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 Christ's Superderterministic, Cosmological, Magnum Opus.

page: 16
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

The historicity of Jesus is another thread altogether and there are plenty of them.

It would of course also mean, if by lie you mean no Jesus, that there's no John the Baptist either, but for this thread I would rather not get into the Jesus-never-existed / yes-he-did debate, which goes nowhere.

Plus I'm taking a LOT of information into the contextual frameowork for analyzing these things, and I find it interesting that daVinci did another painting with John the Baptist kissing the baby Jesus, which contains it's own meaning and not one that says daVinci felt it was all a lie.

Hey c'mon you're an atheist with an agenda.

As to what daVinci actually thought, we can't quite read his mind and it will be interesting as I said to explore his relationship with the church.

He painted The Last Supper for a monestary and suggested that they contemplate it's meaning while they eat, and I've done a pretty darn good job interpretating it, and the conclusion that I've come to is that daVinci had an awesome sense of humor which just bordered on the fringe of potentially being offensive, yet veiled just enough that he gets away with it, but there's nothing to indicate that he thought the whole thing was a lie, which you'r position MUST hold no matter what information is presented, which is why I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling when I see you jumping back into this thread, or tag-teaming against me with whomever you can find.



Originally posted by daskakik
The question would then be, why would he have needed to encrypt it if it was not something in complete opposition?

I've already described that in painstaking detail.


edit on 23-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik
 

It would of course also mean, if by lie you mean no Jesus.

By lie I mean a Jesus that was not as portrayed in the bible. Embellishment of his deeds is enough to make it a lie.


I've already described that in painstaking detail.

Really? You may have described it to your own satisfaction but that doesn't mean you got it right.



edit on 23-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

I'm just curious about his relationship with the Church, because, well, I have some suspicions about some things and that might shed some light on it.

As to Jesus, daVinci was from the middle of the 14th century, and the words attributed to Jesus are from the 1st century (as early as about 35-40 years after I'll call it his departure from Jerusalem), and there's enough of them that if even only a percentage were authentic, well let's just say you've missed his character and charm.

But obviously daVinci is saying something at some variance from the official story as given by the gospels and the church, namely that he understands something about Jesus' origin and relation to John the Baptist which I've also discovered and shared at one point in this very thread, more than once, and secondly, that Jesus had a girlfriend and was interested in and looking forward to exploring that aspect of his humanity post-cross, which in the lead-up required absolute purity/chastity to maintain his unblemished state of mind and body as the lamb of God.

In terms of my analysis and interepretation of "The Last Supper" I'd say it's pretty good, but to see for yourself you've have to check that thread, open the image at the daVinci imaging site linked and zoom and scroll it yourself. I'm happy with the evaluation I've made, including labelling it a "blasphemous joke", which it is. Ever heard anything like that about daVinci's The Last Supper? Didn't think so.

Instead of attacking everything I put forward with only one agenda and presupposition in mind, either give me at least the benefit of the doubt so to speak, and add something of value, or don't bother posting in my thread, thanks.

Also, as I mentioned in the OP, the gospels are, in part, apocrypha (written to both hide and reveal) and contain some masking and allegory. They were not written to be taken strictly as literal historical fact, so it's disingenuous to call any variation from actual historical fact, a "lie". What's with all the hatred I just don't get it, unless it has something to do with the self-labelled word "atheist", which as far as this presentation goes, amounts to nothing more or less than an extreme, contemptuous bias, prior to investigation.

P.S. By my avatar, for the time being, of the window behind Jesus and Mary in daVinci's The Last Supper, I am saying about myself that I am part of the Bride, where the Spirit and the Bride at the end of the Bible freely offer together the non-dualistic FREE living water of eternal life. It's a co-mingled spirit of God and man, even a type of consumation if you will, and a wedding celebration (and no I'm not gay either). Sex is good but some things are even greater, and if in his happy life Jesus enjoyed a healthy married life, who can possibly fault him for that, or even if Mary was or became the greatest and most learned disciple of them all, or if she even gave birth to his children, none of that diminishes him and his Great Work one iota.

But why is it again that preists are not allowed to marry or women to hold an equal position to men in the Holy Roman Catholic Church..?

Is there something wrong with Jesus' courage to be happy, and to create and generate the space of eternal happiness and bliss within which saint-to-be would reside..?!


edit on 23-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I thought the message gave out was intended for everyone? It wasn't meant for only a select few as you imply. Why not spread the word instead of keeping it a big secret hidden behind 15 pages of rhetoric? I personally would love to know what you have figured out. Are you refusing to say it or is it you don't exactly know what you have figured out but somehow have twisted it in your mind to think you have figured it out?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik
 

there's enough of them that if even only a percentage were authentic, well let's just say you've missed his character and charm.

