300 proofs to GODs existance

Originally posted by Toltec
Well Jag its apparent that you are a skeptic

Thank oui have actually never heard such a claim myself but would actually like to see the website Jag has sugested but has not yet to date provided

Before leaving this thread, I'd just like to make clear that I have taken no sides in this debate, and have only entered this thread to simply clear up any doubts on how the Buddha died. I also included the link to the website to fulfill the request of toltec.

"actually never heard such a claim myself but would actually like to see the website."

Having accomplished both of these goals I have nothing more to add to this thread.

Tyrific, I never claimed if that website was a reliable source or not, I was just including it to show Toltec, as he said he would "like to see the website". I realize that you never made any claims that I said it was reliable or not, I am merely just clearing myself for future referance.

I now retreat back into honorable silence, and will watch this discussion continue on, unless asked for an opinion, or anything of that nature.

To be honost, I still do not know what you guys are arguing about, like I said. I just wanted to dispell any doubts, or myths as to how The Buddha died.

Have a good evening.

Peace, and Love.

Tyriffic as far as I am concerned Jesus was Quetzalcoatl Jag with respect to your statement about the link

Here is a web site provided BY TOTLEC (see previous postings) which claims that Sakya Buddha was crucified (look under the heading Buddha):

Like I said Jag cannot say you are the King

oui
Christians and Buddhists do agree:
Sakya Buddha crucified is a lie indeed.
Atheists may rant, they may shout, they may rage.
But Sakyamuni Buddha died of old age.

What of the link I just posted

Let me add another


list of biblical contradictions

Quote from Toltec:
I have actually seen that image of him Crucified but with respect to you recent response/accusation would suggest you look it up yourself

Again please elaborate what response/accusation to which you refer?? About what?? The image, the Codex Vaticanus?

I think it's astonishing this thread has gotten so much attention!

300 proof? I thought 200 was the highest you could go?

Jag grow up, I saw the image of Quexalcote Crucified it was at a Internet site about 5 years ago.

It was no different that the image of Jesus being crucified with of course one exception, it was Quexalcote of Mexico.

Again my advise is that you live with it.

Quote from jagdflieger
Quexalcote = Quetzalcoatl???? Here are two links for
Quetzalcoatl:

jagdflieger thinks Quexalcote is alternate spelling for Quetzalcoatl

Quote from Toltec
Jag you are Halarious
Jag Quetzalcoatl/Quexalcote see the difference????

Toltec seems to indicate that they are two different entities.

Quote for Toltec with links to Quexalcote
There is a big difference between the two it is not a misspelling of the word.

Quote from Toltec:
As far as Quexalcote he did live around 580 BC, as far as Quetzalcoatl he was the first emperor of the Toltec empire which means he lived at around the same time
Jesus was alive. As far as references did you note what MA said in respect to Codex Vaticanus as well as the link you provided. All references with respect to Quexalcote are not from just one person I myself am aware as well of the issue.

Quote from jagdflieger
Toltec
Well I would like to see a literay reference to Quexalcote other than Kersey Graves and atheist web sites which quote Kersey Graves. If you want to quote the Codex Vaticanus, please post a web site that has the actual textual quotes from Codex Vaticanus because my information states that the Codex Vaticanus dates from the 4th century. Also, Graves states "Quexalcote is represented, in the painting of Codex Borgianus, as nailed to the cross".

Quote from Toltec
I have actually seen that image of him Crucified but with respect to you recent response/accusation would suggest you look it up yourself

Tyriffic as far as I am concerned Jesus was Quetzalcoatl Jag with respect to your statement about the link

Now Toltec is talking about Quetzalcoatl not Quexalcote

Toltec please post site you reference about Quexalcote crucified - the image I provided is the one from the Codex Borgianus referenced by Graves. Now is or is not Quexalcote is alternate spelling for Quetzalcoatl? And if there are seperate where is information other than Graves and quotes of him.

Didn't I already explain, that quexalcote IS Jesus.

quexalcote is obviously the story of Jesus told to Meso Americans in the 1300s, that they turned into the story of "quexalcote" and the people who told them said they'd be back and they called them that Iron God dude...that they thought was Cortez.

Don't you see, it's the TEMPLARS!

It's obvious!

FM

A very good, if contestable, deduction.

I can't see how the name in either variant could have appeared in the Codex Vaticanum, which as far as I can ascertain was in Greek.



[Edited on 7-8-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

Oh my God!

Atheists just proved themselves wrong, on their own damn SITE! LOL

This is quoted from the homepage of "godlessgeeks.com"

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I found it!"

Now first I'm going to ask you to think about how this disproves atheism...or at least, is a stupid argument...can you figure it out? No? BETTING ENDS! (Bonzai).

The statement has a set of conditions.

One of which is the dark room, symbolizing the search for answers...

The black cat, is that answer.

Now the reason why this statement is erroneous, is because all of those in the quote, are still searching for the SAME THING.

Philosophy is always associated by the Atheists...so this is the dumbest mistake I've ever seen.

