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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   


You have voted roger_pearse for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Seems like forever for a new month would come so I could do this.




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
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.


At or around the time of the earliest copy of the MC, or at or around the time the original MC is said to be written? Are we then to use a copy of the A of P from the same time period?

If you have verifiable information concerning a copy of the AoP that dates to sometime before the 7th century, please let me know.



[edit on 7-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UOIf you have verifiable information concerning a copy of the AoP that dates to sometime before the 7th century, please let me know.
Fine, let's do it this way then, since you argue without knowledge or facts, But first, it is impossible to provide a verifiable copy of ANY document purporting to be scripture or literature from a church elder, isn't it? So that leaves it do the earliest document known. Now then:

According to your substantiation, what is the oldest known A of P we have in existence?- provide your reference and a dating.

Where was it found?- provide source reference

What is the approximate date of the MC?

That should at least get you started on how you should approach trying to disprove me, especially when fact the information you seek has already been supplied.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Fine, let's do it this way then, since you argue without knowledge or facts, But first, it is impossible to provide a verifiable copy of ANY document purporting to be scripture or literature from a church elder, isn't it? So that leaves it do the earliest document known. Now then:

According to your substantiation, what is the oldest known A of P we have in existence?- provide your reference and a dating.

Where was it found?- provide source reference

What is the approximate date of the MC?

That should at least get you started on how you should approach trying to disprove me, especially when fact the information you seek has already been supplied.


I don't quite understand why I am the one that needs to provide the dates for the existant copies to be used to refute your double standard. Seems to me your claim that the AoP is the source of the others puts the burden of proof on your side.

But let me get you started:

AoP: Akhmim fragment
Found in the grave of a 8th or 9th Century Monk in a desert necropolis at Akhmim.

wikipedia.org: Apocalypse of Peter

Muratorian fragment:
7th Century Latin manuscript discovered in the Ambrosian Library.
The date attributed to the original text is said to be circa 170AD.

wikipedia.org: Muratorian Fragment

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]

So, I ask again, which date for the MC are we to use? The date of the existant copy or the date attributed to the non existant original?

If it is the date of the non-existant original, can you provide verifiable information concerning an existant copy of the AoP that dates to the same?



[edit on 7-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by baloria
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


Proving Jesus did or did not exist has no bearing on the Christian faith.
The man from galilee, who many know as Jesus, never claimed to be a Christian nor the son of god...

The words in the Bible attributed to a man named Jesus predict(BEFOREHAND) the evolution of the very monster you describe...
Whether he actually spoke those words can be debated but the fact they were written cannot be debated.

Tearing down Christianity does not prove Jesus never existed, in fact it is a good bet that if the man jesus was living today he would join in the quest to tear it down. The same way he attempted to tear down Judaism, another false religion , same as Christianity, same as them all ...


I do not buy for one minute anything said here to support the non existance of Jesus the man. It is all vague and opinionated and to go one further the author gives no reference to anyone from the time period infatically denying the existance of Jesus the man..

To use his/her mode of thinking>

Someone Could have/Should have debunked the notion of this man in the first Century when it would have behooved all of mankind to know this supposed truth of his non-existance...

BUT THEY DIDN"T ....

Surely it would have been a great coup in that day.. To debunk the greatest myth of their day...

This is evidence of his life ... no ? By the authors standards ...

Like I said, The author here has proven nothing ..... Even if i were inclined to believe jesus never existed I could put no 'faith' in his/her analogy.

(See the rumsfeld quote for reason...)





IF he/she tried telling me David was never a king? I might buy some of that ....



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UOI don't quite understand why I am the one that needs to provide the dates for the existant copies to be used to refute your double standard. Seems to me your claim that the AoP is the source of the others puts the burden of proof on your side.
Obviously you don't. That explains your abilty to me in full, and with any luck to you why this exchange is now over.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Obviously you don't. That explains your abilty to me in full, and with any luck to you why this exchange is now over.



