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.
originally posted by: silo13
Well, the Catholic church is full of crap.
The Poope also say it's 'dangerous' to have a personal relationship with Christ - when in fact it is the ONLY way to gain your salvation.
No, the CC is nothing but a lying whore.
peace
originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Sheye
He did just a week or so ago.
I'll try to find the article for you Sheye. What I can say is I went and listened to it in the original Italian and in fact he did say to have a 'presonal relationship' with Jesus is dangerous, etc.
I didn't mean to offend you - but - there it is.
peace
originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Sheye
Yes, I remember that - and I do believe he will be the last.
I'm not sure about the Antichrist coming out of the vatican (I was taught her was supposed to be from Sumerian or the region) along with the vatican being destroyed.
Whatever happens? I think we'll be here to see it.
Hang on to your faith Sheye!
peace
The Sanhedrin text indicates that Jesus was hanged as a sorcerer.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TheChrome
Close, but no cigar. Hell, as you said above is Sheol, or the grave. The lake of fire is metaphorical of destruction, why? Because Christ referred to Gehenna numerous times. It was a trash heap outside the walls of Jerusalem where people threw their trash to be burned up and destroyed. Thus, the lake of fire as described at Revelation can be understood as total destruction. It means: Death, and the grave (Hell, Sheol) will be destroyed forever.
There was no knowledge that the evil spirit of souls would die the second death. It was then believed that, collectively, all people died and their spirits were contained in Sheol. Not in Gehinnom but in Sheol.
Rabbinic Judaism is not the doctrine of the Christ Jesus. Rabbinic Judaism does not accept a celestial life with a new celestial body nor a second death which is the celestial death of the spirit. In fact there is almost nothing of the doctrine of Jesus that resembles the doctrine of rabbinic Judaic teachings.
In NT study one must always be aware that the entire Gospels are peppered with rabbinic doctrine and the reason is that the NT is a conversion from rabbinic doctrine to that of the Nazarene doctrine of Jesus.
Rabbinic Judaic teachings are varied.
Jesus has never taught Gehennom as punishment for the dead.
Jesus has always taught that after death the spirit of the soul is contained in a conscious state in Sheol.
It is incorrect to think the soul lives beyond death, and is not biblical. Jesus said “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Mark 14:34) Furthermore, the bible says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) The teaching of everlasting soul, is common to Rabbinic Judaism, Christendom, and Islam, but is not a biblical teaching. There is no soul that lives on after death. When you die, your dead! Text
originally posted by: redchad
originally posted by: Raggedyman
This stuff has been around for a millennia
What makes it so questionable is that the original letters and gospels were written and told directly after the death of Christ
Imagine if someone today, someone famous, started running around saying he was executed then rose from the dead and no one actually saw it happen
They would be laughed at and ridiculed
No one would follow or even give them any validity, yet Jesus started one of the largest faith followings ever
Barnabas book, nothing new, nothing not already seen and studied
As for gold lettered writing, that is not really of any. Consequence, sounds like it is the exact opposite of what Christ taught people
Written 2000 years ago, that's another silly thing to say
Hang on I'm under the impression that it is well established by academics and religious historians that the earliest Gospel written was Mark and that was 60-90 years after Christs death and the others possibly over 100 years. It's a bit like me trying to write a book about the start of WW1
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TheChrome
“It is strongly believe(d) that Jesus was more inclined to the teachings of the Essene's and Pharisee's.”
It is incorrect to think the soul lives beyond death, and is not biblical. Jesus said “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Mark 14:34) Furthermore, the bible says: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) The teaching of everlasting soul, is common to Rabbinic Judaism, Christendom, and Islam, but is not a biblical teaching. There is no soul that lives on after death. When you die, your dead! Text
“You quoted Ecclesiastes and in that understanding I do agree in that what you quoted was the understanding of Solomon and not the doctrine of the Christ Jesus.”
“Third heaven”
originally posted by: cheesyleps
originally posted by: redchad
originally posted by: Raggedyman
This stuff has been around for a millennia
What makes it so questionable is that the original letters and gospels were written and told directly after the death of Christ
Imagine if someone today, someone famous, started running around saying he was executed then rose from the dead and no one actually saw it happen
They would be laughed at and ridiculed
No one would follow or even give them any validity, yet Jesus started one of the largest faith followings ever
Barnabas book, nothing new, nothing not already seen and studied
As for gold lettered writing, that is not really of any. Consequence, sounds like it is the exact opposite of what Christ taught people
Written 2000 years ago, that's another silly thing to say
Hang on I'm under the impression that it is well established by academics and religious historians that the earliest Gospel written was Mark and that was 60-90 years after Christs death and the others possibly over 100 years. It's a bit like me trying to write a book about the start of WW1
There is a lot of argument about the specifics of the order in which the gospels were written and which writer influenced which.
The current most accepted theory is that the gospel of Mark was written first, during the time of increased persecution of Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero. This puts it around 62-64AD. This is roughly 30 years after the crucifixion (most likely 33AD but some arguments for 30AD exist).
This would be right at the time of St. Peter's oversight of the church in Rome. There are lots of little detailed touches in the gospel of Mark that suggest the writer was basically writing on behalf of an eyewitness (ie Peter).
Based on that timeline; your analogy is a little bit off. It is more like you sitting down today to write an account of the 1st Gulf War using interviews with a veteran as a primary source of material. I'm sure we can agree that this seems a fairly reasonable method and timeframe.
Also keep in mind that the oral and written communications of the early churches are well developed by this point. St. Paul has already completed his writings which will go on to form the bulk of the NT canon.
Was not Jesus the Son of God? You are saying his teachings were inclined to the Essenes and Pharisees? What? Why would Jesus incline anything towards any teaching of man? Did he not say at (John 18:36) “My kingdom is not of this world
Text So what you are saying is that the bible is wrong in saying “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” – (2Timothy 3:16) That is what you are implying, that the bible is not inspired of God!
Where is this in the bible? It is not!
I thought God rested on the seventh day. And there is no mention in the bible that God have come back from his holliday. Lord God on the other hand started his religion as soon as God took a brake. There is a reason why non of this makes sense.
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TheChrome
I thought God rested on the seventh day. And there is no mention in the bible that God have come back from his holliday.
Lord God on the other hand started his religion as soon as God took a brake. There is a reason why non of this makes sense.