Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
 

Let me take your post seriously for a minute.

Considering the pope is infallible, what does that say about previous popes that proclaimed that the date was true? Further proof that the whole papacy thing is a hoax.
The Church doesn't belive or has ever claimed that everything out of the pope's mouth is infallible. There's a whole big rannygazoo that the Pope has to go through to make an infallible teaching. It's never been used for the date of Christ's birth. I think the last time an infallible teaching was announced it was in the mid-1850s.


There is actually a way that the pope can be infallible??? Haha! I was just generalizing on the stupidity of it all, but WOW!!! Thanks for proving me further correct in the absurdity of it all.




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
 

Dear NysgjerrigDame,

You're very welcome. It's always a pleasure for me if I can advance someone's thinking. Now, would you be kind enough to clear up my thinking?

There is actually a way that the pope can be infallible??? Haha! I was just generalizing on the stupidity of it all, but WOW!!! Thanks for proving me further correct in the absurdity of it all.
Would you tell me what you were thinking when you said "the absurdity of it all?"

Is it that we're talking about it? Or that it made the news? Or that anyone cares? Or that the Pope wrote a book reflecting the serious, considered opinion of scholars? Or that the head of the Church can make a binding teaching for it's members? What did you mean, and why is it absurd? I'd hate to have distorted thinking and not even know what it was.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Interesting. My mil was also born years before we all thought.

Well, calendars are fascinating constructs. Check out the list of various calendars. And here's a calendar converter.

News such as this should not bode well for Biblical fundamentalists.

reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles, this "rannygazoo" il Papa goes through...is it something like a stargate? And where might I procure a rannygazoo? Would I be able to speak infallibly if I get such a device and go through it?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 

Dear desert,

Sorry for the delay, I was trying to get some research done on this "rannygazoo" issue. I've been unable to find a picture of it, but reliable sources tell me it is smaller than a stargate. They are very difficult to obtain, I believe there are only two in existence.

I did find an old monk who was willing to talk about it and give me instructions on how to obtain one. It required a pilgrimage and seven years of service in Rome, along with some rites and ceremonies. I thought it was worthwhile, so I started out. When I reread the directions I saw that I had to walk to Rome from the place of my birth. Since I was born in the central US, I started out with a heavy heart indeed. The way was difficult, and I found the challenges only increased upon leaving Washington, D.C.

Still, the trek was worthwhile. I made it to Rome, a little wet, though, and after going through some secret rituals, I started my service. After I had served laboriously for five years, my grand adventure slammed to a halt.

I had developed an allergy to pasta.



Now, for the serious part of infallibility. Five tests have to be met:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25).


Number 2 requires, as I understand it, certain wording and attached proofs of his authority.

Anything I can ever do for you, let me know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaMaa
Yeah right, like I'm going to trust anything the Pope says! LOL



OH, about that Urantia book...

The Urantia cult is demon channeled Illuminati fraudulent lies with a massive stealth agenda.

Don't be fooled... It's nothing but a massive ruse.

See:

The Urantia Cult is a Skull & Bones Spin-Off
Urantia - One of Satan's greatest masterpieces of deception
Urantia CIA experimental mind control programming
Links to CIA and the MK Ultra
The Cult of Urantia
The Urantia Book Scam
Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


No, it's not necessarily that we're talking about it. No, it's not that anybody cares. No, it's not that the pope wrote a book. No, it has nothing to do with anything that the head of some evil church said. I was merely pointing out that I thought that it was funny that some guy with a pointy hat whom is the centre of a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and paganism combined can actually do something deemed infallible. I hate to break it to you, but all humans are flawed. Even the best of us. Even if everybody on Earth were to say that one particular person were greater than anybody else he would still be flawed. Nobody is ever, has ever, nor will ever be infallible. We're all human. It's just amazing to see what absurd notions the catholics cling to. My experience with catholics shows me that they cling to hearsay more than fact. I have asked many sincere questions of catholics and they have always told me 'you need to talk to a priest. He will tell you that it just is.'. 100% of the time in my case. I have also asked many protestants many questions and they have NEVER told me to talk to a pastor. 100% of the time they have had what they believe to be the answers. I am not saying that they're correct, but at least they have an understanding (albeit, their own) of the bible and don't blindly follow some guy in a certain robe that says that he does. Hasn't history taught people anything? Fy faen.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
 

Dear NysgjerrigDame,

Thanks for explaining.

