Did Jesus Carry The Mark Of The Beast?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
I never said the life of Jesus was a guess. His age is a guess.
Show me this quote you speak of. It doesn't exist.
The bible doesn't give a year of birth. How else can you determine his age at death? Besides guessing.


www.biblegateway.com...-NIV-25058

Luke 3:23 (NIV)
Now Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by GmoS719
I never said the life of Jesus was a guess. His age is a guess.
Show me this quote you speak of. It doesn't exist.
The bible doesn't give a year of birth. How else can you determine his age at death? Besides guessing.


www.biblegateway.com...-NIV-25058

Luke 3:23 (NIV)
Now Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry.


This further proves my point.
About 30 could mean 31 it could mean 29.
You need exact numbers.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
This further proves my point.
About 30 could mean 31 it could mean 29.
You need exact numbers.


Yes, exact numbers would be the perfect requirement
but as I wrote in the O.P., the numbers come from history as
equated by interpretation of biblical scholars.

I stand behind my original post.

It was not I whom wrote history, I merely accessed it
for use of this particular excorcise.

I am getting the idea that no matter what I post from historians
whom are biblical scholars, your mind is made up.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki

Originally posted by GmoS719
This further proves my point.
About 30 could mean 31 it could mean 29.
You need exact numbers.


Yes, exact numbers would be the perfect requirement
but as I wrote in the O.P., the numbers come from history as
equated by interpretation of biblical scholars.

I stand behind my original post.

It was not I whom wrote history, I merely accessed it
for use of this particular excorcise.

I am getting the idea that no matter what I post from historians
whom are biblical scholars, your mind is made up.


Lets look at your statements.

"Those whom choose to dig deep into it's hidden dogma (instead of following blind religious scholars)"

You say you base your numbers on biblical scholars but also say not to follow religious scholars.

"Clearly the Bible marks Jesus with 666"

According to you your numbers come from history as equated by interpretation of biblical scholars.
An interpretation of the Bible "marks Jesus with 666 " not the Bible.

"Yes, exact numbers would be the perfect requirement"

Exact numbers IS the one and only requirement.

I base my views on the Bible. Not an interpretation of the Bible.
edit on 23-1-2013 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals
reply to post by abeverage
 


Please don’t view this as an attack on your religion because it is not. However, is that the only extrabiblical reference to Jesus? I would really think an individual of that historical significance would feature in a multitude of external sources.



I am not a "Christian"...
Knock yourself out...

There were leaders of countries as well as whole civilizations that less is written about doesn't make them less historically important. And I do believe in the Historical validity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Sorry OP to be off topic.
edit on 23-1-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 


By your logic -

Around '30' could also mean 29 1/2 or 30 1/2.

The Bible wasn't written in the era of J.C. and so by
the history scholars whom adressed the 'records' to record
and submit the Bible as known today, it is their submission
that I used to make my reference.

With your admonishmnet, I am curious as to why you choose NOT
to believe the account attributed to Luke, the Apostle of Jesus..?

So if you base your veiws on the Bible, is the Biblical reference wrong according to Luke..?
If an Apostle is wrong, what else is inappropriately recorded within the Bible..?
edit on 23-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
reply to post by GmoS719
 


By your logic -

Around '30' could also mean 29 1/2 or 30 1/2.

The Bible wasn't written in the era of J.C. and so by
the history scholars whom adressed the 'records' to record
and submit the Bible as known today, it is their submission
that I used to make my reference.

With your admonishmnet, I am curious as to why you choose NOT
to believe the account attributed to Luke, the Apostle of Jesus..?

So if you base your veiws on the Bible, is the Biblical reference wrong according to Luke..?
If an Apostle is wrong, what else is inappropriately recorded within the Bible..?
edit on 23-1-2013 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)


I never said Luke was wrong. I said you're wrong for assuming "about 30" means 30.
Luke is correct by saying "about 30".
Like a previous poster said you are putting words in my mouth.
Stay on point and address the real issue, your original post.
To be honest I don't think you even believe your theory anymore.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 


I have not varied off my topic except to discuss the number issue
which really is part of the post.

I do believe what I wrote to be accurate.
Jesus bares the number of the beast - 666 - which the Bible
claims to be the number of man.
Therefore stating that Jesus was a mortal.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumAnnunaki
Question: Did Jesus carry the mark of the beast..?

History says - yes!

Mainstream History has JUST as much credibility as what you see on TV.

I would treat it accordingly...


“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”


“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac


"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

"Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues. "Similarly if the presently suppressed technology were to be made commercially available, disease, famine and environmental pollution virtually would become eradicated."

