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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Paul is not credited with writing the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is. The book doesn't appear until well after the death of Paul, in the 2nd century.

So, we have Luke, who ever he was, quoting Paul quoting Jesus? Not too convincing.



He said Paul "quoted"" Jesus in Acts, not wrote the book.

You have a pattern of bias and bias leads to ... errors. Be honest, are you searching for the real truth? Bias tends to shape the truth to fit a desired outcome or conclusion. (Don't shoot me, I'm just delivering a message.)







So here we have Paul considered a scholar, a pharisee
authoritative. One to two years after the cross and on
his way to Damascus. Authored what, 13 books of the Bible?


He said authored.

See what happens when a word is changed it can take on a different meaning.




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Look. There are tons of contradiction in the Gospels. Luke is not any different. It's filled with contradictory stories and information in regards to Jesus and his supposed life. Why wouldn't I also question the strange occurrences that supposedly occurred in the book of Acts?

No where does Paul quote Jesus in his own writings. Mysteriously, Luke has him doing so in the same book it has hundreds of people watching Jesus fly up into a cloud.

It's quite convenient too, as Paul was preaching to people that they should give him all their money.


ACTS 5:1
But a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came upon all who heard of it.

7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well.

10 And she fell immediately at his feet, and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.


Better to give than receive, indeed.

Am I looking for truth? Not in the Bible


edit on 28-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




You did say you have been studying Nicea for 15 years I had hoped that meant you were still studying it but if you aren't I wondered when you stopped.


No, no. If that's the impression I left with you that isn't what I meant. I said I've been doing apologetics for 15 years or so, and the Arian heresy and Nicaea is just a very common topic, here and especially on Christian-only forums and websites. I'm sorry I left you with the impression I said I was studying Nicaea for 15 years, that's not accurate.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Paul is not credited with writing the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is.


But I didn't say Paul wrote Acts. Numerous people are quoted in Acts, and in one of the Pauline quotes he directly quotes Jesus with something that appears in none of the 4 gospel accounts. But I never claimed Paul was the author of the Book of Acts.




The book doesn't appear until well after the death of Paul, in the 2nd century.



Come on, the last book to be written was Revelation and it was in 95 AD. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul on at least 1 missionary journey.


edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ah OK thanks for clearing that up. I really was under the impression you had been specializing in that specific thing for 15 years. I went back and reread the mistake was on my part.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ah OK thanks for clearing that up. I really was under the impression you had been specializing in that specific thing for 15 years. I went back and reread the mistake was on my part.


No, noooo.

This debate has been raging on for a very long time in Christianity, usually defined as Trinitarian vs anti-Trinitarian. And I actually didn't intend on getting into that particular debate, but I commented initially that Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It's a common myth that Constantine called Nicaea to make them put in books he approved and to reject books he didn't approve. First of all, Constantine wasn't that spiritual to begin with, and secondly the books of the Bible as far as which were considered inspired and which were not was never a topic at Nicaea.

That myth exploded after "The Divinci Code" book and movie.


edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Acts didn't appear on the scene until the 2nd century and was introduced by Irenaeus.


The title "Acts of the Apostles" (Greek Πράξεις ἀποστόλων Praxeis Apostolon) was first used by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century. It is not known whether this was an existing title or one invented by Irenaeus; it does seem clear, however, that it was not given by the author.
en.wikipedia.org...





Numerous people are quoted in Acts, and in one of the Pauline quotes he directly quotes Jesus with something that appears in none of the 4 gospel accounts.


Luke has lots of stories that aren't in any other Gospels. Like I said, Luke was a story teller, and I see no reason to believe any one of his stories over another. I don't believe a risen Jesus floated away in a cloud, or that 500 people witnessed it. I don't believe that 2 people were struck dead for not "giving". Why should I believe someone who never met Jesus, saying that Jesus said something, that no else credited him saying?

Who was Luke?

Plutarch was Luke!
Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
God I miss Sigismundus in these religious discussions.

Sure wish he'd post again.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Acts didn't appear on the scene until the 2nd century and was introduced by Irenaeus.


That says the "TITLE" was first used, "Acts of the Apostles", not the date Luke wrote it.

And right on your link from Wiki is says this:




Acts is the second half of a two-part work by the same anonymous author, Luke-Acts, usually dated to around 80-90 CE.


As said previously, the last book of the Bible to be written was Revelation is 95 AD.