I kinda agreed with raphael though, seems to me when you make such a statement you need to come with proof as well, instead of telling others to come with proof as they question your proofless statements.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Raphael_UOIf you have verifiable information concerning a copy of the AoP that dates to sometime before the 7th century, please let me know.


Fine, let's do it this way then, since you argue without knowledge or facts, But first, it is impossible to provide a verifiable copy of ANY document purporting to be scripture or literature from a church elder, isn't it? So that leaves it do the earliest document known.


Note that this statement applies equally to *all* ancient literature. Note also that the majority of early manuscripts, apart from papyrus fragments, are of the church fathers.

All of this seems very obscurantist. If all works 'cannot be verified' then why is the poster arguing for one? But if some can, then others can too. Surely?



Now then:

According to your substantiation, what is the oldest known A of P we have in existence?- provide your reference and a dating.

Where was it found?- provide source reference

What is the approximate date of the MC?

That should at least get you started on how you should approach trying to disprove me, especially when fact the information you seek has already been supplied.


These are the questions *you* need to answer, not demand of others.

As for 'disproving' you -- no-one needs to. You have to demonstrate that your comments have some basis; we have indicated the problems with your assertions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
I kinda agreed with raphael though, seems to me when you make such a statement you need to come with proof as well, instead of telling others to come with proof as they question your proofless statements.
To what statement do you refer, and what did I fail to submit in my posts?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearseNote that this statement applies equally to *all* ancient literature. Note also that the majority of early manuscripts, apart from papyrus fragments, are of the church fathers.
This is in response to my statement

But first, it is impossible to provide a verifiable copy of ANY document purporting to be scripture or literature from a church elder, isn't it? So that leaves it do the earliest document known.
Where yours is not entirely correct, since, the papyri found cannot be verified as a copy of the original, nor can they be verified in the context to which Raphael referred such that he stated If you have verifiable information concerning a copy of the AoP that dates to sometime before the 7th century, please let me know.

There are no fragments that make a copy of a whole, that is why they are referred to as fragments, no? Therefore, my position is in fact in tact when I state

it is impossible to provide a verifiable copy of ANY document purporting to be scripture
So the only person arguing for one is in fact Raphael, since, my history on this site backs my assertion that the authenticity of the authors of the entire bible from Genesis to Malachi is nothing but malarkey.


These are the questions *you* need to answer, not demand of others.

As for 'disproving' you -- no-one needs to. You have to demonstrate that your comments have some basis; we have indicated the problems with your assertions.
I need prove nothing, since it is you who tout The Bible who has the onus of proving its validity. All I have to do and have done is use your own evidence against you such that, the A of P is now available to us in full and cited by a 2nd century canon where the earliest full gospel account comes centuries later. Until you can provide a gospel in whole or in part that pre-dates the MC and shows the verses I cited from the A of P in same, you really have no position on which to rest your case.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Somewhere,

My point on verifiable information was based solely on your assertion that "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. "

You assume one of two possible events. You have given your reasoning for the second event. That reasoning assumes that it is Gospels that were tainted. But, you also cannot provide a full copy of the AoP at or around the time that the MC is said to be written.

Is it possible that the AoP is tainted?

Later exclusion of the AoP in canonical lists seems to support that the taint was not part of the Gospels, but rather the AoP.

Edit: Also the disputed nature of the AoP as detailed in the Mc also seems to support the taint of the AoP.








[edit on 13-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Somewhere,

My point on verifiable information was based solely on your assertion that "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. "
Correct it was, and my counter is that no scripture is in fact verifiable. In case you miss the point as it appears that you do, the MC accepts the A of P which comes to us today from a collection of works, and where we also have an acknowledgement of the 4 gospels. Hence, how stupid were the church fathers to read about the transfiguration in the A of P attributed to the time after Jesus' death and read about same in the gospels while he was alive and not raise an eyebrow? Now I understand your position trust me in this, for you would allude to the A of P as being a 7th century creation, where 600 years after the gospels proclaimed the transfiguration to be during the lifetime of Jesus, some idiot decided to forge a document and circulate same with the transfiguration as being after his death. A believing idiot then, ends up being a monk no less, who literally took it to his grave. Maybe he was doing his bit to destroy the heretical work?

