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.

 

List of early writers who could have mentioned Jesus

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Interesting info,Iasion,but I am asking myself where you found the neces-
sary info to classify all those writers as you did.
Have you been reading all of their original works and where did you con-
sult them?
Baloria




posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Greetings Baloria,


Originally posted by baloria
Interesting info,Iasion,but I am asking myself where you found the neces-
sary info to classify all those writers as you did.
Have you been reading all of their original works and where did you con-
sult them?
Baloria


Yes, I checked the originals.
Most of them are readily available online at places such as :

New Advent www.newadvent.org...
Peter Kirby's www.earlychristianwritings.com...
even Roger's site www.tertullian.org...

Of course,
the classifications are my own opinion :-)

Iasion



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearseI actually queried why your post did not cite the Muratorian canon.
Not very astute I would say, for my post no. 1344638, did in fact cite the Muratorian canon. Actually, I would venture to say, it is the only time you ever heard of the Muratorian canon. You in fact queried nothing save to jump to erroneous conclusion

It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:



Should you wish to cite the sentence following in which I dealt with this matter, and which you omitted, we can talk. But not until then, surely.
You have dealt with nothing save to declare you are lost;

The relevance of all this is unclear to me.


So I still am curious as to why you would argue that the A of P should reference a Canon 80-100 years in the future?

Here it is:It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:
Kindly stay focused.


I am glad you ask. Have a look at my web page, the Tertullian Project, and evaluate my familiarity with second century thought for yourself.
You are the creator of that web site are you? Do I understand you correctly? Now let me say this to you whether you are or not. It is of no consequence to me, I prefer to do my research based on the facts as available, not what others have determined those facts to be. If in fact you are the creator of that or any website, then you should have an appreciation for this style of research, unless of course you opted to carbon copy the work of others.


This all sounds odd. There has been a cottage industry in creating pseudo-gospels from the second century to our own. If you assert that all of these are legitimate, then I'm afraid I can't help you. If you assert (as I do) that all of these are more or less bogus, then your comments have no meaning. But if you want to assert that the A of P really is a subapostolic document, you have to demonstrate this, not just presume it, surely?
It sounds odd because you have not invested the time to do a scholarly research, and I have attempted to demonstrate no such thing as a "subapolostic document.". That is your failure to understand what in fact I did demonstrate. I cannot think for you.


You might start by explaining which Apocalypse of Peter you have in mind,
Which? I made it very clear to you, those found in Clement’s portfolio. You are not up to date on this information are you?


Incidentally, would you tell me why you are being deliberately rude throughout this post?
Am I, or is this an aside? I prefer the direct approach to debate, and am not one to mollycoddle those who especially cannot understand the fundamentals of what they read, as in their speaking to the A of P not quoting the MC.

Please get back on track relative to my position as initially posted instead of employing the typical detours. That track an be found in post 1344638.




[edit on 4/28/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Thank you for replying,Iasion.
I suppose that you are aware that one cannot say that you consulted
"original" works and,to my opinion,the RCC has falisified everything as
to their needs to build their totally false story about JC.
How can a rational human beeing believe in those ridiculeous stories and
even discuss about it; in fact, a waste of time.
Especially the history of the Catholic Church is an utmost bloody story
and everybody calling himself a christian should be ashamed to be part
of that monster.
Baloria



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by baloria
and everybody calling himself a christian should be ashamed to be part
of that monster.
Baloria


I am ashamed that my non-belief of Christ as son of God was the kind of thing that led to the gruesome death of Jesus. Having been redeemed, I can replace that shame with the hope of eternal happiness as he has promised. I'll put a white cloth on the cross because he has risen and forgiven me of the evils I've committed.

I am also ashamed of people who call them selves "Christian" waving a flag of peace and then commit war.

I am not ashamed of God nor what the Word of God says: love, peace, faith, and hope. I follow this Word as it is written as my daily guide. In that, true Christianity is found.

Pray, train, study
God bless



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Now that you have looked all of those 14,600 up,

How many of them wrote about Susan Anthony as a contemporary?
It seems that she is no better off then Jesus when it comes to having stuff written about her like that.


