried very hard to reconcile the different religions in the world, and so it's logical to say that they just absorbed some of the core beliefs and made them their own. It's like putting the cross atop an obelisk or a "pagan" place of worship.

I would have to say the romans (under the guise of the roman catholic church) are the main perpetrators in this sort of thing, and as far as that goes, you are entirely correct. Too much synchronizing with various pagan beliefs and traditions for my taste after the first few centuries (until then, christianity was still primarily a jewish sect observing jewish tradition).

Easter and Christmas were definite (later) borrowings from pagan observance of the equinoxes and fertility rituals, and were of course never originally understood to have anything to do with Christ...it was a useful co-opting for swelling the ranks though, I suppose. As regards the Odin similarities, it is more likely IF any borrowing occurred, it was a borrowing from christianity - as seems possible with the case of some matters of mithraism, given the dates involved.

Thanks for the thoughts, and be well.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join