It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
While the fragment may be from 117 AD or later, all the canonical NT texts make no mention of of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and its subsequent consequences, so the original documents must have been written prior to then.
Is it that hard to understand?
Jesus...Christ...Son of God...God(whatever term is "hip" these days) is used by hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis as their guide on how to live their lives.
Christianity(along with other religions) has been used as a reason to go to war, kill, rape, pillage, steal, and manipulate people ever since their inception.
Beyond Jesus and Plato being extremely diametric to each other when it comes to the amount of pain and destruction they have had on history, Plato actually WAS a person.
He actually WROTE things HIMSELF
His history is due to his own writings, not the writings of other people about him.
I find your comparison disturbing in that you think it is logical.
originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: bullcat
Nope. Although there are accounts from Christianity's critics that he did in fact perform miracles. However, his critics denounce these acts as either sorcery, or common parlor tricks (as a modern illusionist might perform).
originally posted by: Grimpachi
There shouldn't be any mention of the fall of Jerousulum the NT is supposed to be about a story from before then. It wouldn't be logical for it to have been mentioned as it would serve no purpose.
In the year 66 AD the Jews of Judea rebelled against their Roman masters. In response, the Emperor Nero dispatched an army under the generalship of Vespasian to restore order. By the year 68, resistance in the northern part of the province had been eradicated and the Romans turned their full attention to the subjugation of Jerusalem. That same year, the Emperor Nero died by his own hand, creating a power vacuum in Rome. In the resultant chaos, Vespasian was declared Emperor and returned to the Imperial City. It fell to his son, Titus, to lead the remaining army in the assault on Jerusalem.
The Roman legions surrounded the city and began to slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached Jerusalem's outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism.
No, the New Testament is about the life of Jesus, what he did and the events that occurred in first century Christianity. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was in 70 AD. So, again you are wrong.
I was making fun of religion when I referred to him as Jesus, Christ, God, and the son of God. You seriously couldn't see that?
My point was that Jesus has had a much bigger influence on human history than Plato has. I don't recall followers of Plato going around and killing in his name.
I may be incorrect here, but I am pretty sure followers of Plato don't go around blowing up abortion clinics or making gay people's lives a living hell.
You are making up claims which are wrong.
When did I deny that Jesus was a real person? I called your comparison to Plato illogical.
I didn't realize that having an opinion on people who believe in fairy tales caused me to be "emotional".
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Can anything be known about the past?
There is no such thing as a true story.
But all stories appear in truth.