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.

 

Did Rome create the crusifixtion story to justify murder?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Entreri06
I definately appreciate your participation in the thread, but no ones going to watch a video when you don't know who produced it or it's content. Is it from the American historical society or the westboro baptist church ? Feel me?

Yeah...
Translation: "I don't care about learning anything, this is about me slamming Christians with a bunch of false accusations and made up history".

Enjoy the rest of your thread, I'm out...


Actual translation: I have no need to watch some high Christian BS with zero factual basis.


For real tho, the fact you didn't post " See you should look! That's actually a video from ( fill in whatever extremely reputable source). Speaks volumes.....




posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I guess I'm thick today as I don't understand how your comment relates to my post. My guess would be that believing the moon to be a certain size based on faulty contextual measurements does not really give us any idea of the moons real size. Am I with you so far? If so, how does this relate to my post.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06

So you want to advocate making an assumption so we can postulate on what Rome may or may not have done given that said assumption is correct? Meaning that if the assumption is incorrect, then the whole conversation is irrelevant? To me, I'd rather determine the event happened first before determining guilt.


Like I said I feel ya, but that's a conversation that has been beaten to $h!7. This was just a thought I felt like sharing. I know we have zero chance to actually verify anything.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

Actual translation: I have no need to watch some high Christian BS with zero factual basis.


No, its actually based on all the stuff I linked you too in Wikipedia, so what does it matter who made it as long as its based on facts that are also linked. BTW, I know that this isn't said much on here any more, but it is an ATS rule that you cannot knowingly post false information, especially if you're a staff member. So why would I send you to something posted by Westburrow (who aren't Christians to begin with). That said though, if you can't be bothered being spoon fed from a video, I know that there's no way your actually going to following links to anything containing any real history that requires actual study and reading.

That video has more 'factual basis' then much of this thread so far.
edit on 1/4/2015 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.


About the only evidence you the Bible is lacking archaeologically is Exodus, and just because it hasn't been found yet doesn't mean its not there. For hundreds of years people thought King David was a myth, and they thought the Hittite culture was also a myth until low and behold archaeology confirmed both. So I'd say if you don't think the Biblical accounts match up with archaeology you need to go and do some more research.

And your completely wrong. I think atheist, muslims, mormons, christians, hindus, and just about any adherent to any world view can preform good science, and its intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.

I'll go check that guys information out.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Entreri06

Actual translation: I have no need to watch some high Christian BS with zero factual basis.


No, its actually based on all the stuff I linked you too in Wikipedia, so what does it matter who made it as long as its based on facts that are also linked. BTW, I know that this isn't said much on here any more, but it is an ATS rule that you cannot knowingly post false information, especially if you're a staff member. So why would I send you to something posted by Westburrow (who aren't Christians to begin with). That said though, if you can't be bothered being spoon fed from a video, I know that there's no way your actually going to following links to anything containing any real history that requires actual study and reading.

That video has more 'factual basis' then much of this thread so far.


Me thinks you seem to be pretty sensitive about who made the movie.. No one would agree that it doesn't matter who made the movie. Wikipedia is a great tool but not at all the be all end all. I promise some one else,exactly as credible as the (I'm guessing) random person who made yours, has made a video debunking every part of the bible and Wikipedia backs that up too.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.



“Bart Ehrman admits essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06




There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.


About the only evidence you the Bible is lacking archaeologically is Exodus, and just because it hasn't been found yet doesn't mean its not there. For hundreds of years people thought King David was a myth, and they thought the Hittite culture was also a myth until low and behold archaeology confirmed both. So I'd say if you don't think the Biblical accounts match up with archaeology you need to go and do some more research.

And your completely wrong. I think atheist, muslims, mormons, christians, hindus, and just about any adherent to any world view can preform good science, and its intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.

I'll go check that guys information out.


You respect any historian who leaves room to squeeze in your personal view. Your not going by most accredited or most published papers or most time in the field. The facts are no real historians or archeologists think of the bible as anything resembling a history book. Sodom and gamora wasn't called that, and wasn't destroyed by meteors. Nazerith didn't have a church, and don't even get me started on creation and early biblical accounts of isreal. The old testemant doesn't match the Torah, and it should.


