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.

 

The world works

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I just quoted all three of them. They all three speak of a man name Jesus related to the Christian faith put to death by potius pilate. Then we can reference four more sources Matthew Mark Luke and john...




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TerryMcGuire




And this is not to mention that it all might be not be just a historical document, but a FICTIONAL propaganda document.


Evidence for this random speculation?




This man must be fictional also. When I do not start with that presuppostion, that the bible is the word of God, NONE of those "minimal FACTS" holds any water.


What about the Bible being the word of God or not God makes any of those claims less true?



"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

This is from Josephus. The parts in brackets are what scholars consider Christian additions. The point of me posting this is to show you Jesus was most likely crucified by pontius pilate which is consistent with the Gospels as well.

Tacitus
"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also."

Again another perspective that agrees Christ was put to death by Pilate. So again most likely Jesus was a real person put to death by pontius pilate lets say around 30 AD. These extra biblical sources also give more credibility to Bible.




"I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger..."


This is from Pliny the younger. You will notice he said they would sing to Christ as if he were a God. This is an unlikely choice of words if Christ wasn't a real person. It also shows the Christians were willing to die for their belief at a time in which they would have known if Christ were a real person or not. Again highly unlikely they were willing to die for someone they could have verified as a fabricated human being.

If the Gospels were fabricated, why would they place the burial of Christ in a well known tomb were anyone in Jerusalem could have went and discredited their story?

Now on what grounds do you deny the points I haven't touched on?


Servant. Thank you for your cordial reply. I do not suspect that Jesus was fictional. Likely he is truly an historical figure. I go with Josephus when he calls Cristo a "wise man". In this manner, I hold Jesus and much of his words in respect. However, even as in the quotes you bring forth from Josephus, we do know how "believers" like to embellish their beliefs, as you point out in your reply. In this manner I do not hold with all the rest of the beliefs that have come along with the Jesus deification. These stories which grew and now surround Jesus are what I consider to be most likely fictional.

The four points that I did not find wanting in the OP are things which present day observation can verify. However the rest of the points, I continue to find wanting in light of all the other things we have learned about how humans like to exaggerate and glorify leaders and heroes.

And you mention this,, "why would they place the burial of Christ in a well known tomb were anyone in Jerusalem could have went and discredited their story?", to which I reply why would they place his burial in a well known tomb where anybody could come and steal it?

Servant. My real objection to a lot of Christianity today, mostly the vocal kind, is I would like it very much if those who believe in Jesus one way, could only just let others of us believe in him in our own way. You see, my desire to use Jesus, purported teachings in my everyday life are in most cases overridden and lampooned as invaluable by many who proclaim his divinity.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




On the same grounds you reject Plato's account of horses flying through the sky pulling a chariot as fiction.


Plato didn't intend for that to be literal, so why should I?




We both know Xtianity is about faith, and personal experience.


Personal experience has its part, but faith depends on how you define it. Guess what belief without proof doesn't work in the context of the Bible those gents had plenty of proof ....




Trying to prove to anyone with critical thinking skills these are factual stories, with the bible as evidence is an exercise in futility.


If you had to come up with a test to apply to any ancient document to determine if it was historically reliable, what would that test be?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire




These stories which grew and now surround Jesus are what I consider to be most likely fictional.


3.)Jesus's death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope, because they thought his life was ended
4.)The tomb in which He was buried was discovered empty a few days later.
5.)The disciples had experiences in which they believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
6.)The disciples were transformed from doubters who were scared to identify themselves with Christ to outspoken proclaimers of his death and resurrection.

What is your position on these three points? I say three because it seems to me you agree with 4 in that you presented the scenario that the body could have been stolen.

I would also like to present you with some research ideas as I think you should check into these questions honestly and see what the historical data says.

When was paul's conversion?
When was Paul in Corinth and how do we know?
When did Paul meet Peter and James and how do we know?

