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.
1500 Year Old Bible Confirms that Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified, Vatican In Awe
The origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D
Yes, and the true Christians not only opposed Paul but they were persecuted by him, and he told you that he changed from a vision, but I am telling you the Jewish Christians wrote down to is that he was a "liar."
originally posted by: cosmania
Except all the new testament books were written in Greek, not Aramaic. Aramaic was a spoken language, Greek was the documentation language during this time. Why would Barnabas draft a golden gospel in the less distinguished language? Knowing that it would be invalidated almost immediately.
Experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original.
originally posted by: Zimnydran
a reply to: UFOdanger
Believing it to reference jesus ..... is not the same as it SAYING Jesus..... no where does it literally say Jesus,,but people have most certainly assigned certain pieces of it to that.
Most notably they like to say that the piece of scroll known as 4Q521 refers to Christ.... but then again they also like to say the the shroud of tourin is some magical piece of cloth
Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).
The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).
Nathanael said it (John 1:49).
Martha believed it (John 11:27).
The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).
Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).
Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4.
The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).
The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).
The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).
Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:
15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).
Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching.
originally posted by: Josephus
Why, if Paul was deemed a liar, would Peter refer to his epistles as scripture?
The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.
originally posted by: xizd1
How can you possibly claim to speak for a whole religion, much less two?
Do you have any facts to back up your claim of knowing what all these diverse peoples believe?
What an ego.