That's not comparing apples to oranges, here. The writers mentioned were not only those whose works survived, but those who wrote about issues where aspects of Christianity might have been mentioned. If Jesus was an important rabble-rouser in Israel, he would have been mentioned in official Roman documents (as in: "the natives here are restless and I need another century of men to help deal with the religious infighting that's going on") They also are writers who mention the Christian movement.

If you look at turn-of-the-century writers who are analogous, that would be those writing about women's issues and history. And I think you'll find Susan B Anthony mentioned in quite a few of those documents as well as newspaper reports of the time.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by roger_pearseI actually queried why your post did not cite the Muratorian canon.


Not very astute I would say, for my post no. 1344638, did in fact cite the Muratorian canon.


This sounds odd. In your post there is not a single sentence of the Muratorian canon. Look and see.



Actually, I would venture to say, it is the only time you ever heard of the Muratorian canon.


You may certainly think this if you wish.

I omit various comments, all more or less insulting, which seem to have no real meaning, and do not deal with the issues I raised.



So I still am curious as to why you would argue that the A of P should reference a Canon 80-100 years in the future?


Here it is:It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:

Kindly stay focused.


Your post began with assertions about the Muratorian canon, and proceeded to make an argument based on it. In what way is it irrelevant to go to the source document in question?

Quite why you suppose I think the Apocalypse of Peter refers to the Muratorian canon, or the final canon of the 4th century, I do not know. I have never discussed either proposition.

May I ask, without offence, that you actually *read* what I wrote? You write as if you are posting a response to what you imagine I was saying. This makes your comments rather pointless.




I am glad you ask. Have a look at my web page, the Tertullian Project, and evaluate my familiarity with second century thought for yourself.


You are the creator of that web site are you? Do I understand you correctly?


You do.



Now let me say this to you whether you are or not. It is of no consequence to me, I prefer to do my research based on the facts as available...


Here we can agree. I accept no appeals to authority on matters of political or religious controversy. I see no reason why we should not go to the ancient data and examine it directly.




This all sounds odd. There has been a cottage industry in creating pseudo-gospels from the second century to our own. If you assert that all of these are legitimate, then I'm afraid I can't help you. If you assert (as I do) that all of these are more or less bogus, then your comments have no meaning. But if you want to assert that the A of P really is a subapostolic document, you have to demonstrate this, not just presume it, surely?


It sounds odd because you have not invested the time to do a scholarly research...


You think so? Quite why your case depends on others having done research you don't make clear.

Nor do you make clear precisely what status you attribute to the Apocalypse of Peter; yet you rely on it having some kind of authoritative status. Again, this seems very confused.




You might start by explaining which Apocalypse of Peter you have in mind,


Which? I made it very clear to you, those found in Clement’s portfolio. You are not up to date on this information are you?


Is there a moderator in the house? Is this sort of constant attempts to bait me into an angry response acceptable?

This "Clement's portfolio", whatever that may be: to what do you refer. NB: you seem to have failed to notice that you are talking to someone who knows about patristics. Reference your statements properly.

You did not answer the question, btw. Do you not know that there are at least two documents from antiquity of that title? I think I know which you mean; I wonder if you do.




Incidentally, would you tell me why you are being deliberately rude throughout this post?


Am I, or is this an aside? I prefer the direct approach to debate, and am not one to mollycoddle those who especially cannot understand the fundamentals of what they read, as in their speaking to the A of P not quoting the MC.


Moderator?



Please get back on track relative to my position as initially posted instead of employing the typical detours. That track an be found in post 1344638.


I'm afraid that you didn't read my response carefully enough. It destroys your own post rather thoroughly, I think. Why not try again?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Byrd

Something else I had forgot was that Rome intended to completely blot out Israel from the world. Christianity was considered a sect of judaism and this would have been included.
When Jerusalem was plowed under, how many of Pilates records were kept vs lost? The intent was to make israel invisible to history. So why save them?

Just something else to consider.

Susan b anthony is prolly not a good example. At the time of Rome, the gods of the day were Jupiter/zeus Venus/aphrodite etc...
Judaism was a small group in a far away place. Christianity was a new splinter of that small religion. Everyone knows the jews had some stupid fake religion that was way different the Greece, Egypt, Rome, Babylon...the major players of the day.
The worthiness of mentioning christianity from the view of Rome would be closer to mentioning a new Hindu sect here in america.
Who cares?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Just something else to consider.