The answers to these question should make the points I have presented seem a bit more realistic.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
The creator God has seen fit to NOT use literature as the means to reveal themselves to man should be abundantly apparent yet you are trying to “prove” the existence of your God by literature.If you truly used logic and reason you would know your method is flawed.None of the “proofs” you are presenting as evidence will hold up as fact because an event cannot be proven to be fact just because it was written.
Because of lack of tools, the written word for the last 4,0000 years or so has been the main source of passing on historical events.Modern tools have made history more viable to document.If you want evidence of the existence of the man Hitler there is an abundance of evidence he existed “written” in film and audio.The downside is that documentation is not all of the evidence(the whole truth and nothing but the truth).In other words it would be impractical even now with highly advanced tools to document the “life” and events of a person because we would still not know the persons “inner world” of thought and in effect all the gathered evidence would be for naught without the complete picture.
What people who are presenting what they believe is empirical evidence for events is not empirical it is circumstantial. Somebody “wrote” what they saw and heard.There is no way to know if what they saw and heard was 100% correct or if they wrote it correct, then comes the translation of other languages and the list of anomalies grows very large and turn into hearsay instead of empirical evidence.
This method of proof of a God or the person Jesus is illogical.It may provide some evidence of some historical events and persons however if there is a creator God it would be impossible to “know” them by what is considered empirical evidence because it would still be observation then perception of “physical” evidence however the creator God would not be “in” the physical realm to be observed and perceived.The most observable experience would still be false because it is only based in a perception of the “creation”…physical realm.
The creator God cannot be a part of the physical realm because they were not created in the physical realm(or created at all).The former premise would be like Walt Disney cannot be “in” one of his Disney cartoons .Walt can draw a character that looks like Walt drawn in a Disney cartoon.However Walt can never be in his cartoon because it is his creation and it is drawn by him.
The only perception Mickey can have of Walt is the one Walt put’s in Mickeys 2 dimensional (void of depth) mind.No matter what Walt does Mickey cannot know the empirical truth of who Walt is while being in Disney world and of course Walt knows this and never attempts to empirically enlighten Mickey through his drawings of Disney world because it is futile because Mickeys perception is very limited by the Disney world dimensions he lives in.
I would venture to state one of the main reasons that some people do not (and cannot) believe in your God is because they know by intuition that a God cannot be known.They see through the futility you are trying to present.The upside in the attempted historical document method is, that would be the logical way for a creator God to interact with his creation to present evidence by example they cannot be known by writings of literature.The creator has presented evidence of the fragility of such a method and how easily it can be perverted then “perceived” as truth and doesn’t follow common reason.
For instance the main culprit..what is called the Old testament (OT) and it’s myriad of variations.Some present the evidence as if what is written is rock solid empirical evidence yet they are not.It is a multitude of fragments patched together.There is no way to prove the veracity of the evidence gleaned from those patches.The main evidence put forth is the immense volume of documents it in comparison to other literature.On the surface that would seem sufficient but it only proves there are many copies not that what is written in them as accurate reporting of the truth.
The reality is those writings would be the most damning evidence that the God portrayed in the writings is not benevolent at all but a capricious,heinous monster of infinite proportion and those whom believe that lie are experiencing something to the abused wife syndrome where they only see the good they want to see.If the OT is the documented evidence there is a God any reasonable person would hope this God did not exist .Only the abused wife would believe in and love that God.
The monster portrayed in the OT according to it’s believers is the one and only God..the creator of all that revealed themselves to a people and had them document it.Again this defies all logic.Man (creation)cannot empirically perceive of their creator just as Mickey cannot perceive Walt.He could put into Mickey’s mind what a creator could be by showing Mickey how to draw pictures but it would be very inaccurate empirical evidence.
Mickey can only act in accordance to his nature(2 dimensionality)that Walt drew him in.Man does essentially the same thing however they observe then perceive (believe) then act according to their perception through 4 dimensions. In essence mans nature is belief.They can only act on what they believe through perception by their observation.That is mans reality.It can be no more.It is the limits of their perception by and through and in the physical realm i.e…they can’t empirically perceive the creator in this realm.
To try to empirically prove a creator God is futile.It is not a matter of epistemological evidence it is a matter of facts because the truth is there are no facts for the existence of a creator God in the physical realm.A reality for a man in the physical realm is nothing more than a perception through observation enacted by an experience.None of that can be empirically proven either.Logic and reason follows that the creator God can only be “known” by and through the creator Gods devises…and it is impossible to know what they are.In other words there can be no method of attainment because it would be unnecessary.
Religion of any kind can never be the devise because that is mans nature to believe THEIR perceptions and create their reality.That is the antithesis of knowing.For lack of another term it could only be revealed 100% by the creator God’s devises.In that sense an atheist knows more truth about the existence of the creator God(that it can’t be known) than a believer because everything the believer believes about the creator God is incorrect and is only their false perception.In other words believing in Santa Claus may make a person feel better however it will not be the truth.In other,other words the beginning of knowing the truth is to know the truth can’t be known by belief.
If the creator God is real there is no way for a man to “know” that truth unless the creator God revealed it to them and the creator God would not (and could not) reveal it through the medium of the observation of the physical realm perception (belief).That’s the true beauty of it all.It could only be revealed on an individual basis.A person cannot transmute to anyone else a revelation from the creator God through any method.It is by that true reality that Truth it disseminated.That is the Good News..the creator God “will” commune with YOU under their terms ….not yours.There will be nothing left to doubt or to believe..it will only be known…no book required.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: ignorant_ape

When was paul's conversion?
When was Paul in Corinth and how do we know?
When did Paul meet Peter and James and how do we know?
How are you going to deny numbers 6-10?
Actually on what grounds do you reject any of that as known historical facts?

