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: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: NOTurTypical

And what is your source to this supposed rendering INRI as יהוה in Hebrew translation? Me thinks yous makes this ups..


"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in Hebrew is: "Yeshua HaNazarei vMelech HaYehudim" (Hebrew reads right to left) The acrostic from that phrase is "YHVH".




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

He still risked putting "King of the Jews" above his head. The Jews supposedly despised him and wanted him dead, why wouldn't they revolt over a Roman official claiming they wanted their king dead? It doesn't make sense. He decides not to piss them off then turns around and pisses them off anyways? I'm pretty sure he would have been smarter than that.


Because how it was written by Pilate formed an acrostic in the Hebrew, something he knew would anger them. Like I said, just a middle finger to them. They wanted Jesus murdered and didn't have the authority under Roman occupation for a death penalty. He knew how fixated they were with acrostics formed in Hebrew.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: NOTurTypical

And what is your source to this supposed rendering INRI as יהוה in Hebrew translation? Me thinks yous makes this ups..


"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in Hebrew is: "Yeshua HaNazarei vMelech HaYehudim" (Hebrew reads right to left) The acrostic from that phrase is "YHVH".


That depends on what his Jewish name was. Firstly, Jesus' Jewish name was an Aramaic one, not a Hebrew one. Also we know he was called something like «Hosea bar David». And to your claim, ומלך or «vMelech» as you write, includes a conjunction to my knowledge-- «and» in the shape of the added prefix -ו in front of מלך to form ומלך lit. "and a king". Am I wrong?
edit on 30-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: ...



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well, Hebrew name. Jesus is "Yeshua" in Hebrew.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

IESVS can be Latin for quite a few names. Isaiah and Hosea being two possibilities. In the 1977 Clementine Vulgate, the Book of Yoshuah is called Iosue. Jesus Christ is written Iesus Christus in the same. In Ezra 2:2 the Hebrew name ישוע which translates Yeshua is rendered into Iosue in the Latin Vulgate. That's quite far from IESVS, or Jesus for that matter.
edit on 30-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: added part about Ezra



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Entreri06
a reply to: noeltrotsky

I made a thread about Tacitus a while back, one of the only historical accounts of Christ.

==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a few more historical accounts, like Josephus, but it's a fools game trying to prove or disprove Jesus being mentioned or treated by the historians. Current paradigm says Jesus was indeed a historical person and as far we know he is indeed mentioned in the historical data. But like I said, it's a fools game trying to prove anything based on this one way or the other.


Just because someone is mentioned by a historian does not mean that there's contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that they existed. Neither Josephus nor Tacitus lived when Jesus lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Their so-called accounts of Jesus are not historical evidence of his existence any more than my mention of Bilbo Baggins in this sentence is historical evidence of his existence.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
In general when discussing the validity of historical evidence of any person aka Jesus Christ living and doing the things the Gospel and Paul said he did; it's well worth keeping in mind that:

Jesus was convicted for being "King of the Jews" and crucified by the Romans for being a threat to Roman superiority, and the rule with Rome concerning such "traitors" was 'Damnatio Memoriae' or "Damnaton of Memory" -- they [the Romans] erased the person (i.e. "Jesus") from history removing and destroying all evidence of the person's historical or intellectual whereabouts.


There is zero contemporaneous documentation that Jesus was convicted and crucified. Far from being a threat to the Romans, the storybook character Jesus was pro Roman rule saying, "Render unto Caesar....".



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
...

The context and the humor comes out when you realize what the Jews felt about acrostics formed in their language and what that particular one said.


Yes, please talk of humour just as they squeeze the crown of thorns well down to the Master's ears, cutting deep into his forehead and skull. How proper of you.

Your mythological hero is not everyone's "savior" and is as subject to humor as anyone else.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Please fix your quoting and referencing. I didn't write what you claim I do by messing up the quoted text and its proper sources or references.