I hate to break it to you, but all humans are flawed. Even the best of us. Even if everybody on Earth were to say that one particular person were greater than anybody else he would still be flawed. Nobody is ever, has ever, nor will ever be infallible. We're all human.
I agree with you completely. I don't believe it, and the Catholic Church doesn't believe that either. Of course, that's not what infallibility means, at least to the Church.

I am not saying that they're correct, but at least they have an understanding (albeit, their own) of the bible and don't blindly follow some guy in a certain robe that says that he does.
It is a sad thing if a Christian doesn't have some understanding of the Bible, but that's the person's fault, not the religion's.

I'm curious. What questions have you asked Catholics that have them completely stumped? Are they things important to their faith, or things like "How were animals brought into the ark, by two's or by seven's?" If there are unanswerable questions, it's important that I face them.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Nei, they were things such as, whom said that an earthly man can forgive one's sins and whom said that it is so? Why is it ok to call a priest father when Jesus specifically stated that it is wrong to do so? Why is birth control wrong when the story that they give for reason is because the guy spilt his seed on the ground after being told to impregnate a certain woman. Why is it ok to recite prayers on the rosary when we were instructed in the bible not to recite prayers from memory? Why do you pray to mary and have statues of her? Why do you believe that Mary was a virgin her entire life when the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters? There are many others, but those are some of them.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh

WAS JESUS THE LAST PHARAOH OF EGYPT????
edit on 21-11-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)


i think so. i have this theory that the crook and flail of pharaoh are the rod and staff of jehovah. and the alpha and omega of jesus, is the same thing, although it has additional meanings. hypothetically, the first pharaoh ever, was god (maybe why later pharaohs thought they were gods).

i did some study on the whole issue of what then is the holy spirit.
i don't think it's the sun, although i agree that the trinity concept there is
pretty interesting. i would suggest researching the ka and ba, first, before
drawing any parallels in that regard.

personally, i traced amen to anu of anunakki fame. so that would result in anu, enki and enlil. and here's where things get tricky:
en.lil meant lord air or lord sky, etc. lil has several deriative meanings, including air, which i think is a spirit reference. also the etymology tree of lil leads to el, however el had many applications in biblical text such as the plural form elohim. elohim was applied in the original language of the text, to gods, angels, the dearly departed, and etc, so as michael s. heiser (scholar of ancient languages) points out in one of his writings: elohim (and therefore the word EL) appears to be a reference to spirit and a place of origin. so in effect, elohim were spirits from the sky/air... et.al, anunakki.

i could go on and on, on this subject. lol
edit on 22-11-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I have gone througt all the posts in this thread and no one seem to point out the impliction of the pope`s statement. Does it mean he would not celebrate mass on the 25th of december? If he goes ahead with it, would people not obviousdly be celebrating a hoax? This may look trivial but its huge for the church followership since xmas is regarded as a cornerstone in christendom. Something tells me the pope also have many unrevealed secrets tucked away in the innermost recess of his heart.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pro-all
I have gone througt all the posts in this thread and no one seem to point out the impliction of the pope`s statement. Does it mean he would not celebrate mass on the 25th of december? If he goes ahead with it, would people not obviousdly be celebrating a hoax? This may look trivial but its huge for the church followership since xmas is regarded as a cornerstone in christendom. Something tells me the pope also have many unrevealed secrets tucked away in the innermost recess of his heart.


that's a really good question! the popes of today are not nearly as hard core as they were in the dark ages (or at least, they don't appear to be), so i'm guessing he's going with the idea that it can still be celebrated on solstice because it's just acknowledgement, anyway. and you can acknowledge the validity of something, any day of the year. it was never a commandment to celebrate it, and it wasn't even suggested as an useful thing to do by jesus. it's a tradition. traditions are much more flexible.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


There are people that also think that Jesus was not born at all, or at least that the myth/faith largely supplants any real events. In any case since no exact date can be set to match the nomenclature/notation, there are alternatives.

