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.
What I said earlier was:
You said it was never quoted from by any NT author.
I already said that Acts used the OT. You are coming back by quoting Acts, which reinforces my earlier point.
That's bogus, Isaiah 53 is quoted from in Acts 8.
I had already written off Acts, so wasn't thinking to much about it when I wrote:
I suppose that quote just slipped your mind maybe when you spoke earlier.
I already quoted the relevant verse from Acts where it says that Philip started with that very passage that the eunich had already asked Peter about.
But it goes on to say in that chapter that Phillip shares the gospel of Jesus Christ with the Ethiopian eunuch from that chapter he was reading from.
People do think of it in that way, for obvious reasons, as I already mentioned, which is in Isaiah 53, you have a character who is unjustly killed.
Isaiah 53 is Messianic, simple as that . . .
Luke being the Author of Acts is a story, made up later, when people were looking for someone to name as the author of a couple of books that admittedly was not Apostolic. To make it canonical, they picked Luke who was a named companion of Paul. Just placing a story to the books do not really make them properly canonical. There is plenty of evidence that Acts was not written by someone who was an eyewitness but by someone who was a writer of fiction and made up what he thought would make a good story, and has practically no actual historical value.
. . . and confirmed in the NT by Phillip and Luke the author of Acts.
I haven't used that word for at least a month, since I realized that it is not a biblical word but that usage comes from the fourth century, so your quotation marks here are deceptive, making it look like I actually said that, when I didn't.
So don't accuse anyone for teaching that the Lord laid all our sin upon Jesus as "heresy" when that precisely what Isaiah 53 says.
Not even one ancient temple stands now in greece, they have all met the violence of early christianity. only 1% is saved today of the ancient knowlege our ancestors left for us, books related to science , history, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy are lost forever, because some fanatic lunatics who couldn't understand them, thought they were related to Satan, because early christianity preached that all pagans were satan's worshipers!
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..
Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?
How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?
I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Dr1Akula
Not even one ancient temple stands now in greece, they have all met the violence of early christianity. only 1% is saved today of the ancient knowlege our ancestors left for us, books related to science , history, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy are lost forever, because some fanatic lunatics who couldn't understand them, thought they were related to Satan, because early christianity preached that all pagans were satan's worshipers!
LOL. A deity that they made up! As well, Christianity co-oped the pagan rituals and observances as their own.
I am leaning toward the belief that the Jesus character of the Bible is a composite figure of numerous messianic figures and his death symbolizes the death of the Jewish temple and all the men, women and children that were killed in the "Jewish Wars."
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..
Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?
How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?
I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
No sir. You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not citing from Origen's book "First Principle", or his newly discovered Commentaries on the Book of Matthew. LOL
Do you have a copy of the B. W. Butterworth translation of Origen's "First Principles, where that quote is cited to have come from?
My quotes, and hence my arguments, come very verifiable quotes from Origen's commentary "Contra Celsus". You've been told that numerous times now, but you keep straying to other, non-related writings and apologetics. You can't stay on topic because you have no argument, so you resort to insults and mockery.
I know not, my pious Ambrosius, why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity.
Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?
And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage?
It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.
I understand why people think that, but it probably causes more problems than it solves.
Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?
What is Origen addressing here? Reincarnation? No. If you read the chapter that the quote appears in, Origen is speaking of Jesus in that passage, not souls in general, and he is addressing the claims of Census that Mary had an affair with a Roman named Panthera and covered it up by lying to Joseph.
Originally posted by Fraudfinder
Many people blame God for the earth's current condition, murder, theft, rape hungar, etc.......Are you not aware of the fact that this world belongs to Satan? That Satan rules this world! Where does it say that? In the bible.
You are blaming the wrong individual - It is Satan's rule and way of life on this rock.
There is a way to escape this.....and it is up to you not God. There are many people escaping the punishment that many see in this world. They are protected because they are God's children - those who follow the teachings of the prophets and Jesus are being taken care of by the one true God. Those who fall away and want to rebel will be held responsible.