Apart from that, I don't see Jesus as a savior, and having been dead for two centuries there's not much he can do for us other than being some necromantic and sacrificial totem idol of medieval European Royalty and the Church. Before you jump to conclusions and assume my supposed "faith" or being a Christian, well, I am of no such stature. If I belong to Jesus, then so be it, that's his problem. I have no urge for begging my way into heaven.
edit on 30-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: added quite a bit



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Tangerine

Please fix your quoting and referencing. I didn't write what you claim I do by messing up the quoted text and its proper sources or references.

Apart from that, I don't see Jesus as a savior, and having been dead for two centuries there's not much he can do for us other than being some necromantic and sacrificial totem idol of medieval European Royalty and the Church. Before you jump to conclusions and assume my supposed "faith" or being a Christian, well, I am of no such stature. If I belong to Jesus, then so be it, that's his problem. I have no urge for begging my way into heaven.


I apologize for the error in my understanding and response.
edit on 30-12-2014 by Tangerine because: misspelling corrected



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

And I see I wrote centuries instead of millennia. Anyway, «the king is dead, live the king!» as they say. The «Conquering Messiah» of Revelation is a heir to Jesus and the House of David. I don't believe this, but this is the claims the Bible make. When discussing the Bible, I take the written text as is, I don't work a bunch of doctrines or abstractions, I refer to the text at hand and what it says. When discussing other texts like let's say Shakespeare's first folio, I don't have to explain how I don't believe Hamlet was once the king of Denmark and I don't have to pledge allegiance to either the Capulets or the Montagues. See?

ETA: And I apologise if I seem cross, I just don't like being called a Christian or having to explain away supposed faith or belief in ancient religious texts just because I like to study and discuss them.
edit on 30-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: eta



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

As usual, when someone who can't perform these things themselves, has to say that this kind of thing like remembering entire books, can't be done, or is hard to believe.

Paper like materials were very expensive back then and it have seen it said in all kinds of historical works that memorizing things, even entire books, was common back then. Your memory was your most valuable tool you had in being any kind of a student.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: stosh64

I don't feel as though your "Lord" is under attack here.

I said this earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again.

If Jesus is who the Bible claims him to be, then we must consider that HE wanted his earthly existence to be a provocative question and debate. Otherwise, clearly, HE would have made it so that clear evidence of his humanity would be irrefutable, him being God and all.

Believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of faith, not fact. Carry on.




It only begins as faith, so your statement is invalid, simply because you never "began"with any faith.

To those who began with faith in him first, know him existing as a fact today. Something that you will never understand with your mismatched biases always getting in the way.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Tangerine

Please fix your quoting and referencing. I didn't write what you claim I do by messing up the quoted text and its proper sources or references.

Apart from that, I don't see Jesus as a savior, and having been dead for two centuries there's not much he can do for us other than being some necromantic and sacrificial totem idol of medieval European Royalty and the Church. Before you jump to conclusions and assume my supposed "faith" or being a Christian, well, I am of no such stature. If I belong to Jesus, then so be it, that's his problem. I have no urge for begging my way into heaven.


Try 2 millennium ago, not centuries. And no one is expected or asked to beg anything from him, you are only supposed to ask. Gifts are given, not begged for.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't think you understood the point.

If people can't achieve total memorization of stories even with those having what is called a photographic memory then your claim that people memorized entire books is not evidence based. Such a thing has not been replicated so if anyone claims that the stories passed down before being recorded in scrolls tries to say the stories have been preserved as they actually happened at best would be pulling your leg. It just isn't possible.

That problem has been compounded even further through the centuries by scribes making mistakes some even purposely changing the texts. For example the trinity was never part of the New testament until 5th century which was the work of the church. Another thing that has been found is the one verse in the new testament which has Jesus claiming that he was god has been found not to exist in the earliest writings.

With the thousands of early documents that have been found of the New Testament it is said there are more discrepancies that have been found than there are words in the new testament itself. Words were changed to give Jesus divinity words were changed to make it a virgin birth in fact the birth story known to people now is a mix of two stories one of the earliest records of the NT said Joseph was going to divorce Mary until he had a revelation that the birth was divine no bethlehem either or three kings. If I remember Jesuses heritage was traced back to complete the prophecy however it was through Joseph which makes it a problem because if his birth is divine then he isn't related to Joseph.

