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.

 

Vatican: Bible Confirms Jesus Was Not Crucified

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks for the info. Not that it matters,, personally I've never doubted the Gospel accounts. I have been somewhat skeptical of Josephus. Only I guess because I have to wonder if he had to add or subtract stuff for political reasons.

Were there not also secular accounts discussing John the Baptist and his beheading?




posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: chr0naut

Thanks for the info. Not that it matters,, personally I've never doubted the Gospel accounts. I have been somewhat skeptical of Josephus. Only I guess because I have to wonder if he had to add or subtract stuff for political reasons.

Were there not also secular accounts discussing John the Baptist and his beheading?


John the Baptist was mentioned several times by Josephus but mainly in Antiquities 18.5.2, in regard to Herod:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.".

Also, at a cave near Kibbutz Tzuba, archaeologists have found that they believe was a cave used by John the Baptist to baptize his followers. I guess that it will take a some rare discovery to definitely identify if it was.

But another thing that happened during the Crucifixion was an unnatural darkness that occurred for three hours.

A 1st Century Roman historian called Thallus was quoted by Julius Africanus who wrote: "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun". - Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Africanus suggested that this "eclipse", coincident with an earthquake in Judea, was the one mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (23: 44-45). Of course it was not possible that there was a solar eclipse at the time as Pesach always coincides with a full moon (an artifact of using a lunar calendar), meaning the Moon was almost on the opposite side of the Earth to the Sun. So the darkness during the Crucifixion was not an eclipse but Thallus may have been describing events during the Crucifixion.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



So the darkness during the Crucifixion was not an eclipse but Thallus may have been describing events during the Crucifixion.


O.K., well.............that plus the confirmation of the John the Baptist account pretty much seals the deal, to my mind at least.

I guess you know what this all adds up to.

I know I do...............and now...........I gotta rush off to the bathroom!



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

Cause anyone can make stuff up to promote their latest idea/philosophy, storyline, theosophy or religion, thinking about the Tibetan monks BlissSeeker spoke of, who he/she promoted with his/her comment and thus also their false religion which is part of Babylon the Great.


But that is my point. The NT is written by Roman and Greeks generations after Christ walked the earth. They DID have major justification unto themselves to create a Godhead miracle worker in order to deceive the world - and if you look into history - it worked fantastically for them and the church made a ton of money from innocent people by lying to them for hundreds of years and persecuted anybody who rejected their lies.



Oh, and don't take your information about theological or religious matters from the BBC or any other MSM outlet; such as the doumentary that seems to be shown a lot on the National Geographic channel here with Morgan Freeman, promoting almost each and every mainstream false religion within Babylon the Great and promoting almost each and every lie told by these false religions as spiritual knowledge or insight, enlightenment, spirituality, 'special, impressive or admirable', and conditioning people with the notion that they're being openminded if they're willing to fall for them or attribute any value to them regarding the earlier mentioned words such as spirituality, etc. There's nothing insightful, enlightening, spiritual, openminded or admirable about lies and falsehoods, especially when they're about Jesus or his God.


The God of Christ is the same God as every living thing. I do not take my information from the media. The media has been aligned with the satanists from the beginning, I even saw a show on TV this morning and just out of my curiosity I decided to look up the content on the net and I found that the TV show COMPLETELY lied to the world. They lie like this to everybody in everything on TV to produce a world of blind ignorants walking around thinking they have knowledge when in reality everything they think they know is all wrong, and we can't blame them entirely for it.

My information comes from the bible, the apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and from the Aramaic and Hebrew scriptures.


Jesus was way too busy for a trip to the Himalayas, he never went that far. I think Egypt was the furthest away from Israel he has ever been when he walked this earth (but I'd have to check the details in the primary source and cause for anyone having talked about Jesus since the Gospels were written shortly after his death and resurrection, the bible, to be sure, I know he and his parents had to flee to Egypt when Herod wanted Jesus dead and ordered the slaughter of all the boys two years of age and under in Bethlehem and its districts. Sidethought: where were all the Buddhist monks talking about Jesus before they were marketing themselves to what's called 'the West', especially those with lots of money and a spiritual gap or need to fill because of their disappointment with Christendom and/or agnosticism and atheism? They didn't have much to say about Jesus when their target-market didn't want to hear anything about Jesus and still don't have much truthful things to say about him when targetting another market than 'the West' or anyone remotely impressed with the character Jesus, not that they're teaching much truthful things about Jesus when they are targetting those markets either):


I am not arguing that Christ went to India, from my learning it was the apostle Thomas who went there.

But this is what I am arguing. You cannot rely on the bible for your source of information, unless you can substantiate the information from other historical sources, because I have found the Aramaic documents that some of the NT was based on, and I know for Absolute Fact that you have been lied to in the name of God by complete sinful horrible evil culprits claiming to be apostles and saints when they were really satanists who hated the true followers of Christ.They made Christ out to be a magician and miracle worker and the reason Why they did that Was To Insult Him. The brother of Christ known as James was murdered when the church started in Jerusalem because these same people stole the church and moved it to Rome. They made you and everybody believe Christ was born of a virgin through a miracle when the Hebrews Did Not Teach That - AND YOU DON'T CARE! In fact and reality that was the PAGAN BELIEFS of their own forefathers that they loved far more than what Christ Taught and what His Followers Believed.

