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: noeltrotsky
originally posted by: Tangerine
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living? Second-hand accounts and repeated stories are not contemporaneous documentation of existence.
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written long after everyone who could possibly have witnessed Jesus living were dead?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that Paul never even claimed to have witnessed Jesus living?
Are these concepts that distinguish belief from fact really so difficult to grasp that they're beyond the understanding of the average person? By the way, that's a serious question as are the ones that preceded it.
You clearly have done ZERO research on ancient places or people. I simply relaying to you the current prevailing scholarly thought on the subject. It is based on a ton of little bits of evidence I'm not going into from many different sources. Cling to your belief that without an eye witness account you refuse to belief someone existed if it makes you feel smarter than people who research this subject for a living. I don't care what you believe as you haven't added to the thread whatsoever except demand one type of evidence you've decided must be present.
originally posted by: noeltrotsky
. . . . you refuse to belief someone existed if it makes you feel smarter than people who research this subject for a living.
Not only does he call the Pharisees and Sadducees (the group Jesus called a brood of vipers) his brothers
Paul fits the bill for antichrist in my opinion. All signs point toward it.
The "leaven of the Pharisees" is their sin, "leaven" is the rabbinical metaphor for sin.
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You ignored the part where he says he IS (not was) a Pharisee
No it's not.
The bible says the yeast is their teachings. Paul was a Pharisee teacher and exactly who Jesus warned about. He claims to still be a Pharisee at his trial.
No, a Mormon would not call himself an Imam even if they did convert from Islam. That defeats the whole purpose of changing religions.
You are using unrealistic examples to support your claims.
Suppose Paul "converted" from Pharisee to Sadducee...
Why would Paul call himself a Pharisee when he was supposedly a changed man and knew what Jesus thought of Pharisees?
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical
No, a Mormon would not call himself an Imam even if they did convert from Islam. That defeats the whole purpose of changing religions. Once you convert you convert, there is no in-between, otherwise you are neither religion. A Christian is not a Pharisee and a Jew is not a Muslim.
Mormons are Christians.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Annee
Mormons are Christians.
No, they practice Mormonism and use the "Book of Mormon". The "angel" that Joseph Smith allegedly met told him the Christians were wrong. They don't even have the same Christology as Christians and deny the atonement on the cross.
Paul never denied that Jesus was the Christ or that He didn't come in the flesh.
There are differences, as there are differences in the thousands of different Christian sects.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon
Paul said Jesus came in the likeness of flesh...
That's a MASSIVE stretch of the imagination. All Paul is saying is He came as a man, putting on flesh. Read his definitive statement of the gospel in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Annee
There are differences, as there are differences in the thousands of different Christian sects.
No, no, no. You are talking about Christian denominations and doctrinal differences on secondary and tertiary doctrines, NOT differences on primary ones. What separates a Christian faith from a heretical faith certainly rests on the Christology and Soeteriology. Mormons are also polytheists, not monotheists. They believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings.
Mormons believe the archangel Michael was Adam and the father of Jesus, and that Jesus and satan were brothers. That is NOT Christian.
Mormonism
RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE: The meaning of "Christianity" and why this web site gives it so much attention: There are many definitions for this term. Some people regard "Christianity" and their own denomination's name to be synonyms. Others view Christianity as including a full range of faith groups from the most conservative fundamentalist faith group to the most progressive Christian denomination.
We use the following definition: "We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, sincerely, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they interpret them to be."
This generates a lot of angry Emails from some visitors to this site who are insistent on excluding the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormons), and/or some other denominations as sub-Christian, quasi-Christian, non-Christian, or anti-Christian.
We treat Christianity in much greater detail than other religions, simply because about 75% of North Americans identify themselves with that religion. Christians outnumber the next largest organized religions, Judaism and Islam, by at least 35 to 1 in the U.S. and Canada. We are not in any way implying that Christianity is superior or inferior to other religions. It is simply much more popular in our primary catchment area.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
You can be a snob Christian all you want.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Right there in bold bro. If Paul denied He came in the flesh then how could he have died and rose again from the dead?
You are massively stretching the literary device Paul used, he is saying nothing more than He (Jesus), came to the world in the likeness (flesh and blood) of man. That God became man and dwelt amongst us humans.
The average Pharisee had no formal education in the interpretation of the law and accordingly had resorted to the professional scholar, the scribe (of which class the majority were Pharisees), in legal matters.
Admission into these communities was strictly regulated. A candidate must first agree to a vow of obedience to all of the detailed legislation of the Pharisaic tradition including: tithing, ceremonial laws and dietary purity. He then entered a period of probation (one month to one year) during which he was carefully observed with respect to his vow of obedience. Successful completion of this probation entitled the candidate to full membership in the community.
A religious society, chiefly of laymen, frequently mentioned in the New Testament . . . a movement toward religious puritanism, marked by the Priestly and Holiness codes and stimulated by the reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah. (Ezra 6:21 and Neh 10:29). Where it characterizes one 'who separated himself from the spiritual uncleanness of the gentiles of the land' and from Jewish 'people of the land' to follow the law of God.