Whereas, we have the MC accepting the A of P, yet we have virtually no church father either accepting 2 Peter, or even referencing same; one or two of the 3rd century even declaring it a fraud,and lo and behold, the A of P disappears from canon while 2 Peter finds it way in. Yet, I do not see you applying logic to all of that which is accepted as Peter's writings.


You assume one of two possible events. You have given your reasoning for the second event. That reasoning assumes that it is Gospels that were tainted. But, you also cannot provide a full copy of the AoP at or around the time that the MC is said to be written.
I do not assume, it is evident when reading the historical records. Mark and John were virtually unknowns until well into the second century. The earliest church elders packed their writings with the OT, then Paul, then Luke and Matthew, they also quoted a plethora of verses that are not recognized in today's scripture, some were not uncovered until the Nag Hammadi and Oxyrynchus finds in the 19th and 20th century, and some are still unknown in origin. You are aware of the heresy issues which plagued early Christianity and even those annointed as saints were oft rebuked, aren't you? The heresy claims were rife with allegations of forgery, and you may wish to console yourself that God/Jesus saw to it that all forgeries were removed from scripture if you wish.


Is it possible that the AoP is tainted?
Of course it is! But it was accepted and believed by the infallible church. Now if the A of P was tainted, then so too can be the others.


Later exclusion of the AoP in canonical lists seems to support that the taint was not part of the Gospels, but rather the AoP.
This is nothing but assumption on your part. As I have already stated we have no versions of the gospels dating to the second century which would support such a claim. The same follows for your edit.










[edit on 13-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 5/13/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
My intent was not to allude to a 7th century production of the the AoP. Just point out that you did not have a early century copy of the AoP thus refute your claim that an early century copy of the Gospels were needed.

You don't see me applying logic to all Peter's accepted writings because they were not the topic.


Yes, I am aware of the heresies of the early church. Which is why I am not quick to accept AoP as canonical. Nor was I quick to accept any writing in the bible. My faith in God was not found in the bible, though I did find my faith mirrored in its teachings. I am less concerned with what the bible says, and more concerned with what it is saying. I do not believe that each word in the bible is inspired, but rather the message that the words represent that is inspired.

I think the early church spent too much time examining the words and not enough examining the message. I believe the same is true of people today.

I'm not quite sure why the "infallible church" is a theme to your rebuttals. I don't see the need for the church to be infallible. Nor do I believe that sainthood confers infallibility to their earthly works.

Assumptions? Perhaps. Though if the dispute recorded in the MC and its removal from later canon can be considered evidence, then I would not consider them evidence to support AoP's validity.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
A few comments on this post, which largely ignores what I said in favour of reiterating a position which I think has been demolished in the thread already,


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by roger_pearseNote that this statement applies equally to *all* ancient literature. Note also that the majority of early manuscripts, apart from papyrus fragments, are of the church fathers.

This is in response to my statement


But first, it is impossible to provide a verifiable copy of ANY document purporting to be scripture or literature from a church elder, isn't it? So that leaves it do the earliest document known.


Where yours is not entirely correct, since, the papyri found cannot be verified as a copy of the original, nor can they be verified in the context to which Raphael referred such that he stated


I am not clear how this is a response to my comments. As for the accuracy of my statement, you need not believe me; just ask a professor of classics at any university.

Your argument consists of saying that all ancient literature is unverifiable and so can be ignored. Modern civilisation begins by denying that proposition, in the renaissance, and considering the literature of antiquity -- usually preserved in very late copies -- as of enormous value. If you propose to reject this, of course that is your right. But I don't think it is for me -- or anyone in this forum -- to prove to you what every educated person accepts. Don't be obscurantist.