The worthiness of mentioning Christianity from the view of Rome would be closer to mentioning a new Hindu sect here in America.
Who cares?


I kind of skeptic here, the Christian movement had not problems with providing the prof of the Christ 300 years later.

Very well kept and very explicit accounts too, for being a sect that was almost eradicated like you said from history by Rome.

Something doesn't add here very well.

The writers of the time forgot about him but the redactors of the bible found all the needed documents to put the bible together.


[edit on 30-4-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenYou are the creator of that web site are you? Do I understand you correctly?


You do.
Let me cut to the chase here. The A of P was accepted canon for at least 270 years after Jesus, we have no complete written works supporting the NT scriptures of today that would tell us all that was contained in the full NT; Scriptural writings were for centuries the domain of the church. (Try and argue otherwise, and I will immediately discontinue dialogue on the basis that you are nothing shy of a novice.) My position is in fact clear to those gifted with reason; Either Moses and Elias appeared once only to the Peter, James and John, where the transfiguration took place and Jesus departed into heaven, or the apostles were so stupid that it took two transfigurations, one while he was alive and while after he was dead, to make it sink in.

In short: Clement claimed to have been in contact with Peter, it is in fact the only contact we have with the apostles. Clement was made a saint which therefore tells us that the church accepted his word. If Peter’s apocalypse was accepted as truth for 270 years, where John’s apocalypse was being debated (and if you do not know this, you have no business offering a websit, much less a one-sided website) and Peter’s rendition of the transfiguration was considered truth for 3 centuries, the fact that the words from same are found in the gospels as pertaining to Jesus while he was alive are spurious. Peter clearly speaks to the transfiguration after Jesus was dead!

What kind of idiot is your God is to be making the very same apparitions and dialogue in life and in death? It matters not that we do not accept the A of P today, all that means is that the forgers of the Bible injected that which they decided was necessary to preach to he flock, including the addition to or even the total composition of the NT, and someone smarter than the rest realised the contradiction, and moved to incorporate the two to further their agenda .

Convince me that the very same apparitions and dialogue would take place twice and I promise I will promote your website which is devoid of your own thought but pushes those of others.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
rabid hatred

The site ownership should make a forum just for those who are so full of hate like this guy....and let them stay only in there for 6 days of the week, and then let them out to play on the rest of the forum for a few hours on friday or saturday night.

Let their hate consume their own



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Let me cut to the chase here. The A of P was accepted canon for at least 270 years after Jesus, ...


Did you ever bother reading what the Muratorian canon actually said about the A of P? It is fairly clear that at the time it was written A of P was disputed as canonical. Roger was kind enough to quote it for you in his Post Number: 1345210, but you didn't seem to care. So, here it is again:

From the Muratorian canon:
"We accept only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter, although some of us do not want it (Peter) to be read in the Church"

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UODid you ever bother reading what the Muratorian canon actually said about the A of P? It is fairly clear that at the time it was written A of P was disputed as canonical. Roger was kind enough to quote it for you in his Post Number: 1345210, but you didn't seem to care. So, here it is again:

From the Muratorian canon:
"We accept only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter, although some of us do not want it (Peter) to be read in the Church"

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]
It matters not what you or tertullion offer in way of interpretation of the canon, since, it is very clear that my statement stands which in fact supports the A of P as accepted. What part of; "we accept" do you fail to understand? and what exactly is required for me to spell out to you that which I already declared in short form, and that which is clearly defined in what both you and the tertullian projectionist already know and quote?:

"We accept only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter..."

I trust you will be so kind as to advise why my definition of "we accept" differs from yours, and to do soon.





[edit on 5/1/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 5/1/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenYou are the creator of that web site are you? Do I understand you correctly?


You do.


Let me cut to the chase here. The A of P was accepted canon for at least 270 years after Jesus, ...


This is untrue. You offer nothing in support of this, so I wonder why you say it?



we have no complete written works supporting the NT scriptures of today that would tell us all that was contained in the full NT; Scriptural writings were for centuries the domain of the church. (Try and argue otherwise, and I will immediately discontinue dialogue on the basis that you are nothing shy of a novice.) My position is in fact clear to those gifted with reason; ...


I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say here.





What kind of idiot is your God ...