If they atheists are so smart, why are they looking for that which they "know" is not there?

As they claim.

Morons.

The fact is, we are all looking for the black cat in the dark room, not realizing God is the room.

Well who is this quy who was supposed to be crucified in 500 something BC? The one who is listed in Graves book. I will accpet Freemasons thesis that Quexalcote is Jesus (dating from the 1500's since Europeans did not arrive before then). Then how did it become that Jesus was crucified in Mexico?

To believe in Mohammed is to believe that the groundhog can predict spring.

www.memphisflyer.com...

Ok, this is a moronic statement, the idiot obviously doesn't know the groundhog really does set the marker for spring.

The ground hog doesn't go back into his hole because he WANTS to, it's a little thing called instinct!

MORONIC ATHEISTS!

no no jagdflieger, you obviously missed my argument.

The quexalcote and quexalcotle or whatever the god's name is, are both odd stories that are REALLY ODD.

Not because of any "religious reason" but because Europeans visited the Mexican region before 1500s.

The Knights Templar sailing to the knew world would have brought with them such stories...as Jesus, and it would explain the story of how the god would return and it turned out to be Cortez.

Because Cortez was dressed as a Knight would have been.

It's a long shot, but more plausible than 580BC jesus wanna-be. lol

Freemason are you saying that the Knights Templars were in the Americas before Columbus???

Well the problem is the info is so vague it would be 1000 pages long

It's just the realization of several things.

1) The Rosslyn Chapel completed in 1470s, contains carvings of Corn, and Aloe Vera plants (a plant especially native to the mexican regions no? ).

2) The Templars had a belief in a land across the sea (probably derived from their knowledge of the vikings travels west), which was named by the western star they called "La Merica".

3) Columbus sailed not only under the standard of the Knights Templar, but the maps and most of the support he did recieve, came from a society composed of "ex-Templars" that of course had no more actual original Templars in it, but that mainly was in charge of doccuments. Particularly...maps.

4) You have to be a fool to believe the King and Queen of Spain gave Columbus Ships because he was so "Convincing".

5) Going back to Rosslyn, it is more or less proven now that the Templars did indeed surive in Scotland, and Rosslyn was built by the family most involved with these Templars, the St. Clairs.

It's no surprise the St. Clairs also were heavy in Masonry.

So yes, I'm saying it is very VERY possible that Templars made it to the Americas before Columbus.

Everyone should know by now that the one advantage the Templars had over the commoners of Europe, was their vast knowledge of ancient Pagan religions, such knowledge would undoubtedly include the trips of Eric the Red. And the Viking Discovery of a land that had no "bays" ... bays being very common in Norway and the rest of Scandanavia.

So of course, knowing through heretical science of ancient greeks, the earth to be round. Knowing through their journeys that there was a land west if you sailed such.

They undoubtedly may have attempted such a journey when there's little else to lose.

The Templars ended up in two places, Scotland, and in Portugal.

In Scotland they merged (but not known to what extent) with Freemasonry.

In Portugal they became "Knights of Jesus" or whatever, still flew the red cross on the white sail and gave Columbus the kicking start on his way west...Columbus having married the daughter or some such thing (I'll have to verify this one), of a family that decended from an Ex-Templar...

So the theory is far more plausible than "quexalcote is another Jesus thus proving Christianity stupid..."

Freemason, thank you for your post. It would certainly rewrite the history books if it could be definitely proven that the Knight Templars visited the Americas before Columbus. The historians thought the stories about Eric the Red were myths untill they found the archeological evidence in Newfoundland. It would help explain how the stories of Quexalcote. However most web sites seem to indicate that Quexalcote is Quetzalcoatl. I cannot find any references to Quexalcote except in Kersey Graves book and web sites which quote his book. However if you accept the idea that Quexalcote is just another spelling of Quetzalcoatl then there are a lot of information on the web. Graves references for Quexalcote references the Codex Vaticanus which is a fourth century collection of Christian scriptures and the Codex Borgianus which is a depiction of Quetzalcoatl. However there are people who contend that Quetzalcoatl and Quexalcote are different deities but cannot give me any more information than what is in Kersey Graves' book.

I'll look up the archaeological sources for you guys -- later. However, I should point out that this place was first called "America" in 1507.

None of the native tribes living here called it anything that remotely resembled "America." And although Cortez was identified as a god, his journals don't say WHICH god he was identified as. The assumption that it was Quetzalcoatl came much later. There are several sources that say Quetzalcoatl was actually St. Thomas Didymus.

I'm disinclined to believe much of it, however I want to see what the original stones say.

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Byrd]

Some of those reasons are just ridiculous. "To accept evolution as truth make me uncomfortable, therfore, God exists."

Since everyone has gone off topic. Everywhere one looks there is proof of God. 300? 1000? 1,000,000? 1,000,000,000?

No, it goes on and on and on and on and on......

All one has to do is open his heart. God is love. God is everywhere. We are the Holy Spirit. It exists within each of us.