Finally, having adopted such a position, you then ignore it in order to advance the claims of a apocryphon. If all ancient literature is unverifiable, we need not consider your claims for the A of P.

Sorry, but we must reject your comments as obscurantist and illogical, if you take this view.



If you have verifiable information concerning a copy of the AoP that dates to sometime before the 7th century, please let me know.


Why? The demand was made of *you*.




These are the questions *you* need to answer, not demand of others.

As for 'disproving' you -- no-one needs to. You have to demonstrate that your comments have some basis; we have indicated the problems with your assertions.


I need prove nothing, since it is you who tout The Bible who has the onus of proving its validity.


This is very sad. It doesn't matter whether the bible is true or not. But you have decided, in order to justify your way of life, to abandon the basic element of intellectual life -- the ability to discuss something intelligently. Instead have you not adopted the modus operandi of the village idiot -- assertion that whatever he doesn't want to believe "ain't so" and demands that anyone who says something he doesn't want to believe has to "prove it", while he silently determines that no proof will be so convincing that he won't be able to avoid it? No better strategy to avoid education was ever devised.

Now I know you are copying this from the more ignorant of your co-religionists online, but don't do that. Intelligent people know the evidence for and against what they believe -- they don't just find a form of words to make an assertion and demand others disprove it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Edit to add an omitted question mark.

[edit on 13/5/2005 by roger_pearse]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
In case you miss the point as it appears that you do, the MC accepts the A of P which comes to us today from a collection of works, and where we also have an acknowledgement of the 4 gospels.


You have yet to explain:

1. why the MC also says that some do not accept it
2. why we should accept the MC as evidence of what the early Christians believed -- we have no idea who wrote it or why
3. why we should accept this late manuscript as 'verifiable'.



Whereas, we have the MC accepting the A of P, yet we have virtually no church father either accepting 2 Peter, or even referencing same; one or two of the 3rd century even declaring it a fraud,and lo and behold, the A of P disappears from canon while 2 Peter finds it way in. Yet, I do not see you applying logic to all of that which is accepted as Peter's writings.


You have yet to show that we can rely on the accurate transmission of the works of the fathers; and to explain why absence of mention is significant, given the 99% loss of second century literature.



I do not assume, it is evident when reading the historical records. Mark and John were virtually unknowns until well into the second century.


This appears to be an argument based on the absence of mention in the surviving literature. You need to explain why these authors 'must' mention these, in the context of their works.



The earliest church elders packed their writings with the OT, then Paul, then Luke and Matthew, they also quoted a plethora of verses that are not recognized in today's scripture, some were not uncovered until the Nag Hammadi and Oxyrynchus finds in the 19th and 20th century, and some are still unknown in origin.


The second century fathers do not cite as scripture any of the Nag Hammadi texts, nor any of the Oxyrhynchus material. Please prove otherwise; otherwise I think you need to apologise for posting things you don't know as if they were fact.




Is it possible that the AoP is tainted?


Of course it is! But it was accepted and believed by the infallible church.


How do you know this? After all, of what is the MC evidence? (See above for problems with this).

The truth is that a text is evidence when you want it to be; not when you don't. Is this honest?




Later exclusion of the AoP in canonical lists seems to support that the taint was not part of the Gospels, but rather the AoP.


This is nothing but assumption on your part. As I have already stated we have no versions of the gospels dating to the second century which would support such a claim. The same follows for your edit.


Nor copies of the AoP.

All the best,

Roger Pearse









[edit on 13-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 5/13/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Can it be that the reason why nobody writes about jesus is that he wasnt that huge back then? Or was he known under a different name?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
A quote fm Seneca:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger (circa 4 B.C.E - 65 C.E)
The fable of JC is and remains a myth;nobody can bring prove of the
contrary;the stories about him are all fake and or fictious and discussing
about it will never bring up facts about the existence of that savior-god.
Baloria



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by baloria
The fable of JC is and remains a myth;nobody can bring prove of the
contrary;the stories about him are all fake and or fictious


No he's not; I've received my proof; the accounts of him are true and or real.