You could find problems with every page.... And why??? Because it wasn't written in the first century. 400 years later they took oral traditions and un secured texts they could barely translate and decided what they felt like keeping. There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.



“Bart Ehrman admits essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”



If he's not a Christian how is he a professor at a seminary????



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06




There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.


About the only evidence you the Bible is lacking archaeologically is Exodus, and just because it hasn't been found yet doesn't mean its not there. For hundreds of years people thought King David was a myth, and they thought the Hittite culture was also a myth until low and behold archaeology confirmed both. So I'd say if you don't think the Biblical accounts match up with archaeology you need to go and do some more research.

And your completely wrong. I think atheist, muslims, mormons, christians, hindus, and just about any adherent to any world view can preform good science, and its intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.

I'll go check that guys information out.
Bart erhman is a professor at a prespaterian seminary in New Jersey....

Excellently unbiased source, he literally gets paid by the Christian church! LMAO!!!!!



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06
400 years later they took oral traditions and un secured texts they could barely translate and decided what they felt like keeping. There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.

It doesn't add up because you are not reading history, you are reading anti-christian propaganda. Jeez... If the bible was not in any written format until 400ad, how could Irenaeus have been quoting it in Against Heresies by 160ad? This is actually getting to be silly at this point.

Another vid for you to not watch...



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Very good thread, imho, OP. I wrote something similar or tried to anyway, and we ended up eventually at the same discussion. When you start the doubting, the doubting never ends, in a way…..not that you shouldn't start it to begin with, just by looking at how religion, the biblical story/canon to date, and some physics science and the idea of timelines and respun histories, and the idea of sacrifice, in general, are now used to manipulate…..

thanks for a fresh look at that.
tetra50



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Tried to edit my post to add this, but couldn't edit, so here goes.
What I walked away from considering all the above was: It's about faith.
And the grace of God.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: Entreri06
400 years later they took oral traditions and un secured texts they could barely translate and decided what they felt like keeping. There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.

It doesn't add up because you are not reading history, you are reading anti-christian propaganda. Jeez... If the bible was not in any written format until 400ad, how could Irenaeus have been quoting it in Against Heresies by 160ad? This is actually getting to be silly at this point.

Another vid for you to not watch...


No one said there weren't books of the bible floating around separately with absolutely no governing body to keep them unchanged....but prior to 400 ad there was no bible. The question is how much was changed! And all real historians agree it's ALOT!



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06
There are more existing copies and fragments of the New Testament of the Bible then any other ancient book, and they match up surprisingly well. This idea that this was some sort of game of telephone is nonsense from Bart Ehrman to sell his controversial book, and of course the more controversial the more sales. Its not like originals disappeared after they were copied, as he claims (which would be required for it to be a game of 'telephone').



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: defcon5

With all due respect, the game of "telephone" represents symbollically and realistically the idea of a story having been repeated so often ibefore and even as it was written than you can hardly expect you will get the realistic happening it is supposed to represent. This is elementary, no matter who portrays is, or how many books they write.

Regardless, the point is, if you look at how mamy times the Biblical "cannon" has been edited in councils, beginning with Nicea, no, nothing at all matches up.

You konw I don't have any problem with people of faith, for I happen to account myself as one of them, but let's not stand in the way of truth. That does more damage to what we have faith in more than anhything else.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
And after all, wasn't it you that told me, on another thread, the facts didn't matter, for "we will be saved by Grace alone…."



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50
You should, by this point in the thread, understand that the cannon has not been edited in councils, and that the council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with the cannon whatsoever. This crap is all coming from anti-christian propaganda. If the bible is so edited, how can we go back to the writings of the early church fathers, some of whom personally knew the apostles, and read their quotes from the same scripture that we have today? There are over 1 million such quotes in the writings of the Church fathers, enough to reconstruct the bible just from their quotes.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50
We are saved by grace alone, but that is not the topic of this thread.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

" Where are the records of Pilate signing off on Jesus' execution?

He didn't. He washed his hands and stated this man had broken no council by-laws.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join