You keep saying things like that but they just seem like the easy way to keep your faith nice and safe.


In terms of my analysis and interepretation of The Last Supper I'd say it's pretty good, but to see for yourself you've have to check that thread, open the image at the daVinci imaging site linked and zoom and scroll it yourself. I'm happy with the evaluation I've made, including labelling it a "blasphemous joke", which it is. Ever heard anything like that about daVinci's The Last Supper? Didn't think so.

I checked it out when you started it. Again, your evaluation is to your satisfaction but that doesn't make it true.


Instead of attacking everything I put forward with only one agenda and presupposition in mind, either give me at least the benefit of the doubt so to speak, and add something of value, or don't bother posting in my thread, thanks.

So adding something of value means accepting everything you post and not posting anything which you disagree with?


They were not written to be taken strictly as literal historical fact, so it's disingenuous to call any variation from actual historical fact, a "lie".

That is not what I was referring to. I was talking about the core, the framework.


What's with all the hatred I just don't get it, unless it has something to do with the self-labelled word "atheist", which as far as this presentation goes, amounts to nothing more or less than an extreme, contemptuous bias, prior to investigation.

You can be sure that there is no hatred here.

The only bias I see is coming from you. Your the one who refuses to even discuss any other theory than your own. I'm not investigating anything. I try to base my convictions on direct experience.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

I thought the message gave out was intended for everyone? It wasn't meant for only a select few as you imply. Why not spread the word instead of keeping it a big secret hidden behind 15 pages of rhetoric? I personally would love to know what you have figured out. Are you refusing to say it or is it you don't exactly know what you have figured out but somehow have twisted it in your mind to think you have figured it out?

At the intersection of a prophetic framework dating back centuries, even millenia, and, the material causation of the cosmic order, a human life was framed by the celestial spheres, and a neccessary work, even a Great Work (of the ages) occured in perfect, sychronistic, simultaneity with a blood red moon, 33 years later, during Passover. Read the thread on "the woman at the well", to get a flavour for how he operated, how he was able to get ahead of the curve to to speak, and then take the whole ministry, from baptism to cross (apprx 3 yrs), and wind it back and forth, from and to it's end point, and then stand back as far as possible, and I mean far back, and instead of attempting to refute anything at all (born of a revulation for all things "religious") inquire, instead, about effects, and causes, about a fated wedge, a sacred heart, a scandalous origin, the ire of Herod burned by the Magi, it's all there you've just got to finish connecting the dots until... epiphany.

P.S. You might need to run back through the thread for the appropriate posts covering these things, to complete the puzzle. I will not do any more for you than I have already.

Those who can, and are given to, will see it, and be astonished by what they find, and those who are not, won't, and it's a heart thing, as much as it is a head thing.


edit on 23-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

Then don't be so quick to judge or think of this as some sort of debate you must win, or that to accomplish anything I need to be discredited before the watchful eye of the reader. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik
 

Then don't be so quick to judge or think of this as some sort of debate you must win, or that to accomplish anything I need to be discredited before the watchful eye of the reader. Thanks.

I'm not discrediting you, I am questioning your theory. In the process I am pointing out, what to me, seem like leaps based on the need to keep faith intact.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

If you have a specific question or comment about something specific then fire away, otherwise don't bother with the generalizations they don't wash not with me and I doubt with the reader either, thanks.

P.S. In the final analysis, a little faith is a good thing. God isn't god-in-a-jar for our inspection, it doesn't and can't work that way, but what he's left us, for those who are open and willing, is more than sufficient, to say the least!


edit on 23-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Sorry but this whole thread is nothing but vague generalizations.

When asked specific questions you come back with more of the same.


In the final analysis, a little faith is a good thing. God isn't god-in-a-jar for our inspection, it doesn't and can't work that way, but what he's left us, for those who are open and willing, is more than sufficient, to say the least!

You being satisfied with the final analysis doesn't make it true. Its like trying to become proficient in a sport by reading about it.
edit on 24-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

In terms of my analysis and interepretation of The Last Supper I'd say it's pretty good, but to see for yourself you've have to check that thread, open the image at the daVinci imaging site linked and zoom and scroll it yourself. I'm happy with the evaluation I've made, including labelling it a "blasphemous joke", which it is. Ever heard anything like that about daVinci's The Last Supper? Didn't think so.

