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.

 

Ray Hagins PhD - The Council That Created Jesus Christ (lecture)

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Whilst I agree that Spiritual awakening, enlightement is a personal thing, it is not a journey alone. The very nature of the Universe shows all is connected by 'source'.

The fact that people have been deluded by religion is a concern.

My own beliefs are personal and whilst I do not talk about them directly in detail online, I do defend myself and the fact I do not believe organised religious dogma, which is the purpose of me posting on this thread, though as I suspected I was attacked for not providing proof of my disbelief, not by you but another poster.

edit on 24-2-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Cha, I know, but can't fault a guy for trying, no? A little injection of common sense?




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

I wanna be careful how I say this, but there are also videos on youtube rewriting known Egyptian history. The reason I mention this is, because this guys presentation is eerily similar to those other videos. I'll leave it at that.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I drafted a thread a while back, attempting to restore the legend of Horus, while rejecting nitwits like D.M. Murdoch, who hijack what his followers thought about him, in an effort to sell books, but never posted it. I should think about "resurrecting" that article, har-har-har.

Horus was who the ancient Egyptians thought that he was, not what modern "Christ mythicists" re-imagine him to be, and ditto Ptolomy.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

I would be interested in reading that in contrast to this thread. Let me know if you decide to post it.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by Eniii
 


What is this guy's PhD in? 'Cause it sure isn't history, lol.

There is a reason that the existence of a person in the First Century named Jesus who began a new sect of Judaism, call Christianity, is almost universally accepted --and that is because there is something called historical evidence.

You can start with the Surviving Documents from the Council of Nicaea and work your way back from there.

ETA: Oh, here he is: Black Liberation Network


(Dr. Hagins) holds a doctorate (C.C.D.) in counseling and a Ph.D. with an emphasis in Cognitive Psychology

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my history from historians, not counselors.

ETA2: Okay, I can get past him not knowing how to pronounce Ptolomy and for not knowing what the Greek word "Christus" means, but the "Son/Sun" argument? THE BIBLE WASN'T WRITTEN IN ENGLISH, YOU IDIOT!!!

lol


edit on 24-2-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)


There is no historial evidence for the existance of Jesus. If you have some, please, please present it.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



There is no historial evidence for the existance of Jesus. If you have some, please, please present it.

I will assume that you understand what historical methodology is, and what historical evidence is.

My first suggestion would be Richard Bauckham's treatise on the matter, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, which provides statistical and historical evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the life and teaching of Christ. I'd add to that the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom establish a religion in the First Century, which points back to a contemporary figure, Jesus, called the Christ.

It is almost universally accepted among historians of the era that Jesus existed. Who, or what, he was, obviously is open for interpretation among those scholars.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Klassified
reply to post by adjensen
 

I would be interested in reading that in contrast to this thread. Let me know if you decide to post it.



same here. Id love to read it.

RE: the OP...i clicked it. i hated it. I kept imagining some cheesy motivational speaker used to feed members into a cult.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


which provides statistical and historical evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the life and teaching of Christ.

It is almost universally accepted among historians of the era that Jesus existed. Who, or what, he was, obviously is open for interpretation among those scholars.


I agree that it is almost universally accepted that he existed. I certainly wouldn't say that consensus extends to the Gospels being authored by eyewitnesses. I'm going to check out your suggestion. I'd recommend you checking out this one: Historical Jesus



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Eniii
 


yes Jesus was a fake



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   

AthlonSavage
reply to post by Eniii
 


yes Jesus was a fake


Jesus was a fake? Or those who might have embellished his story? Few historical figures wrote an autobiography. If anyone should have, it was Jesus. He could have cleared up a lot of nonsense. Personally, I'm not sure at this point, what I think about Jesus existence as portrayed. So much of our written history seems less than genuine. Who really knows for certain what happened 20 years ago, let alone 2000 years.

I do know I grew up in the 60's and 70's, and sometimes I hear or read about what those decades were supposed to be like, and nothing could be further from the truth. I was there. I was part of the culture. I haven't forgotten. So written history isn't always true to life.
edit on 2/25/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
That video was atrocious. I didn't expect that much dribble.

What is so profound in this entire debacle...the fact that Jesus the Christ is, and always will be, the most famous name in all of recorded history. Every, single person on this website has heard His name and I would assume 80% of all humans walking the Earth have heard it as well. There is no conspiracy here, because no one forces you to believe.

There is a multitude of historical evidence that speaks of Him, if a person truly takes time to read and not guess. They most certainly cannot base their belief from someone else's opinionated speech or book, and try to make sense of it. Religion aside, the man existed and will remain the most well known man in history. Now whether His words were misconstrued into something that people used to their benefit is a case that has been repeated throughout history as well...just look at TV evangelists.

Thanks for the added links, adjensen.





posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



I'd recommend you checking out this one: Historical Jesus

Believe it or not, but I already own that course!