Those are things historians have found after recovering the earliest known copies of the books from the NT so please lets not even act like memorizing stories in any way preserves the story because if it did we wouldn't have so many variations of it in the earliest known manuscripts.

Reality.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Hey thank you, this is confirming evidence for my theory, that the illuminati are changing the world religion from Christianity to an unknown yet future religion in the new age, by unveiling to the world that Christianity was created by them for the age of Pisces, by unveiling to the world that is was there very large fabricated project in human history.

This does not say Jesus never existed, but it surely is to say he didn't turn water into wine or any 'magical' things like that.

To give you a brief history, I grew up catholic, and read the whole bible before I knew about these things. I will be reading the King James NT again, which I have already read twice. I took world religion in college. I have read the Dead Sea Scrolls, the gnostic gospels, and ancient Sumerian text, and I have read from ancient Roman historians.

Now, the Dead Sea Scrolls are understood by Israel to not be a bunch of documents that the Zealots and Essene's distributed at Masada or Qumran for this secret cult like sect of ancient Jews, they are a gathering of historical and religious texts by ancient Jews from all across the many town of ancient Judah.

One will not be able to access this knowledge in one day (that deserves another post about the media and it's own deceit), but the Dead Sea Scrolls are the New Testament. Please let me explain.

What is the New Testament? It is a Greek works. We do not have any version of the New Testament in history that is Aramaic, the language of Israel at the time. It is a group of 4 gospels that are an account of the life of Jesus. First, if there are any contradictions that means we have to eliminate both pieces of information. Second, we know that the gospels were written generations after Jesus so that nobody writing the gospels knew Jesus. So people ask, why wasn't there testimony from the generation of Jesus, and why wasn't Jesus recorded in the history of that generation, because there are records of history at that time and place? In addition to the gospels there are letters which Paul wrote to the Gentiles, which can uncover many many truths.

Right away there should be a red flag. This New Testament SHOULD be a compilation of Jewish history, for what is the Old Testament. So they say the Romans took over the book of law for the Jews and put their stamp on it? They do not make us aware that this book called the bible has suddenly changed from a Jewish book to a Roman (Gentile) book. Where did the Jews go? The Romans defeated them in war. The holy city was destroyed.

What are the Dead Sea Scrolls? They are the Old Testament, and also the rest of the Jewish history from the time the Old Testament ended to the time that the Romans defeated them in war and destroyed their holy city. It is not written that the Romans took them into Exile but that it ended in a mass suicide at Masada. Do You Understand??? The New Testament was written. But it was destroyed and made Roman! It was hidden inside of caves at Qumran, and we discovered it.

Now this is where the post starts. There is so much that can be written starting here, that it is enough to cause a major down fall of what everybody was sure about for 2,000 years. But instead of writing for pages and pages, I will share a less popular documentary that shows some truth compared to the many mainstream documentaries which show many lies and no truths at all. There is so much factual documented history of lying from them to us, it is truly remarkable that everyone has not waken up to it, as if they don't really care what is truthful or not.




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
....
To those who began with faith in him first, know him existing as a fact today. Something that you will never understand with your mismatched biases always getting in the way.


I think you misunderstand the difference between faith (ie. belief) and fact. Fact is never based on belief. Fact is based on testable evidence only.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: greyer




Second, we know that the gospels were written generations after Jesus so that nobody writing the gospels knew Jesus.


That's nonsense, unless you are speaking of the Gnostic books which are self-titled and claim to be gospels. They were written in Egypt generations after Jesus. The 4 gospels were written by Matthew, John Mark, Luke the Physician, and John.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: greyer




Second, we know that the gospels were written generations after Jesus so that nobody writing the gospels knew Jesus.


... The 4 gospels were written by Matthew, John Mark, Luke the Physician, and John.



That is absolutely false. The names of the books weren't created until long after they were written and they were all written by unknown persons multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join