One is the Common EraCE/BCE notation that has been adopted by numerous authors and publishers wishing to be neutral or sensitive to non-Christians. I have myself started to use it, but it not often that I have the chance to use the notation.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by pro-all
I have gone througt all the posts in this thread and no one seem to point out the impliction of the pope`s statement. Does it mean he would not celebrate mass on the 25th of december? If he goes ahead with it, would people not obviousdly be celebrating a hoax? This may look trivial but its huge for the church followership since xmas is regarded as a cornerstone in christendom. Something tells me the pope also have many unrevealed secrets tucked away in the innermost recess of his heart.


that's a really good question! the popes of today are not nearly as hard core as they were in the dark ages (or at least, they don't appear to be), so i'm guessing he's going with the idea that it can still be celebrated on solstice because it's just acknowledgement, anyway. and you can acknowledge the validity of something, any day of the year. it was never a commandment to celebrate it, and it wasn't even suggested as an useful thing to do by jesus. it's a tradition. traditions are much more flexible.


Thanks for your post. The next question is why would the pope insist on celebrating xmas when no such thing is mentioned in the bible, a book which itself has a controversial origin? Sometimes I blame myself taking part in these religious discussions because they look outright ridiculous. My main concern is that if the celebration of xmas is mass hypnotism event, then people are being led astray. But people have also gone too far on the path of ignorance that if you warn them, one is taken for insane. This is happening everywhere you look, be it in music, media or Hollywood.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 


The UN wants to change the calendar. The stumbling block? The Gregorian calendar is based on supposed date of the Birth of Christ. The UN is occultic and rejects Jesus as the Saviour. Their version is the 'Antichrist', the substitute phony Christ. The Pope, head of a billion Catholics, has just delivered what they needed.


"By rational discourse and common sense, it has been determined that the Gregorian Calendar does not represent a true or accurate standard of measure or belong to any systematic science of time, and hence, is worthy of reform," states a CRFC resolution from the World Summit on Peace and Time.

The usual suspects were on hand when more than one hundred "followers of the World Thirteen Calendar Change Peace Movement" convened at the Costa Rican summit.

Letters of acknowledgement were sent to the summit on behalf of UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan; Secretary-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor Zaragoza; His Holiness, the Dalai Lama; and by Jonathan Granoff of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security.

The Thirteen Moon "Natural Time" Calendar is touted as "a universal application of the mathematics and cosmology of the Mayan calendar as deciphered by Dr. Jose Arguelles. Ph.D., and presents a simple yet so profound opportunity to shift our everyday consciousness." www.canadafreepress.com...


As the Pope holds his bent crucifix and flashes the devil's horn signs, visits the UN's "meditation room", pushes Mary to level of a mediator.....let's just say all is not well.


For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
pro

because people like tradition, thusly why you have yule, chinese new year,
and etc. it gives folks a chance to break away from the everyday-ness of life
and celebrate something good, vs. the drudgery and sometimes cruelty of life. that's my guess. i think those types of events are like any other cultural event that has a positive social effect.

i don't think it initially was hooked in so firmly to the idea of requiring large sums of money. and over the course of history, including history in the western countries like america, the impoverished have often found ways to still celebrate it because celebration based in a positive message like giving, charity and the like, is not a bad thing. where it causes problems is when it inspires jealousy. jealousy is not supposed to be a practiced human state of being, but is used constantly to manipulate people into kill each other and etc. he has more money or more presents than me, etc. first murder ever (on the books), was over jealousy.

anyway, like with anything else in life, even the most well meaning thing can be turned to evil if the people involved, are not monitoring their own thoughts.
edit on 22-11-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
And this information affects anyone in the world, or even Christians how?