While I disagree with him on a number of points, I very much respect Bart Ehrman and his work, which stands in stark contrast with the rubbish that many other skeptics, like Carrier, Pagels or (shudder) Murdock publish to further their personal agendas.


edit on 25-2-2014 by adjensen because: I don't think that Engels ever weighed in on Jesus, stupid auto-correct, lol



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Eniii
 


Two points I often think are overlooked when one considers the reasons for the council at Nicea are:

The Roman Empire was in deep trouble and the only way to survive was to unite both the Eastern Empire with the Western. In order to do this it was decided to use a unified religion which had pockets of followers albeit with all their different views and dogma all over both Empires. There were a huge number of people attending the Council and one of its main priorities was to discuss whether Christ should be considered a holy man, or a God. One of the problems was the resurrection which texts did not show occurred. Then suddenly this got added to Mark.

The other major problem, which is also the stumbling block to truth is that most people seem to take comfort in, without realising it, that the winner writes the history and the history of Christianity and the interpolation of texts was carried out by the Holy Fathers once they knew what Constantine required.
Its why texts like Nag Hammadi had to be hidden. The Fathers were basically bullies who could bring down a monastery and controlled the dogma, so monasteries with original texts not backing the so-called dogmatic beginnings of Christianity had to hide their documents or destroy them.

What records we have of the beginning of Christianity as a religion and the Christian Bible are all written by Christians themselves as the winners of the new religion over the old ones, done puirely for political purposes. That is why the Church has had such an influence over our politics, education and many of the institutions that organise how we live and certainly also the archaeological records, the Dead Sea Scrolls as a prime example of Church censorship.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
There are historical records proving the existence of Jesus, and he started a sect of Judaism called Christianity, but , boy, does his backstory mirror an Egyptian god named Horus from a few centuries before:

Both born of a virgin, walked on water, crucified, rose from the dead - to name a few.

www.religioustolerance.org...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by Klassified
 


I drafted a thread a while back, attempting to restore the legend of Horus, while rejecting nitwits like D.M. Murdoch, who hijack what his followers thought about him, in an effort to sell books, but never posted it. I should think about "resurrecting" that article, har-har-har.

Horus was who the ancient Egyptians thought that he was, not what modern "Christ mythicists" re-imagine him to be, and ditto Ptolomy.


i don't want to go off topic to much but,

old Acharya S, aka D.M. Murdock, the one who claims that Christ was based a bunch of different, legends such as mithra, horus, adonis, krishna, quetzalcoatl, odin, and buddha.

you might find the thread linked to below interesting in the last four or five pages, where, the gut, tinfoil man, and myself came to the conclusion that she is a member here on this site. due to her posting style and some of the links that i found that shed a little light on the way that murdock responds to critics.

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

ETA:sorry i just looked at the last page of the thread and see that you posted there. sorry
edit on 25-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA: if your interrested in the last link i provided in that that and want to see prices first review of her book that seems to be removed from everywhere, except from the yahoo archives, click the show message. if they figure away to delete this pm me i saved it.
edit on 25-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


I write about things like Buddhism, Krsna, Christ and how organised religion created a lot of the bible from their own minds.

I don't subscribe to a Zeitgeist movement but it sounds interesting, so I will look into it.

I hope that ''she is a member of this site'' wasn't pointed at me, as I have endured flaming too many times when talking about religion here on ATS.

Oh and the thread you linked, the videos aren't there and a lot of people on the first page making valid points, that the OP really wasn't disproving anything.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


no it wasn't you. it's in the thread, i just wanted to instill a little curiosity. for the post.
sorry.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 



Both born of a virgin, walked on water, crucified, rose from the dead - to name a few.

Thank you for a shining example of why I drafted that thread on the Christ Mythicists, I guess I really should finish it up.

No, Horus wasn't born of a virgin -- Osiris, the father of Horus, was killed and chopped up into bits by Seth, who scattered the bits around Egypt. Isis, sister/wife of Osiris, gathered the pieces, put him back together, had sex with the remains and conceived Horus, who went on to avenge his father's death. Does that sound like he was born of a virgin?

No, Horus wasn't crucified -- there is only one Egyptian text that says he died, The Legend of the Death of Horus, but in that text, he died from a scorpion bite, not crucifixion.

I've never heard that Horus walked on water, but I'm guessing it's as wrong as the other two.

The injustice in this isn't the attempt to refute Christianity, which can stand up to it, but the intentional perversion of another peoples' stories in making that effort. Horus and his legends meant something to people, people who didn't believe that he was born of a virgin or crucified, because he wasn't.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Isis is the "perpetual" virgin who "No man hath unveiled". She can only be impregnated by a god. She is Mother Earth who is perpetually pregnant and perpetually a virgin maiden.

Here's how Plutarch explains her essence:


THE PROPER REASON ACCORDING TO PLUTARCH

LIII. 1. For Isis is the feminine [principle] of Nature and that which is capable of receiving the whole of genesis; in virtue of which she has been called “Nurse” and “All-receiving” by Plato, 1 and, by the multitude, “She of ten-thousand names,” through her being transformed by Reason (Logos) and receiving all forms and ideas [or shapes].

2. And she hath an innate love of the First and Most Holy of all things (which is identical with the Good), and longs after and pursues it. But she flees from and repels the domain of the Bad, and though she is the field and matter of them both, yet doth she ever incline to the Better of herself, and offers [herself] for him to beget and sow into herself emanations and likenesses, with which she joys and delights that she is pregnant and big with their generations.

3. For Generation is image of Essence in Matter and Becoming copy of Being.
www.sacred-texts.com...



edit on 25-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join