Like I said, Luke was a story teller, and I see no reason to believe any one of his stories over another.


No, he was a physician and historian. He interviewed as many people as he could to write their experiences with both the apostles and with Jesus, Acts is Luke part 2.




edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Right, "usually dated". But the first time we hear about the text at all is in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE".

At any rate, Plutarch fits the time frame.



No, he was a physician and historian. He interviewed as many people as he could to write their experiences with both the apostles and with Jesus, Acts is Luke part 2.


And, you KNOW this how?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




This is a thread about evidence of the existence of a living Jesus of Nazareth.


And that isn't being disputed at all Win.
The risen Christ exists and is just as alive today as
he was right after the resurrection.There is no
argument. Only your illusion of argument in the
form of believable lies that console those who
look for them. And misinform others probably
by the many. Good work BTW.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

This thread isn't about magic, Randy. It's about the reality of flesh and blood existence.

If Jesus is as you say, God, then it must have been part of his plan to leave no discernible trace of the "man". Believing in the "Risen Christ" is about faith not fact.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Right, "usually dated". But the first time we hear about the text at all is in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE"


Again, nooooooo. Luke was a TRAVELING COMPANION of Paul in at least 1 missionary journey through Asia minor, and many scholars believe that Luke and Acts were the requisite defense paperwork for Paul as a Roman citizen under Roman law for his trial before Nero. It didn't work, Paul was beheaded.

You realize Paul refers to Luke in 3 different epistles right? And how can you copy/pate from WIki above as your credible source, then directly reject what it says in the very next paragraph for the date of the Book of Acts itself? No offense, but I think you are just flinging anything against the wall hoping something sticks. Just a few posts back to tried to show that the book was written in the 2nd century from the Wiki link and that link said no such thing, it said the title "Acts of the Apostles" was first used by Irenaeus, which is right in line with every other NT epistle, they were untitled by the authors. Unlike the Gnostic pseudo-graphical books which always had titles, and they attributed well known people to their works hoping to gain credibility the actual authors didn't enjoy themselves.




And, you KNOW this how?


From Collossians he is called "beloved physician".


edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Just the same why not show proof of his existence
after he was crucified. See it's all the same to me.
And I was condescending to your insessant hammerings
against his entire existence. But it seems we've cleared
that one.

Goodnite Windword
edit on Rpm122814v53201400000021 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: windword





Believing in the "Risen Christ" is about faith not fact.


Except for the disciples who were martyred for their testimony. And except for His half-brothers James and Judas who weren't believers until after the resurrection.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The BIBLE.

See, the people who re-wrote it, gave enough truths. They had to. Too bad most are too lazy to study it. They just go to church, to get their weekly dose of religion, never knowing the truth.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

None of the Bible can be used to prove the existence of Jesus. The Bible is suspect, contradictory and unreliable. It's been censored, edited, interpolated and forged, as shown in the OP article. It can't be used to authorize itself.

We don't know who wrote the books attributed to Luke. Nor do we know who authored Matthew, which had no narrative in the oldest of fragments, but was merely a list of sayings. We don't know who wrote Mark, but we know that the last part was added hundreds of years later. We don't know who wrote the book of John, but it appears to copy the philosophy of Philo, and also shows signs of major interpolation.

We don't know how Paul died. We don't know how Peter died, if he even existed.

There are legitimate alternatives, enough for reasonable doubt, to your "orthodox" narrative of the apostles, that has no historical proof, that make a whole lot more sense than believing the fairy tale stories of the Bible prove the Bible to be true.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical




Except for the disciples who were martyred for their testimony. And except for His half-brothers James and Judas who weren't believers until after the resurrection.


We don't know any of that that. But we do know that no less than 6000 Jewish men were crucified on crosses, during the Siege of Jerusalem, outside the city walls. We know that 1000's of men were slaughter in the dessert for associating with "The Egyptian". 1000s others were slaughter for associating with other zealots, according to Josephus.

People die for causes every day.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




We don't know any of that that.


Read the early church fathers and historians. I mean how do we know ANYTHING from antiquity besides that method??? There were no video cameras until the 20th century.




People die for causes every day.


And who does so for a known fabrication they themselves made up? Especially when all they had to do to spare themselves was recant? Insane people maybe, but there is no such thing as mass-hysteria in psychology.




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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The early church fathers do nothing to prove the existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Bible.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join