It is so upsetting to know that the early church was corrupted and that all your hopes of a magician walking on water and turning water into wine are not true, but what really hurts me is that the Hebrews Told You Not To Believe In That But You Do Not Listen To Them And Still Betray The Lord By Believing In Those Myths.
edit on 18-11-2017 by AlienVessel because: quote in wrong place

edit on 18-11-2017 by AlienVessel because: word was plural and not meant to be



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Well, Gee-Zus aka Hey-Zeus probably wasn't. Yahshua (Joshua) Christ on the other hand, he died on a cross, was buried in a tomb, and rose again three days later. Proving that he was and is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, Yahweh God manifest in the flesh.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienVessel

originally posted by: whereislogic

But that is my point. The NT is written by Roman and Greeks generations after Christ walked the earth.


The entirety of New Testament Gospels, books and epistles make no mention of the siege of Jerusalem, and its destruction in 70 AD (which was a pretty big thing for the people who lived, worshiped and died there). In fact, as there was only one Temple of YHWH God and it was in Jerusalem, the end of official worship was a really big thing for religious Jews and Christians. Therefore we have a fairly definite 'latest date' for the New Testament writings. The siege of Jerusalem occurred around 30 years after the resurrection (there is argument as to the exact year of the Crucifixion but the exact dates of the siege and destruction are known).

The Gospels (and letters) also laid claim to be written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries.

Given the timeline for the distribution of New Testament writings across the known world, the details appearing in contemporaneous historical works and the 'hard' latest date for them to have been written, there is actually NO evidence (extant or from contemporaneous sources) at all that suggests that they were not written very soon after the events.


They DID have major justification unto themselves to create a Godhead miracle worker in order to deceive the world - and if you look into history - it worked fantastically for them and the church made a ton of money from innocent people by lying to them for hundreds of years and persecuted anybody who rejected their lies.


If you ignore the 400 years of public persecution of Christians by both Roman authorities and even longer by other religions.


The God of Christ is the same God as every living thing. I do not take my information from the media. The media has been aligned with the satanists from the beginning, I even saw a show on TV this morning and just out of my curiosity I decided to look up the content on the net and I found that the TV show COMPLETELY lied to the world. They lie like this to everybody in everything on TV to produce a world of blind ignorants walking around thinking they have knowledge when in reality everything they think they know is all wrong, and we can't blame them entirely for it.

My information comes from the bible, the apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and from the Aramaic and Hebrew scriptures.


So how is that any different from anyone else?




I am not arguing that Christ went to India, from my learning it was the apostle Thomas who went there.

But this is what I am arguing. You cannot rely on the bible for your source of information, unless you can substantiate the information from other historical sources, because I have found the Aramaic documents that some of the NT was based on, and I know for Absolute Fact that you have been lied to in the name of God by complete sinful horrible evil culprits claiming to be apostles and saints when they were really satanists who hated the true followers of Christ.


Which Aramaic documents are you referring to? The Pe#ta? It was written at least 300 years after Christ and the oldest extant copy is more recent than most of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts (and fragments). Also, there is a lot of agreement between the Pe#ta and the Koine Greek manuscripts. The few divergences are fairly minor and don't change the meanings or dogma established from the text.


They made Christ out to be a magician and miracle worker and the reason Why they did that Was To Insult Him. The brother of Christ known as James was murdered when the church started in Jerusalem because these same people stole the church and moved it to Rome. They made you and everybody believe Christ was born of a virgin through a miracle when the Hebrews Did Not Teach That - AND YOU DON'T CARE! In fact and reality that was the PAGAN BELIEFS of their own forefathers that they loved far more than what Christ Taught and what His Followers Believed.


You now seem to be conflating Hebrew beliefs with Roman beliefs. If Christianity was a Roman invention, then it would be anti-Jewish. If it were a Jewish invention, then it would be anti-Roman. In fact it was neither.


It is so upsetting to know that the early church was corrupted and that all your hopes of a magician walking on water and turning water into wine are not true, but what really hurts me is that the Hebrews Told You Not To Believe In That But You Do Not Listen To Them And Still Betray The Lord By Believing In Those Myths.


Those "myths" are supported by the Gospels and, peripherally, by secular and anti-Christian historians.

Even the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 43a, mentions Jesus and his "magic" (but has a non-Cristian slant on the events):

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged... a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!".

Really, where is the actual evidence for this Roman or Jewish deception having occurred?

If there is absolutely no evidence of a fraud, and if there IS evidence to the contrary, then one cannot rationally conclude that the Gospels are false.

edit on 19/11/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

maybe you should look up the silk road on wikipedia and read up on the spice trade and routes...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join