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.

 

Egyptian Account of Exodus.

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

we can't let Rome get their hands on it!

they'll lock it in the archives with everything else...




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


The best you can do is look at the evidence at hand and make an educated opinion on what most likely happened.

Quite.

And, aside from your precious tome (The Bible), what evidence do you have of ANY OF IT? Please? Not anecdotal, not fan-fiction, but actual, VERIFIED evidence?



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim

your new avatar/title reminds me of this




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Look up Josephus, he was a 1st century historian who discussed Jesus.


sigh

I think I read somewhere that the one paragraph/passage in Josephus that referenced "Jesus" was a forgery/fraud.

Here's the RationalWiki entry, which has sources enumerated and accessible below the page:


This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic,[3] even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurring.[4] Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[5][6]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery.[7][8][9]



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim

Of all of the different Christian groups and sub groups that one RCC causes more anguish then the rest put together .That would even include the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons lol Yea their archives eh :>)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
We today in modern times have taken for truth things that have turned out to be not so .Archaeology at times fail to confirm for many years things that contradict what we had taken as truth until new thoughts emerge through new investigation . Creeds can confuse and rumors take on a position to misdirect or misinform . This vid is about the Temple and when taken in light of the truth and myths put aside we see that the Temple was not on what we call the Temple Mount today . This has serious implications and if embraced would remove a lot of tension in Jerusalem .



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: AinElohim
Of all of the different Christian groups and sub groups that one RCC causes more anguish then the rest put together .That would even include the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons lol Yea their archives eh :>)


I think the Protestant groups should gather a posse up and go for it, it could all be bloodless... it's 2015 fer Christ's sake!


@undo; nah more like this...





posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim


the text we're translated from original Hebrew into Ancient Greek.

with the matches between them word for word, so they are considered the definitive sources.


that is a theory... but since we don't have the originals... it is actually nothing more then a theory...

and the earliest copies are in Koine Greek


with the advent of the dead sea scrolls they became a 3rd recently undiscovered text for comparison.


I thought we were talking about the NT here?




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


I dont know if the jury is still out on this story so .."A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published.


Yeah I didn't mention that because the jury is still out on the dating of it...

Though this fragment might be the earliest known copy of a NT text...




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

nope... topic says "Exodus"

old testament comes in Ancient Greek too... the source Tyndale derived from in order to first translate the bible into english... oldschool greek and hebrew.

and here's a video for no reason at all...



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Clement of Rome sent a letter to the Church in Corinthian in 95 AD. In it he quotes the Gospels and some other parts of the NT.


this is true, but again this is only wishful thinking...

His letters are dated to between 80ishAD and 140AD... also one of the ways we know who the author's of a couple gospels are

and once again, they are not originals... they're copies... Like I said, there is Nothing from the first century, save perhaps this new fragment of Mark


edit on 9-3-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim




TextI think the Protestant groups should gather a posse up and go for it, it could all be bloodless... it's 2015
Yea but there is a Jesuit on the throne now . They can play it either way ,don't ya know :>)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




I imagine it's pretty hard to come up with concrete dates for the "Exodus" as it is! Thanks for presenting this papyrus


I would probably agree. To be honest I haven't really delved into how they get the supposed date for the exodus.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


To be honest I haven't really delved into how they get the supposed date for the exodus.


Really? Well - that's a refreshing admission of being unaware.

How about "if the Exodus happened at all?" - have you delved into that?

Might try it.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AinElohim

LOL!!

answer:



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I refer you to actual Biblical scholars. "The Nazarine Way". LOL
edit on 9-3-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




this is true, but again this is only wishful thinking... His letters are dated to between 80ishAD and 140AD... also one of the ways we know who the author's of a couple gospels are


Well its a bit fallicious to call it wishful thinking. The 140AD is not the customary dating. 95-96 AD are the dates you will see the most.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I never said Paul didn't live when Jesus ALLEGEDLY lived. I said he never claimed to have witnessed him living. Therefore, Paul did not provide contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: cooperton


Look up Josephus, he was a 1st century historian who discussed Jesus.


sigh

I think I read somewhere that the one paragraph/passage in Josephus that referenced "Jesus" was a forgery/fraud.

Here's the RationalWiki entry, which has sources enumerated and accessible below the page:


This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic,[3] even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurring.[4] Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[5][6]. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery.[7][8][9]


That's correct but it's irrelevant because Josephus was not alive when Jesus allegedly lived and, thus, could not possibly have witnessed him living.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Chuck Missler. LMAO. Was PeeWee Herman not available to serve as a Biblical scholar?
edit on 9-3-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join