Interesting sort of argument. First you create an assertion that the A of P -- you never answered which -- is canonical, which it is not; then you assert that God is an idiot for making it so. I'm afraid your comments don't seem to need any other comment from me.



Convince me that the very same apparitions and dialogue would take place twice and I promise I will promote your website which is devoid of your own thought but pushes those of others.




All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Let me cut to the chase here. The A of P was accepted canon for at least 270 years after Jesus, ...


Did you ever bother reading what the Muratorian canon actually said about the A of P? It is fairly clear that at the time it was written A of P was disputed as canonical. Roger was kind enough to quote it for you in his Post Number: 1345210, but you didn't seem to care. So, here it is again:

From the Muratorian canon:
"We accept only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter, although some of us do not want it (Peter) to be read in the Church"


Thanks. It's slightly marvellous that someone should manufacture so daft an argument in the first place, and then not quote the one and only piece of data he has to base it on. Did he make this up himself? Or does it come from somewhere else?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Byrd
Something else I had forgot was that Rome intended to completely blot out Israel from the world. Christianity was considered a sect of judaism and this would have been included.
When Jerusalem was plowed under, how many of Pilates records were kept vs lost? The intent was to make israel invisible to history. So why save them?

Then why didn't they blot out what they had of Jewish history and censor mention of any other Jews? They'd certainly have deleted any mention of Masada and Florus and the Great War Against Rome.

And why bother keeping records about Jews who sold salt along trade routes in the empire?
www.sefarad.org...


The worthiness of mentioning christianity from the view of Rome would be closer to mentioning a new Hindu sect here in america.

Not quite. In fact, Christians are mentioned fairly frequently. Remember in AD 64, Nero accused them of setting fire to areas of the city:
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

The above includes the report by Tacitus, who mentions "Christus" (but not Jesus) and says only that he was a criminal.

So, to counter your observation, yes Christians were being mentioned and written about, as were Jews.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenLet me cut to the chase here. The A of P was accepted canon for at least 270 years after Jesus, ...


This is untrue. You offer nothing in support of this, so I wonder why you say it?
Catalogue Claromontanus 3rd century: Methodius, bishop of Olympus 4th century; Eusebius- Ecclesiastical History 4th century;
Sozomen 5th century, and I quote his; “For instance, the so-called Apocalypse of Peter which was esteemed as entirely spurious by the ancients, we have discovered to be read in certain churches of Palestine up to the present day, once a, year, on the day of preparation, during which the people most religiously fast in commemoration of the Saviour's Passion"

Obviously your website lacks this information, for these deceitful dregs continued to push this garbage.


I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Then re-read it.


Interesting sort of argument. First you create an assertion that the A of P -- you never answered which -- is canonical, which it is not; then you assert that God is an idiot for making it so. I'm afraid your comments don't seem to need any other comment from me.
Your assertion then is that while it may not be accepted canon today, it makes no difference that it along with others was in fact accepted canon of yesteryear. Is that correct? Now let me tell you why you bark up the wrong tree. The very fact that it was accepted 1700 years ago within an organization that consistently declared its decisions to be by the power of god strengthens my position. It cannot be so that God would allow a writing then declare it false later, can it? How many people went to their graves preaching this helfire and brimstone crap, and how many were made to be subservient believing it? Do you think when they met their maker they were not just a little bit pissed off to find they were lied to?

Furthermore, your objection does nothing to counter my point that the A of P was in fact acceoted and finds critical passages from same now ensconced in the 4 accepted gospels of today under the guise of the event being during the life of Jesus rather than after the man was dead. More so, you have yet to provide me with any complete version of either of the 4 gospels dating even to the time of the Muratorian canon, muchless including the passages I provided.

In short tertullianus, you have undertaken a failed campaign. But please be my guest and enhance your site with the information new to you which I have humbly submitted above, that is unless you look only for that which supports a specific point of view.


tertullianus

Me-Convince me that the very same apparitions and dialogue would take place twice and I promise I will promote your website which is devoid of your own thought but pushes those of others.
I take it that you cannot. Why am I not surprised?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
It matters not what you or tertullion offer in way of interpretation of the canon, since, it is very clear that my statement stands which in fact supports the A of P as accepted. What part of; "we accept" do you fail to understand? and what exactly is required for me to spell out to you that which I already declared in short form, and that which is clearly defined in what both you and the tertullian projectionist already know and quote?:

"We accept only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter..."

