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.

 

Jesus so called "sacrifice" on the cross

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: chr0naut

The post you're quoting is specifically referring to the Josephus forgeries, I believe.


I don't know which post or quote you are referring to (this thread has gone round and round in circles a bit). But I do acknowledge that there are those who suspect that the particular contentious paragraph in the Anals by Josephus are later additions. This does not make the entire Anals by Josephus forgeries (because we have no reason to doubt them) nor does it prove anything.

The passage in question, despite the unusual nature of its topic, is entirely consistent with the vocabulary and style of Josephus. If the passage was inserted later, the forger was really VERY good.

The only proof of inserted text would be to find an early manuscript which did not include the disputed paragraph, or to have an admission by the editor/forger. No such document has yet come to light.

The process of academic critique is to "question everything". The fact that you don't seem to understand this, process, perhaps, reflects your experience with the academe?


edit on 11/2/2015 by chr0naut because: added that damn missing comma!




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

"...this, process, perhaps reflects your..."

or

...this process, perhaps, reflects your...


Your experience with the academe obviously hasn't done you much good. But it definitely reflects your long term conditioning!

& your reading comprehension is obviously still lacking after that nice little tangent that barely addressed my point.

Don't worry, comprehension & grammar aren't required to get into heaven, only your servitude.
edit on 11-2-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



Accepting words written thousands of years ago, retranslated, & rewritten in any number of ways since then as the ultimate truth of the universe is your way of academically questioning everything? Riiigghhtt
edit on 11-2-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Yeah, thanks. When I was talking about lies. I was referring to the Josephus forgeries.

a reply to: chr0naut

None of the gospels claim to be written by their name sake or to be an eye witnesses to the narratives they present.





The writer of the Gospel of John claimed to be one of the 12 Disciples, referring to himself as "the Disciple who Jesus loved". In the gospel, the writer also explicitly said that he was the "Disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down". This identifies that he was the author, an eyewitness and a very specific Disciple.

The writer of 'The Gospel of Luke' and 'The Acts of the Apostles', did not identify himself in either work but did identify a certain "Theophilus", to whom he addressed both works. From other texts, works by his contemporaries and by his interest in the medical aspects of gospel events, he is identified as a Doctor Luke, a Greek or Hellenistic Jewish physician who lived in Antioch in Syria. As such, he could not have been an eyewitness. However, he explicitly states that he had documented eyewitness accounts in both works, so that Theophilus could know for certain that his faith was founded in fact.

You are, therefore, wrong on both counts.

Dr Ehrman has gotten a lot of money and fame out of his opinions. He has a motive for doing what he is doing. Very many other Biblical scholars, some with better credentials, disagree with his opinions but they don't get the air-time because what they say is not sensational. Dr Ehrman is one voice amongst many, he is not more correct, just louder.


edit on 11/2/2015 by chr0naut because: I wished to refine my argument.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: chr0naut

"...this, process, perhaps reflects your..."

or

...this process, perhaps, reflects your...


Your experience with the academe obviously hasn't done you much good. But it definitely reflects your long term conditioning!

& your reading comprehension is obviously still lacking after that nice little tangent that barely addressed my point.

Don't worry, comprehension & grammar aren't required to get into heaven, only your servitude.


Accepting words written thousands of years ago, retranslated, & rewritten in any number of ways since then as the ultimate truth of the universe is your way of academically questioning everything? Riiigghhtt


Ohhh, a comma out of place!!!! You got me there. That totally demolished my arguments.


I academically question the link pointing to an opinion piece as proof of something.

And, just because I feel this of the utmost importance, the message of the Christian Bible is that; to get to Heaven, you don't have to be servile (and follow some rules), or even be a good person.

God's forgiveness is and always will be, undeserved.



edit on 11/2/2015 by chr0naut because: Gotta fix them errant commas!



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




You are, therefore, wrong on both counts.


So, basically what your saying is that Bart Ehrman is a liar?! Okay then, here's some other people's works.


The authorship of John

Who was the author of John? Tradition has it that it was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee who is identified with "the beloved disciple" mentioned on at least four occasions in the gospel (John 13:23-25; 19:26f, 20:2-8 and 21:7f). This would make the gospel an eyewitness account. However several consideration shows that this is extremely improbable..............
The authorship of John, like that of the three gospels, is therefore anonymous. We can be reasonably certain, though, that it was not John the apostle.
www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...


Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John


We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who write the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut




You are, therefore, wrong on both counts.


So, basically what your saying is that Bart Ehrman is a liar?! Okay then, here's some other people's works.


The authorship of John

Who was the author of John? Tradition has it that it was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee who is identified with "the beloved disciple" mentioned on at least four occasions in the gospel (John 13:23-25; 19:26f, 20:2-8 and 21:7f). This would make the gospel an eyewitness account. However several consideration shows that this is extremely improbable..............
The authorship of John, like that of the three gospels, is therefore anonymous. We can be reasonably certain, though, that it was not John the apostle.
www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...


Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John


We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who write the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...


You do understand the difference between an opinion and a fact?

I cannot know that Dr Bart Ehrman is a liar.

But as it is human to misrepresent the truth, or to unwittingly repeat unsubstantiated untruths, or even to just exaggerate, I suspect we are ALL liars by definition.

That is why we would need God to pardon us.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I find it beneficial to not waste my time reading or responding to the posts of people who are consistently irrational and/or dishonest. It simply gives them a forum. I am definitely not referring to you.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: chr0naut

"...this, process, perhaps reflects your..."

or

...this process, perhaps, reflects your...


Your experience with the academe obviously hasn't done you much good. But it definitely reflects your long term conditioning!

& your reading comprehension is obviously still lacking after that nice little tangent that barely addressed my point.

Don't worry, comprehension & grammar aren't required to get into heaven, only your servitude.


Accepting words written thousands of years ago, retranslated, & rewritten in any number of ways since then as the ultimate truth of the universe is your way of academically questioning everything? Riiigghhtt



And, just because I feel this of the utmost importance, the message of the Christian Bible is that; to get to Heaven, you don't have to be servile (and follow some rules), or even be a good person.

God's forgiveness is and always will be, undeserved.




If you can't see why that isn't the most contemptuous verbal excrement in the history of humans trying to justify their own inner evils, then I pity you & everyone like you.

If only I had someone to pray to for your soul, that I might feel better about being filled with such sinful opinions on your belief system.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut




You are, therefore, wrong on both counts.


So, basically what your saying is that Bart Ehrman is a liar?! Okay then, here's some other people's works.


The authorship of John

Who was the author of John? Tradition has it that it was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee who is identified with "the beloved disciple" mentioned on at least four occasions in the gospel (John 13:23-25; 19:26f, 20:2-8 and 21:7f). This would make the gospel an eyewitness account. However several consideration shows that this is extremely improbable..............
The authorship of John, like that of the three gospels, is therefore anonymous. We can be reasonably certain, though, that it was not John the apostle.
www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...


Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John


We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who write the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...


You do understand the difference between an opinion and a fact?

I cannot know that Dr Bart Ehrman is a liar.

But as it is human to misrepresent the truth, or to unwittingly repeat unsubstantiated untruths, or even to just exaggerate, I suspect we are ALL liars by definition.

That is why we would need God to pardon us.



But the humans who wrote the words of the bible...they're chill? Talk about double standards to justify a viewpoint.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It's cool. I don't like Bart Ehrman either. I think he's sell out too. But, for the most part, his research is sound.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: chr0naut

"...this, process, perhaps reflects your..."

or

...this process, perhaps, reflects your...


Your experience with the academe obviously hasn't done you much good. But it definitely reflects your long term conditioning!

& your reading comprehension is obviously still lacking after that nice little tangent that barely addressed my point.

Don't worry, comprehension & grammar aren't required to get into heaven, only your servitude.


Accepting words written thousands of years ago, retranslated, & rewritten in any number of ways since then as the ultimate truth of the universe is your way of academically questioning everything? Riiigghhtt



And, just because I feel this of the utmost importance, the message of the Christian Bible is that; to get to Heaven, you don't have to be servile (and follow some rules), or even be a good person.

God's forgiveness is and always will be, undeserved.




If you can't see why that isn't the most contemptuous verbal excrement in the history of humans trying to justify their own inner evils, then I pity you & everyone like you.

If only I had someone to pray to for your soul, that I might feel better about being filled with such sinful opinions on your belief system.


You are absolutely correct. I am an abject sinner



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

It's cool. I don't like Bart Ehrman either. I think he's sell out too. But, for the most part, his research is sound.