When he was born - what date and year (we know it was Oct/Nov) is irrelevant. What he did and why he died, (even that physical 'date' isn't important, but the 'day' is) is what would matter to Christians.

It's like putting up a post saying "Jesus had red curly hair". Probably did, but what difference would that make. Anything would be better than the stylized European Jesus picture Catholics hang on their walls, who was tall with a beard and long flowing hair looking like he was born in Sweden with his strong facial features with big pulsating heart.

He was Jewish and looked like any other Jew would have at that time. He may not even have had a beard at all. Why assume he's tall and thin and good looking. The outside appearance is irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
And this information affects anyone in the world, or even Christians how?

When he was born - what date and year (we know it was Oct/Nov) is irrelevant. What he did and why he died, (even that physical 'date' isn't important, but the 'day' is) is what would matter to Christians.

It's like putting up a post saying "Jesus had red curly hair". Probably did, but what difference would that make. Anything would be better than the stylized European Jesus picture Catholics hang on their walls, who was tall with a beard and long flowing hair looking like he was born in Sweden with his strong facial features with big pulsating heart.

He was Jewish and looked like any other Jew would have at that time. He may not even have had a beard at all. Why assume he's tall and thin and good looking. The outside appearance is irrelevant.


chances are he was an egyptian jew thru the ptolemy line of david. essentially, this would've had him embodying the genes of every race on the planet, which makes a great deal of sense to me and was likely the claim to fame for most of the pharaohs (they had a tradition of intermarrying their royal offspring to other royal offspring of friendly nations to form political bonds). some might say that he had no far eastern dna, but i would disagree as i think the egyptians and jews were an amalgamate of african black, european white and far eastern (via cush initially, who i think was married to a lady of the far east. ) some of those pharaohs have some strong indian (from india) and chinese features. follow the dna.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by radpetey
Here is some good info on the real birth date of the King of Kings.

Enjoy!

en.144000.net...


Whoever said Jesus was born on December 25th has never read the bible at all. He was born around Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) which falls during Tishrei (between mid september and mid october). Neither was he a baby in a manger when the Magi found him, he was a toddler.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pro-all
 

I doubt his revelation will change anything the Church does. Why upset the masses?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by thePharaoh

WAS JESUS THE LAST PHARAOH OF EGYPT????
edit on 21-11-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)


i think so. i have this theory that the crook and flail of pharaoh are the rod and staff of jehovah. and the alpha and omega of jesus, is the same thing, although it has additional meanings. hypothetically, the first pharaoh ever, was god (maybe why later pharaohs thought they were gods).

i did some study on the whole issue of what then is the holy spirit.
i don't think it's the sun, although i agree that the trinity concept there is
pretty interesting. i would suggest researching the ka and ba, first, before
drawing any parallels in that regard.

personally, i traced amen to anu of anunakki fame. so that would result in anu, enki and enlil. and here's where things get tricky:
en.lil meant lord air or lord sky, etc. lil has several deriative meanings, including air, which i think is a spirit reference. also the etymology tree of lil leads to el, however el had many applications in biblical text such as the plural form elohim. elohim was applied in the original language of the text, to gods, angels, the dearly departed, and etc, so as michael s. heiser (scholar of ancient languages) points out in one of his writings: elohim (and therefore the word EL) appears to be a reference to spirit and a place of origin. so in effect, elohim were spirits from the sky/air... et.al, anunakki.

i could go on and on, on this subject. lol
edit on 22-11-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)


You totally do not get the bible is a ton of allegory, mixed in with history with some literality thrown in....:shk:.

God's name is not Jehovah, it's Yahveh which can be YHVH or IEUE in english and the 4 letter tetragrammaton in hebrew means "behold the nail, behold the hand" or "behold the nailed hand". Now you know who God is, the one the jews had nailed to the cross 2000 years ago.



The Nail Closed Hand





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join