It's in the Jewish canon, under misc. rather than as one of the prophets. Normally, the requirement of being recognized as a proper prophet, you would have to live in Palestine, which Daniel, if he was an actual person rather than a fictional character, clearly did not. Ezekiel is in the same situation, where he did not live in Palestine or was even anyone know historically and rather the document just showed up without any provenance.
i dunno. talmudic jews, if i recall, don't support the claim that daniel was a prophet, so any prophetic utterances in the book of daniel, would be viewed in a different light.
No, Satan didn't create the world. He usurped authority from Adam at the fall. So he is certainly no god, he's a created being.
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Originally posted by Kreyvic
reply to post by TheIceQueen
It wasn't just for forgiveness,but to thwart the devil and to release those who were in Hades/ shoals /paradise.
Err, okay.. EVEN BETTER. So, let me rephrase part of my initial question.. Why did god feel the need/desire to send his son to earth to be betrayed, tortured, and then crucified in order to a: forgive us for our sins b: "thwart the devil" c: "release those who were in hades/ (actually the name of one of greek mythology's 'gods' and where he ruled) "shoals"(?)/paradise ?
HOW would sending his only son to be tortured and then killed on a cross do the above? I just don't understand.. Am I missing something? God + Son ÷ Sending one to be tortured and killed, knowingly= God being able to or having the cause/desire to forgive humans of their sins (which he created them with), the thwarting of the devil, and the release of individuals who are in another mythological god's underworld/shoals/paradise? That equaton just seems a bit... err... inconsequental to me...
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..
Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?
How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?
I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?
What is Origen addressing here? Reincarnation? No. If you read the chapter that the quote appears in, Origen is speaking of Jesus in that passage, not souls in general, and he is addressing the claims of Census that Mary had an affair with a Roman named Panthera and covered it up by lying to Joseph.
And, here's where your entire argument falls apart. How you get the soul of Jesus out of "every soul" is beyond me.
Meaning that the past actions of any given soul dictates the body it will REincarnate into.
Originally posted by DigitalKid
Originally posted by TheIceQueen
This is something that I've wanted to inquire to people about for a little while now.. Keep in mind, I am not anti-Christian or whatever, and I am just trying to understand the logic behind this..
Jesus's crucifixion is seen as a symbol of god's love and forgiveness and so on.. 'Jesus died on the cross in order for our sins to be forgiven', etc (you get the point). What I don't understand is how and the hell that is supposed to correlate with one another in some sort of way that christians discuss and view as being perfectly logical or something? Has it ever struck anyone that it makes no logical sense what so ever?
How is god sending his 'only son' to earth, to be betrayed and then brutally massacred in order for him to forgive the sins of his own creation (human beings- us) logical what so ever? I just don't understand.. Christians use/discuss/preach about this constantly as if it makes any logical sense.. Why and the HELL would god choose to/need to/DESIRE to send his only son to earth to be killed in order to forgive us?
I mean jesus, (ironically expression is on topic here) that's pretty brutal and as some would say 'hardcore'.. Why would he have the desire, let alone need to do such a thing AT ALL let alone in order to forgive beings that he created, allegedly, to be exactly as they are (as christians also say)? It makes little sense to me, what do you think? Christians/etc can you please make sense of this for me?
The death on the cross is symbolic, it didn't actually happen.
The death on the cross symbolizes the death of the 5 senses and the move into higher conscious.
How many injuries did he have?
5 one in both hands, one in both feet and one in the side.
The bible was written by mystics and showed you things by numerology and symbolism, hence the 5 injuries.
The number 9 in the bible is also important it actually means higher consciousness hence why 144,000 (1+4+4=9) people where saved, you see these numbers many times over and if you study numerology all of this becomes very apparent and easy to understand.
There is also another story with Jesus fishing and he says fish to the right side of the boat and they did and caught 153 fish. Again this was symbolic of the brain and the right side of the brain hence 153 fish (1+5+3 =9) and was showing again in a symbolic way higher consciousness.
I suggest maybe it's something you start to look into?
Hope this helps.edit on 1-7-2013 by DigitalKid because: (no reason given)edit on 1-7-2013 by DigitalKid because: (no reason given)