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.
The Other part you are pointing to were the NagHammadi in upper Egypt? coorect. These were considered the Lost Gospels? well no one considers these important, because the church threw these ones out.
Originally posted by Jehosephat
There were two parts of the dead sea scrolls, manuscripts of the Old testement. The otehr part are religious writings of the Jews of the time, possibly the sect called "Essenes"
But I will also add, the King James bible printed in 1611 was written by monks who were using seveal translations of the time and manuscripts. Some additional manuscripts were found later and besides word order and spelling, there is no significant differance of content compared to the Bibles we have today. Except for some denominations like the Jehovah witnesses who like to make thier own translations to fit thier beliefs, but they are an exeption to the rule.
Suffice it to say, and corruption of the bible is usually based on unlterior motives of sinful humans, and can be easily be proven false by more mainstream professional scholars and translators.
Not to be trite, but why not just start at Genesis and work forward to Revelation? Unless you're a really fast reader, plan to spend several months working your way through it.
That said, it's not clear that reading the rest of the Bible is going to help you understand Revelation much, because the popular notion is that it's a book of prophecy. It is, sort of, but it was prophecy geared toward the first century that mapped current events of that period to the book of Daniel and combined them with the expectation of Jesus' eminent return.
The Roman empire (the Dragon) and the whore of Babylon (1st century Judaism) are long gone. So is the beast (Nero) and false prophet (Caligula). The temple has already been desecrated (by Caligula) and destroyed (~70 CE). ~snip~
Originally posted by jake1997
Rome could not be the end because they are the 'one is'.
The one that is to come has not come yet.
Originally posted by Questioneverything
The new testament is a cut and paste job anyway and the inconsistencies in the bible are so big you cannot ignore them, when i researched this i wanted Jesus to be true so much but now i know his story is from pagan Gods especially Osisris-Dionysis.
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by jake1997
Rome could not be the end because they are the 'one is'.
The one that is to come has not come yet.
Are you talking about Daniel or Revelation?
[edit on 18-7-2005 by spamandham]
Originally posted by jake1997
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
So that is about the time of 90 AD.
Rome did not end until around 460 AD?
Originally posted by jake1997
The next one...which coincides with Daniels iron/clay feet and toes has not come yet.
Originally posted by jake1997
The prince that shall come is the AC. The people of the prince that shall come is Rome because they are the ones that plowed Jerusalem under .
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by jake1997
The prince that shall come is the AC. The people of the prince that shall come is Rome because they are the ones that plowed Jerusalem under .
As you already pointed out, Rome is a dead empire. You will have to spinmeister something else to take the place of Rome, unless of course the Roman empire is reinstituted.
Originally posted by lightseeker
Bingo! There you go. The Roman Empire will be reinstated under the Anti-Christ in the city of seven hills- sound familiar?
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by jake1997
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
So that is about the time of 90 AD.
Rome did not end until around 460 AD?
...but the last emperor of Rome also did not happen in 90 AD. The horns of the beast of Revelation are kings of an empire, not new empires.
Originally posted by jake1997
The next one...which coincides with Daniels iron/clay feet and toes has not come yet.
Daniel's statue referred to empires, not kings. I don't see how you justify equating the horns of Revelation with the body parts of the statue of Daniel from a hermeneutical perspective.
Daniel gives another clue as to who the last one is
Originally posted by jake1997
The prince that shall come is the AC. The people of the prince that shall come is Rome because they are the ones that plowed Jerusalem under .
As you already pointed out, Rome is a dead empire. You will have to spinmeister something else to take the place of Rome, unless of course the Roman empire is reinstituted.
could I say something here about this subject, since I think I know what "Questaineverything" was trying to say. Osisris was the first one we read about in ancient egyptian history. Dionysis came later. It all depends on what part of the world you lived in at the time. Krishna was in India, an so on an so on. Its all through History, the Christ story.
Originally posted by lightseeker
Originally posted by Questioneverything
The new testament is a cut and paste job anyway and the inconsistencies in the bible are so big you cannot ignore them, when i researched this i wanted Jesus to be true so much but now i know his story is from pagan Gods especially Osisris-Dionysis.
Which inconsistencies are you referring to.?Where is your evidence that the New Testament is a "cut and paste job".?How do you get to Osiris-Dionysis, one of whom was egyptian and the other greek.?
Please list sources and proofs for your contention, please.
Originally posted by jake1997
we are not talking about the horns yet. Just the 7 heads.
The 10 horns reign at the same time as the 7th head.
Originally posted by Chasrac64
could I say something here about this subject, since I think I know what "Questaineverything" was trying to say. Osisris was the first one we read about in ancient egyptian history. Dionysis came later. It all depends on what part of the world you lived in at the time. Krishna was in India, an so on an so on. Its all through History, the Christ story.
Whats Important about this story is that they all taught Immortality. They all were born Dec 25 ( Winter Soltice) Born in a Manger, had a Virgin Mother, and Taught Immortality. There were many more and like I said it all depends on what part of the world you lived in. ( and when) but clearly the Christ story if one researches will see that its one an the same. Its the same message thats all. oh yes and my I add that they were all crucified,an came back. and will come back again to bring Peace on Earth.
Originally posted by lightseeker
There is one big difference between all the people you mentioned and Jesus Christ: No one else preached that He was God incarnate and that he could forgive our sins. Also, no other person ever died on a cross and then rose from the dead.
Originally posted by Chasrac64
Also jake, I dont consider other point of views anti-anything.
I look at both sides and then decide for myself whats truth, I do have a mind of my own
You are right, and in my opinion, i feel that they have changed things over time. Dont get me wrong I believe in The Man of Galilee, and his message, I just believe in this message in a different way that you and Jake feel. but thats ok because you can see with "Questaineverything" answear that things do over time gets confused alot with other myths.
Originally posted by lightseeker
Originally posted by Chasrac64
could I say something here about this subject, since I think I know what "Questaineverything" was trying to say. Osisris was the first one we read about in ancient egyptian history. Dionysis came later. It all depends on what part of the world you lived in at the time. Krishna was in India, an so on an so on. Its all through History, the Christ story.
Whats Important about this story is that they all taught Immortality. They all were born Dec 25 ( Winter Soltice) Born in a Manger, had a Virgin Mother, and Taught Immortality. There were many more and like I said it all depends on what part of the world you lived in. ( and when) but clearly the Christ story if one researches will see that its one an the same. Its the same message thats all. oh yes and my I add that they were all crucified,an came back. and will come back again to bring Peace on Earth.
There is one big difference between all the people you mentioned and Jesus Christ: No one else preached that He was God incarnate and that he could forgive our sins. Also, no other person ever died on a cross and then rose from the dead.
yes there is and I feel this is why because when one does his search he see this. we will just stick to what this thread was intended, I just thought i was being of some help in trying to clear something up for truthseeker. thats all
Originally posted by jake1997
Originally posted by Chasrac64
Also jake, I dont consider other point of views anti-anything.
I look at both sides and then decide for myself whats truth, I do have a mind of my own
Sorry
There has been alot of that Jesus is really this pagan god stuff going around ats lately. The source is what I was looking at