I trust you will be so kind as to advise why my definition of "we accept" differs from yours, and to do soon.


I understand the definition of accept. Do you understand the definition of disputed? If the AoP was accepted without dispute, the author would not have needed to bother with the rest of the sentence.

I fail to see how you can expect someone to accept AoP as canonical without dispute now, when the proof you offer shows it was disputed but accepted 1835 years ago.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UOI understand the definition of accept. Do you understand the definition of disputed? If the AoP was accepted without dispute, the author would not have needed to bother with the rest of the sentence.
1) What relative to the A of P is in dispute per the Muratorian canon.

2)If you are implying that they dispute what they also receive, then that only confirms all f my pronouncements that these men were idiots. Kindly reconcile this statement for me.


I fail to see how you can expect someone to accept AoP as canonical without dispute now, when the proof you offer shows it was disputed but accepted 1835 years ago.
Look, I cannot think for you, nor do I have the patience to teach you. Now I would suggest that you reread my posts, slowly this time, over and over until you get the gist of same, for neither do I expect anyone to accept the A of P, nor do I notice anything about dispute of same relative to the MC. To help you along I will state once more my position; it was accepted by the elders, preached and not disputed by those accepting the MC. It recounts the transfiguration of Jesus as an event after the man was dead, yet, the selected verses I previously gave are present in the current gospels and attributed to him while he was alive. Further, the apostles must have been really stupid to require the same scenes and same words more than once, or, either that or the 4 gospels today have been tainted with garbage because neither you nor anyone else can provide a full gospel at or around the time of the MC which shows those words. Finally, the A of P went bye bye, n'est pas? While those verses are found in the gospels. Why are they there as well? That is the question you should be pondering.

Is it any wander why the church has little trouble praying on the gullible who have not the ability to put two and two together? If by chance those elders knew that the gospels held the same account during Jesus' life as did the A of P which they accepted, they were either worse than idiots or played the audience for fools. Mind you, I believe they were both.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Raphael_UOI understand the definition of accept. Do you understand the definition of disputed? If the AoP was accepted without dispute, the author would not have needed to bother with the rest of the sentence.
1) What relative to the A of P is in dispute per the Muratorian canon.

2)If you are implying that they dispute what they also receive, then that only confirms all f my pronouncements that these men were idiots. Kindly reconcile this statement for me.


This seems to be caricaturing the point made in order to make an argument which suffers from the fallacy of the omitted middle, tho. Would it not be better to answer the point made?


I fail to see how you can expect someone to accept AoP as canonical without dispute now, when the proof you offer shows it was disputed but accepted 1835 years ago.
Look, I cannot think for you, nor do I have the patience to teach you. Now I would suggest that you reread my posts, slowly this time, over and over until you get the gist of same,...


This seems very rude. You know, I think you should apologise for being bad-tempered here, and for professing an education you do not in fact possess. You're peddling a load of nonsense, and now complaining that people cannot follow your rather incoherent comments, all of them made -- as you make plain -- purely in order to injure the Christians. This is ill-natured of you, not very clever, and rather rude.



for neither do I expect anyone to accept the A of P, nor do I notice anything about dispute of same relative to the MC. To help you along I will state once more my position; it was accepted by the elders, preached and not disputed by those accepting the MC.


1. It was not accepted by the elders -- or if it was, you have not offered any such evidence.

2. It was not preached by anyone, so far as you have shown.

3. You state that it was "not disputed by those accepting the MC" -- yet the MC says otherwise. Please explain this statement.



It recounts ...


Surely it is a matter of no concern what such a work says until you have addressed the issue?

Let's make a general point, since you have not concealed the malice which underlies your assertions.

The great men of our day slander the church and encourage slanders against it, since these great men wish to live immoral lives and to do so without the critique of the church. The foolish ape their betters and repeat this nonsense, without considering whether they stand to gain from what their betters choose to have them believe. May I suggest you think for yourself? Those who are powerful in our day do what they do for their benefit, not ours; and if you're wise, you'll realise it. Small fry like you and I do not gain from the great and powerful having no fear of hell or wrath, however badly they treat others; they do. Don't be a dupe.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join