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
No. That is foolish. Nothing more than a mathematical coincidence. Anyways Revelations clearly states the qualities of the mark of the beast. Plus if Jesus was evil then the rest of the Bible including Revelations would be useless. What little faith you have...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logan13 Plus if Jesus was evil
What little faith you have...


No one here mentioned Jesus being evil.
My personal conscientious is that Jesus was just as mortal
as everyone on this very forum.

Do not judge my faith.. ..judge my religious belief.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Know what I find weird? People here are arguing about if Jesus existed yet the three major religions all at war in the middle east agree Jesus existed.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the topic though, I do feel it is a bit of a reach. Jesus was said to be mortal so why the "hidden" meaning? I don't feel we have enough evidence of his actual age so anything could be off. Its all interpretation of writings that has been changed by other men who have rewritten the bible over and over and over until today. God did not write the bible, man did and men have agendas.
edit on 1/23/2013 by ashtonhz8907 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashtonhz8907
People here are arguing about if Jesus existed

As for the topic though, I do feel it is a bit of a reach. Jesus was said to be mortal so why the "hidden" meaning? I don't feel we have enough evidence of his actual age so anything could be off.
edit on 1/23/2013 by ashtonhz8907 because: (no reason given)


No one is arguing whether Jesus lived..it is a discussion whether Jesus
was a mortal man and not God incarnate.

Yes, I agree my theory is a stretch however, the Bible
is full of astrology, mathematical equations, misconceptions
and many unanswered questions.

There is still the mysteriously missing 18 years of J.C.'s life
that can't be equated for.

This is one I find worth entertaining.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki

Hi Hum--

I believe it was the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) who stated something in very round figures (see Ch. 3:23) about the age of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk: Ho Iesous)

"As for Ho Iesous himself, he was about 30 years old when he began." - which is an incomplete phrase in Greek ..."

which could be construed as 'And Ho Iesous had reached at least the age of 30 (i.e. the minimum age of a Moreh/teacher or Rabbi in 1st century Palestine) when he started out [his ministry]..."

But all other canonical Greek gospels are silent on this point - the 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('according to John' - whoever he was) seems to think he was 46 at one point:

'Forty and Six years has this Temple been in the building of it, and you claim you can destroy it and rebuild it in three days? But Iesous spoke of the Temple of his own Body...'

Which if this confrontational scene was set c. 34 CE, would place the birth of 'ho Iesous' at the time of Halley's comet (i.e. 12 BCE) ;

The author of the 4th canonical Greek gospel ('john the Presbuteros' or 'elder' - whoever that was) had apparently died a very old man (c. 98 years old) and was according to tradition able to be brought into services on a stretcher to give a short sermon since people wanted to touch him ('since he had heard Jesus preach') - one of those who wanted to touch him was Polycarp who (as a 14 year old) met the 'elder' John when the later was 96+ years old and informed him that R. Yehoshua ('ho Iesous') was 48 years old when he died (i.e. in 36 CE); Polycarp himself grew to be an 'elder' (a presbuteros, or 'old man') when he met the young Iranaeus, later Bishop of Lyons who said he had it from Polycarp who had it from John the Elder who met 'ho Iesous' in person that 'ho Iesous' was 48 years old when he died...

If he started at 30, he would have preached for, you guessed it, 18 years ! I suspect the 3rd Canonical Greek gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) was wrong (again!) about the man's age - he places the birth after all at the Census of Cyrenius (Quirinius) which took place in 6 AD - and the 1st canonical Greek gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) claims that R. Yehoshua ('ho Iesous') was born during the reign of Herod the Great who died in BCE 4.

So the 2 Greek Gospel Birth Narratives flat out do not match / contradict each other on this point and on about 12 other points as well if you read them closely side by side word for word...

But you have to have the patience and the time to do such a study - which is why most persons who style themselves 'Christians' never bother to look tooooo closely at the text - they might be a little afraid of uncovering uncomfortable little inconcinnities along the way !



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ratcals
 



Written a hundred years after what?


I think he meant after Jesus (allegedly) died on a cross. I don't know.

From what I see historians say Revelations was written 70-100AD.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 



According to history, and the Bible, the life of Jesus is well documented.



We are missing eighteen years in the life of Jesus between the age of twelve and thirty.


Are those two statements not in conflict?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


Enlightned me please.What do we know exactly of his life from when he returned from egypt til he was 12?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


That a Galilean Jew named Jesus was crucified by order of the Roman prefect in Judea; Pontius Pilate is a historical fact.
It is confirmed by Josephus and Tacitus



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
OP The missing 18 years of Jesus the Christ's life was in studying and teaching within the church. Plain and Simple...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by APOCOLYPSE DAWN
 


If it's so plain and simple please explain all the controversy over the missing years?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join