Yes, Ehrman is a weasel. He doesn't exactly lie. He states that there is no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived and then spends the rest of his book trying to cover that with a dung pile of speculation that he apparently hopes the reader will take as evidence. I agree that he's a sell-out. Of course, he teaches in South Carolina and he'd have a very short career if he didn't.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Do evil. Accept Christ. Win.

I hope for the sake of existence as a whole the Christians are wrong.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Myrtales Instinct
You have to remember that God (the Father) told Jesus (the Son) exactly what to say and exactly what to do. These things were laid out from the foundation of the heavens and earth. He opened his mouth in parables because of people like you who are merely "curious" as to why those of us who follow him choose to call him, God, Savior, or a sacrifice.

He plainly said that he was going to die and on the third day rise again. He didn't lie. But what is veiled within the parables and his teachings is how he the Son of God who has been given EVERYTHING has the power to resurrect inside of you and me. NO ONE else has the ability to do such things! No one else has the power to achieve such a feat but Jesus and that makes him the One.

He sacrificed his life to bring us the truth and part of knowing the truth is understanding how he gets inside us - that is why there are miracles, signs, miraculous signs and wonders. All enlightening the spiritual narrow path.

Jesus called some of his own disciples dull and you really need to start asking some harder questions about him. You have the ability to get his full undivided attention or a big eye roll.Lol


You're making claims of fact about a God you can't prove exists in regard to Jesus for whom there isn't an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving he ever lived. You may as well be talking about Gandalf and Frodo. Your fantasies do not translate to fact unless, of course, you can cite testable evidence making them fact. Would you care to do so?


You have to prove he exists for yourself. He gave you a spirit just like everyone else. At the end of the day YOU are responsible for your spirit's growth. I am not your keeper (and even if I was you wouldn't allow it). You are quite capable to feed yourself to give your body nourishment, wear clothing when it's cold and to find shelter when it rains. These things only sustain your physical well being and pale in comparison to your spiritual health.

It's too bad he didn't encode testable time-stamps within the stories and then call them signs, wonders, miracles and miraculous signs.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: chr0naut

"...this, process, perhaps reflects your..."

or

...this process, perhaps, reflects your...


Your experience with the academe obviously hasn't done you much good. But it definitely reflects your long term conditioning!

& your reading comprehension is obviously still lacking after that nice little tangent that barely addressed my point.

Don't worry, comprehension & grammar aren't required to get into heaven, only your servitude.


Accepting words written thousands of years ago, retranslated, & rewritten in any number of ways since then as the ultimate truth of the universe is your way of academically questioning everything? Riiigghhtt



And, just because I feel this of the utmost importance, the message of the Christian Bible is that; to get to Heaven, you don't have to be servile (and follow some rules), or even be a good person.

God's forgiveness is and always will be, undeserved.




If you can't see why that isn't the most contemptuous verbal excrement in the history of humans trying to justify their own inner evils, then I pity you & everyone like you.

If only I had someone to pray to for your soul, that I might feel better about being filled with such sinful opinions on your belief system.


You are absolutely correct. I am an abject sinner


you are human. being human is not a crime. being human is not as flexible an occupation as being a fairy tale figure, and to hold yourself to such standards is plain silly. no more realistic than dreaming of camelot. and to demonize your capacity for learning through error is to undermine the very device that grants you your moral basis. no one has more control over your life than you. only YOU decide what the next moment brings for you. and the next. and the next....god cant stop you from killing yourself or from helping a little old lady across the street. god cant stop you from burning crosses or baking a cake for your interracial neighbors. but god cant MAKE you do it either. you are not abject. you are a powerhouse.
edit on 22-2-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: rokkuman

Many people have technically "died" for a few minutes and were revived again, does that mean they never died in the first place, or that it was not so serious?
Also, sacrificing something in the short term is allowed (and noble) I would think? Even if I know I would be able to smoke/drink etc etc. later, it's still a pain in the @ss to give it up now.

So "logically" what is the point of this thread? Not trying to be rude or anything, but really...whats the point?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Dmvr34



So "logically" what is the point of this thread? Not trying to be rude or anything, but really...whats the point?


The point is that its silly for christians fuss over the "sacrifice" of Jesus when in reality he was came back to for like 3 days. That too in a better body as I've been told.

Also its stupid how christians glorify the cross by having it as their symbol or by worshiping it (with dead Jesus on it) when their own book tells them he supposedly came back to life.

oh wait christianity isnt supposed to make sense. my bad.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Semantics make the world go round.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join