I checked it out when you started it. Again, your evaluation is to your satisfaction but that doesn't make it true.

Ok, then that's not Mary's forcibly streeeetched right arm holding the knife, and both of her hands are placed in front of her on the table, and the one to his right isn't a woman, and everything else that's going on is something completely different from what I've described. Whatever, I know what I know and what I've evaluated, and I've shared it here and in that thread, there's nothing more I can do.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
.. bump

#2) Nicodemus


reply to post by Biliverdin
 

I disagree. The Gospels indicate that Jesus held John The Baptist in the very highest regard ie: "there are none born of a woman greater than John", the only differentiation here being that Jesus, although of course also born of a woman considered himself re-born from above, not of the flesh, but of the spirit.

Nicodemus and Jesus - Reborn
go to 2:24 in the vid - segment runs to 5:35

Note catefully the subtle nuances (intentionally directed) in this exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus surrounding the issue of rebirth.


What does this represent?

Adoration of the Magi (Magi?)
by Sandro Botticelli, 1475-76

And I'm not referring here to The Medici family and friends, the connoisseurs of Renaissance art at the time.

www.paradoxplace.com...


Who is the bearded man, up top, beneath the ray of light breaking into the scene through the roof?


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

It should also be noted that Botticelli painted the painting with the intention of HIDING it, from anyone's sight, for a long time (on fear of severe persecution by the Church if it was discovered and viewed, and by "severe" persecution, we all know what that means). Why would such a gifted artist risk his very LIFE to paint a painting that no one would be able to SEE, rolled up and placed in hiding, for a period of well over at least 100 years, if I'm not mistaken, before it was discovered, and ah "brought to light". Why?

I think that people like da Vinci and Botticelli knew certain secrets that they wanted to preserve and convey in plain site, yet without getting themselves into too much trouble with the Roman Church, which offer us clues that are relevant to this thread.


Watch the video segment with Nicodemus, which was very artfully and knowledgably directed imo, to reveal something that the Gospel hides, while at the same time illiminating the higher, transendant truth "of the spirit".

Regarding Jesus' lineage and origin, apart from Mary's side of the family ("seed of the woman" - see Genesis) while perhaps controversial or scadalous, and let's be clear this isn't about a "legitimate rape" debate (bad one I know but what can ya do?), it's (HE IS) about something infinitely more divine, such that


Originally posted by troubleshooter in the thread Have you been Punk'd by God the Master conspirator?

God's Conspiracy is to blindside the wise, learned, mighty and noble...
...and most of you have been punk'd.


God first said He would do this through His prophet Isaiah who wrote in the 8th century BC...

"...behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Isaiah 29:14


Paul quotes from Isaiah in his first letter to Corinth (one of the undisputed letters of Paul)...

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent (learned, intelligent). 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Corinthians 1:19-20


He did it by turning the human notions of wisdom on its head...


"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:"
1 Corinthians 1:26-28



God designed a way to reveal Himself that would be rejected by the world's best and brightest...
...and it is still blindsiding those who think they are special because of wealth, education or power.



How did God punk most of you?

He revealed Himself as a babe, conceived and born in scandal...
...as a man He healed the sick, sided with the oppressed and raised the dead...
...He opposed the religious and secular elite...
...who executed Him for telling them who He really was...
...but He then turned this corporate murder into a victory over death itself.


Paul said it like this...
"...the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."


Your responses will reveal whether you have been punk'd by God or not.




edit on 24-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And in spite of the controversial or scandalous aspect of his physical birth, and that his nature appears to have been not of the flesh but twice-born of the spirit (three times, if you count the resurrection from the tomb), the actual birth of the person, the human being Jesus (God Saves), is well worth celebration as well, so the whole integrity of Christmas is not only maintained but highlighted still further by these discoveries, I hope.

And so on that note, good night, and God bless you all.

may you enjoy this little piece in remembrance and awareness of the one who transcends and yet who also caps the solstice, renewing the world with hope and the possibility of newfound joy and celebration in a shared mutual triumph over everything that would otherwise threaten to rob life of it's most intrinsic value, meaning and good-willed, good-natured, humor, and charm. I love you.





Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Nicodemus and Jesus - Reborn
go to 2:24 in the vid - segment runs to 5:35

Note catefully the subtle nuances (intentionally directed) in this exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus surrounding the issue of rebirth


P.S. You know, in some strange way, I think we may have arrived at the place where Catholicism and Protestantism meet the truth and the reality in friendship and in one accord. Deny ignorance!


bump.. [relevance, my thread (was going to stick tonge out here but decided against it]]



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

The Day of the Cross
www.bethlehemstar.net...




bump for reconsideration.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Sorry, but that sounds a little out there. Rewinding and fast forwarding, standing back then forward, something about wedges and yadda yadda. It sounds like you've made a bunch of connections that aren't there and have come to a conclusion that doesn't even exist. I don't mean any disrespect, but I think you are delusional and truly believe you have found some kind of answer when you really haven't. The fact that you either can't explain it or refuse to explain it in simple terms makes me think this. Your extreme wanting of an answer has created a false one for you.
edit on 24-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Sorry but this whole thread is nothing but vague generalizations.

When asked specific questions you come back with more of the same.


In the final analysis, a little faith is a good thing. God isn't god-in-a-jar for our inspection, it doesn't and can't work that way, but what he's left us, for those who are open and willing, is more than sufficient, to say the least!

You being satisfied with the final analysis doesn't make it true. Its like trying to become proficient in a sport by reading about it.

No, you're right. It would have to include at some point the reader's own genuine humor of perfect understanding by their response to my communication, where the meaning of communication is the response you get. Then and only then, could it be considered true, to the degree that someone else really "groks" it in a heartfelt way or in what Terrance McKenna called felt-presence, or, to be perfectly blunt a "warm fuzzy".

It's all about the response where context and meaning is decisive (I take my words seriously however playfully).

And no matter what I do I just can't get a rise out of you, but ya can't win them all, just plant the seeds, and I've done my best (almost lost my JOB), tried to get it out there, the truth, while denying ignorance.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Sorry, but that sounds a little out there. Rewinding and fast forwarding, standing back then forward, something about wedges and yadda yadda. It sounds like you've made a bunch of connections that aren't there and have come to a conclusion that doesn't even exist. I don't mean any disrespect, but I think you are delusional and truly believe you have found some kind of answer when you really haven't. The fact that you either can't explain it or refuse to explain it in simple terms makes me think this. Your extreme wanting of an answer has created a false one for you.

That's fine, no worries, I'm ok with you thinking that..!


I can handle it, it doesn't phase me, and I thank you at least for playing..? What can I do, what more can I say?


It's "all good" as they say "no worries" at all.

But for the record I know I really tried my best. Honest. The reader, many of them anyway could attest, I KNOW I'm not crazy. Crazy sane maybe... but in a good way.

Sorry to have lost you..


But have a good life,
and remember to be happy and enjoy every gift that we're given even precisely as it is at this very moment in time, that too can be "good enough" you know the sacred space of the mundane, it doesn't have to be running around with arms flailing, unless you want to of course since we're free to be ourselves, and that's the bottom line in the "final analysis".

All the treasure is in Christ and the treasure is his love. (my mantra)

Some see it, some don't or can't, for a while, but once the positive double bind takes, it eventually unravells in the form of an epiphany of laughter. But that was just my experience. I wouldn't call it "insane".. lol

I don't care.









edit on 24-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: lol lol



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
No, you're right. It would have to include at some point the reader's own genuine humor of perfect understanding by their response to my communication, where the meaning of communication is the response you get. Then and only then, could it be considered true, to the degree that someone else really "groks" it in a heartfelt way or in what Terrance McKenna called felt-presence, or, to be perfectly blunt a "warm fuzzy".

But I have "groked" and upon deeper "groking" I came to a final analysis that doesn't match up with yours.

That means that either your "groking" is wrong or mine is. The difference is that after first "groking", I sounded just like you. So, maybe there is a third option, which is that you have not "groked" to the depth that I have.

There really is no way to express that so I don't even try. All I can do is try to get the message across that one can't become complacent and stop at shallow "groking".

To be honest, I thought that you wanted to use Christianity as a springboard to deeper "groking" but now I see that that is not what you are going for. Oh well.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
And frankly, it's what it says about us as human beings in the creation, intrinsic to a longggg cosmic evolutionary process, and as children of a loving God (see Phi Ratio Proportion) in the "heavenly household" of God as a first/last cause and as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whereby Jesus made it all about US in the first place - that is equally if not even MORE astounding!



And we will come to know the truth, and the truth will set us free, and yet, if we are freed for his sake why then, we shall be truly free indeed!

"And as my father hath first sent me, even so send I, you."

Deny ignorance!

Tally ho!

NAM aka Bob


edit on 24-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Good work here Man. I "grok" what you are saying.

Remember if you cut off their ears, they cannot hear.

Sometimes it helps to learn other languages.

Only an enemy speaks in his native tongue.

That is deception.




top topics



 
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join