On what grounds do you reject the Gospels as historical evidence? They are based in the literary style known as Historical narrative and historical fiction was not yet invented as a literary style. Egyptian mythologies, Greek mythologies, Homer's illiad is written in the form of epic poetry. My point is pretty much anything you point out will not parallel the Gospels in literary style.


However,

Josephus was not only a contemporary of Paul, but every major figure in the Book of Acts. Not only that, Josephus' FATHER was in the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus.

I'm sorry, but there you go, an historical writer who mentions by name Paul, James, Ananias, Felix, and a bunch of other people, and then mentions Jesus, but here's the deal for those who read my comment...

JOSEPHUS in Antiquities of the Jews available for everyone to read on your ereader device, mentions Jesus because HIS FATHER was in the council that tried JESUS. Do you need any more contemporary than that? Do you also need to know the rabbinical sources about Jesus?

TWO first century documents that specifically mention Jesus by name and then people want a contemporary source. And get this, Josephus' MOTHER was a cousin to Herod Antipas, she was a member of the Hasmonean Dynasty. Who is this Herod Again?

And then Tacitus and Pliny must have read the "fake" document, because both of them mention Jesus and Pontius Pilate.

Antiquities of the Jews, read it, embrace it, because Josephus writes everything that is in the Book of Acts, imagine that.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

So, in a nutshell, what are you saying?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Rex282

So, in a nutshell, what are you saying?



I stated it multiple times very clearly in my post(and a multiple of my other posts) and you didn’t understand.If I state it again you still won’t understand because you don’t want to know what I mean(or care) because your legion of questions are only asked to lead to arguments and because you have proven over and over again in your posts it is your nature to argue without reason.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




I just quoted all three of them. They all three speak of a man name Jesus related to the Christian faith put to death by potius pilate. Then we can reference four more sources Matthew Mark Luke and john...



They most certainly do not! AND...your Josephus quote is a well known forgery that even the worst Christian apologists are ashamed to quote.


Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Why do Christians need to present intellectual dishonesty to try and prove their religion is reality?

Believing in Jesus is a matter of faith, not fact. If he IS real, then obviously HE wanted it that way.
edit on 12-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




Antiquities of the Jews, read it, embrace it, because Josephus writes everything that is in the Book of Acts, imagine that.


More intellectual dishonesty!

Don't tell me to go look for it! Please prove this statement.



And get this, Josephus' MOTHER was a cousin to Herod Antipas, she was a member of the Hasmonean Dynasty. Who is this Herod Again?


A REAL person.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Still more circular logic.

The bible which is infallible because it is the word of God, says that Jesus is God and that the bible is infallible because it is the word of God.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




They most certainly do not! AND...your Josephus quote is a well known forgery that even the worst Christian apologists are ashamed to quote.


Its not a forgery, but it was subject to interpolation. If you read I pointed that the brackets in my quote were what is considered later additions. The part about Jesus is considered legit. Go research. I also quoted Tacitus and I also quoted and pliny. You are the one being dishonest. Why don't you present counter information?I have given six historical sources from the 1st century.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Go back and read my post again, because I addressed your concerns, in a very generous and lenient way, I might add. Until you respond to the issues addressed, I see no reason to move forward.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

From your source that I am sure you didn't read all of or you would have seen:

"Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. "

Lets do numbers:

4+6+20+9=39
13+0=13

So you'll notice that about 33% of 52 scholars think it is all interpolation. The one I quoted it was the majority of Scholars consider accurate. I was not dishonest at all as you can see.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

From your source that I am sure you didn't read all of or you would have seen:

"Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. "

Lets do numbers:

4+6+20+9=39
13+0=13

So you'll notice that about 33% of 52 scholars think it is all interpolation. The one I quoted it was the majority of Scholars consider accurate. I was not dishonest at all as you can see.


Right. The article is very generous in presenting ALL SIDES of the debate. However, in the end, the author HAS to eliminate Josephus as a credible source for the historicity of Jesus Christ


Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join