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.

 

Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   

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.


And still the fact remains that there is not an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that jesus actually lived.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

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.


You research the existence of Jesus for a living?

Why? For who? For what purpose?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Not only does he call the Pharisees and Sadducees (the group Jesus called a brood of vipers) his brothers


"Brothers" in the sense of them being fellow Jews. And James the half-brother of Jesus was a Sadducee. Him being a Pharisee didn't change when he converted, it wasn't a profession but a training. Here is a clumsy example:

Let's say an Imam in Islam converts to Mormonism and is in Saudi Arabia trying to convert others to Mormonism, he too would say "Hey bros, I'm an Imam myself, one of the highest ones here in Saudi Arabia, but listen to me on this.. (fill in the blank)"




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. And no, Paul never denied that Jesus was the Christ or that He didn't come in the flesh.




edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You ignored the part where he says he IS (not was) a Pharisee and where he calls the high priest his ruler. He apologized to the "ruler of his people" which was the high priest. Notice how Luke specifically points out Pharisees and Sadducees before Paul says "my brothers". He was specifically talking of those two groups, otherwise he wouldn't have singled them out.



The "leaven of the Pharisees" is their sin, "leaven" is the rabbinical metaphor for sin.


No it's not.



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.


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.

It's so obvious.
edit on 12/29/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




You ignored the part where he says he IS (not was) a Pharisee


That's not true, I addressed that specifically:

"Him being a Pharisee didn't change when he converted, it wasn't a profession but a training. Here is a clumsy example:

Let's say an Imam in Islam converts to Mormonism and is in Saudi Arabia trying to convert others to Mormonism, he too would say "Hey bros, I'm an Imam myself, one of the highest ones here in Saudi Arabia, but listen to me on this.. (fill in the blank)"





No it's not.


Correct, I made an error. Leaven is a Rabbinical metaphor for pride. Because it corrupts by puffing up. (bread)




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.


Because he was still a Pharisee, as I said it's not a profession, which one quits to join another profession, it's a learning, a course of study. If a medical doctor goes to law school and passes the bar exam is he still a doctor? Yes, because the designation is his education, not where he is employed. And Biblically speaking Paul cannot be the antichrist, that will be a Muslim for one, and for two he affirms Jesus is the Christ and has come in the flesh, (and resurrected), John details that the antichrist, or spirit of antichrist, will deny those two things.









edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
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. You are using unrealistic examples to support your claims.

Suppose Paul "converted" from Pharisee to Sadducee... would he have still referred to himself as a Pharisee? Of course not. The same logic should apply with Paul converting from a Pharisee to a Christian.

Why would Paul call himself a Pharisee when he was supposedly a changed man and knew what Jesus thought of Pharisees? Why does Jesus call them a brood of vipers and why does Paul suffer no effects from a viper bite at the end of Acts? Because he was one of them.
edit on 12/29/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




No, a Mormon would not call himself an Imam even if they did convert from Islam. That defeats the whole purpose of changing religions.


Not if he was trying to evangelize other Imam's, he would relate to them on their level. No different than any other evangelist trying to find some aspect of familiarity with someone they are trying to evangelize. I think you aren't understanding the concept that being a Pharisee was not a profession or vocation, but was a course of study. When Paul became a Christian and accepted Christ as the Messiah that didn't negate his study as a Pharisee like it never happened.

If it helps think of "Pharisee" like a college degree.




You are using unrealistic examples to support your claims.


No, you are under the false impression that Pharisee is another religion, or a vocation.




Suppose Paul "converted" from Pharisee to Sadducee...


Yes, it's clear you are thinking a Pharisee is like a vocation or religion. In order for Paul to become a Sadducee he would have to go through to course and training and education to become a Sadducee. Example, Doctors of Medicine just don't switch over and practice law without going to school for law and passing the bar exam.




Why would Paul call himself a Pharisee when he was supposedly a changed man and knew what Jesus thought of Pharisees?


Because he was a Pharisee, he completed all the required training and education to be a Pharisee. Converting to Christianity didn't negate his training and education as a Pharisee. He was trying to appeal to them on that level, to try and show them from their knowledge of the Torah and Prophets that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. Nothing more than appealing to them on their own level.


edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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. Their only savior is Jesus Christ. That was very confusing and didn't make any sense.

I don't know enough to debate, but I like following these "fact" vs "belief" discussions.


edit on 29-12-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

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.



There are differences, as there are differences in the thousands of different Christian sects. But their only savior is Jesus Christ. They study the bible.

But, that's not the subject of this thread.


edit on 29-12-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Paul never denied that Jesus was the Christ or that He didn't come in the flesh.


Technically he did...

Paul said Jesus came in the likeness of flesh...

Romans 8
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

And in Philippians 2 as well... Why do you think Marcion was condemned as a heretic... He loved Paul... a bit too much

He removed the gospels that Paul had no part in... and promoted Docetism... guess where he got it from




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
scratch that... Nvm
edit on 29-12-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
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


edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

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.


just read the entire chapter... Not seeing a definitive statement...

And Likeness of flesh is pretty definitive in my opinion




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

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



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- pretty much says it all.

You can be a snob Christian all you want. Doesn't change the fact Jesus Christ is their only savior.




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.


www.religioustolerance.org...

Done




edit on 30-12-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




You can be a snob Christian all you want.


How rude.

What separates a Christian from any other faith is a person's Christology and Soeteriology. They don't even have the same doctrine of Christ or salvation as Christianity. Joseph Smith said Christians were wrong. They are more than welcome to practice Mormonism, that's fine. But it's not like Methodists and Lutherans, who agree completely on both Christology and Soeteriology, but differ on the minors.

And since you have taken it to the level of personal insults, I'm finished dialoguing with you, I wish you well.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   

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.


that would counteract the idea Paul used that all flesh is inherently sinful...

Although Paul did not actually say that Jesus did not come in the flesh, IF he did not use "likeness" (homomati IF you want to get technical) then it would have been fine... but In using said word he did not want to make Jesus a "partaker" of sin like the rest of us... Basically saying he was flesh, but not flesh... at least not like us

To Paul ALL flesh is sinful... there is only flesh and spirit, and flesh is sinful without exception...

When Paul uses Likeness of men, hes pretty much saying Jesus resembled us... but was not like us...

not the same "flesh" as we are... to which I will refer you to your original referral... 1 John 4:2

He did not say Jesus came in the flesh, but the likeness of flesh...




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

From what I understand, Pharisees and Sadducees were today's version of Democrat and Republican. The only difference between the two is that Sadducees denied angels, a bodily resurrection, and punishment/reward after death.

Also, there was no education or "degree" to earn.



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.


Being a Pharisee was based on personal opinion and preference more than anything. You did not need any kind of education to become a Pharisee and no "degree" required like with a doctor.



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.


Source

Pharisee's separated themselves from "unclean gentiles".



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.


Source

Paul did not do this, in fact he called himself "apostle to the gentiles" going totally against the tenets of the Pharasaic vow.

So from what I gather, being called a Pharisee had nothing to do with education and everything to do with personal belief and choice to take their vow. It was only your title for as long as you followed the vow, Paul didn't keep his vow because he converted and spoke with gentiles, those who Pharisee's were supposed to shy away from.

You saying an education had to be achieved in order to become a Pharisee is totally wrong.
edit on 12/30/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join