Originally posted by baloria
and discussing about it will never bring up facts about the existence of that savior-god.
Baloria


If you'd like to close the book and walk away that's your option, but don't be surprised if others continue seeking the truth. It can be found, which is why I'm here. I really wouldn't bother otherwise.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by baloria
A quote fm Seneca:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger (circa 4 B.C.E - 65 C.E)


I think this statement should be properly referenced, if you wouldn't mind.



The fable of JC is and remains a myth;nobody can bring prove of the
contrary;the stories about him are all fake and or fictious and discussing
about it will never bring up facts about the existence of that savior-god.


Shouldn't you at least attempt to prove some of this? Since 99.9999999% of people in the world, including all the people more intelligent than you or I, don't agree, you have quite a task ahead of you! It's worrying that you seem to think that you are entitled to have your assertions taken as fact, while other people must 'prove the contrary.' Such is the path of the idiot, surely? We must all be responsible for what we say.

As for your proposition, surely wishful thinking is no guide to facts. If you're like most people, you adopted your current lifestyle based on convenience rather than thought; if you can offer any reason why the rest of us should respect such abdication of intellectual responsibility, I think many people would be interested to hear it. NB: abusing the Christians does not justify the adoption of societal values one millimeter; it matters nothing whether the Christians are wrong, if you and I cannot justify our own position.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
My intent was not to allude to a 7th century production of the the AoP. Just point out that you did not have a early century copy of the AoP thus refute your claim that an early century copy of the Gospels were needed.
I don't need anything to prove any piece of scripture. Christians do. All I need do is show that which is available and that which was once accepted by correlation disputes that which is accepted today.


You don't see me applying logic to all Peter's accepted writings because they were not the topic.
I don't see you applying any logic, to anything.


Yes, I am aware of the heresies of the early church. Which is why I am not quick to accept AoP as canonical. Nor was I quick to accept any writing in the bible.
Oh I see, so your bias then toward discrediting the A of P and nothing else has nothing to do with your leanings? I have yet to see you actually try and satisfy why the MC proclaimed the A of P as canon, where we have two versions of same, both of which later just disappeared from canon before the first known full text of the NT we have today, and why anyone purporting to be Christian and in their right minds, would recreate 4-6 centuries later, a spectacle such as the transfiguration to be after Jesus' death when for 4-500 years previously it was known to be before his death.


My faith in God was not found in the bible, though I did find my faith mirrored in its teachings. I am less concerned with what the bible says, and more concerned with what it is saying. I do not believe that each word in the bible is inspired, but rather the message that the words represent that is inspired.
As are all Christians. You should be concerned with The Bible, it is after all what forged your faith , and while it may be nice to think the words are sweet, history is filled with philosophic niceties within which we can all find solace. The issue is not what it says, but from what it purports to be.


I think the early church spent too much time examining the words and not enough examining the message. I believe the same is true of people today.
Ghandi's message is not only eloquent, but profound, symbolic and existential. In fact, as far as I am concerned, he makes far more sense to me than the cryptic messages within the NT, and we have a detailed account of his life and trials, not passages which are wide open to interpretation.


I'm not quite sure why the "infallible church" is a theme to your rebuttals. I don't see the need for the church to be infallible. Nor do I believe that sainthood confers infallibility to their earthly works.
Obviously bcause you have not expended any energy or time to understand the nature of the history of the church. I am not here to provide you or anyone with that history, it is up to you to educate yourself on its 2,000 year history.


Assumptions? Perhaps. Though if the dispute recorded in the MC and its removal from later canon can be considered evidence, then I would not consider them evidence to support AoP's validity.
Frankly, I don't care what you would or would not consider. The fact that you portray your unwillingness to gain some insight into the creation of Christianity as per above, tells me that you have no interest in weighing any argument.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join