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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Tertullain,

I was writing a response to your verbiage, and realised that you come across as a man-child stripped of all dignity. Reduce it to psycho-babble analyses if it props up your ego, I am not interested in playing in your sandbox since the topic is not about me or you and who can best insult the other. When you are ready to debate the premise of religion, let me know.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse

You have yet to explain:

1. why the MC also says that some do not accept it
Where does it state that some do not accept it, Tertullain?



[edit on 5/18/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Tertullain,

I was writing a response to your verbiage, and realised that you come across as a man-child stripped of all dignity. Reduce it to psycho-babble analyses if it props up your ego, I am not interested in playing in your sandbox since the topic is not about me or you and who can best insult the other. When you are ready to debate the premise of religion, let me know.


I'm not sure what I wrote that provoked this! Nor am I clear why you are addressing me as 'Tertullain' (sic), other than, presumably, to give offence.


Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by roger_pearse

You have yet to explain:

1. why the MC also says that some do not accept it


Where does it state that some do not accept it, Tertullain?


"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".

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Greetings Iasion,

I choose to believe that a man that we now know as "Jesus" once existed on this earth. Obviously, you have been exposed to literature that states that he existed, otherwise this thread would not have been started. Your personal beliefs are not of my concern and you should feel free to have those. Anyone on the ATS website should have the freedom to believe whatever it is that they believe. If this world ends and your assumptions are correct, then Kudos to you, but what have you won? As for me, I think it's time to make a PB&J sandwich and start recruiting some more softball players for when I take over as coach. Seriously though, I do like the idea of there being a "Jesus man" that died on the cross and saved us all...well you've heard the story. I like that idea, and sometimes it actually keeps me going in this world where 5 year olds bring guns to school...which makes me wonder how he got the gun in the first place. Also, in a world in which someone would place a finger tip in a cup of chili to make money...maybe some people need the belief that there was someone that once did something that was unselfish, because without the whole "death on the cross" thing, there hasn't been a lot of people that lived a life like Christians believed that he did. Okay, now it's time for my PB&J...



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Just to clarify the meaning of this sentence: the author makes it clear earlier that the Apocalypse of John is accepted; "For John also, though he wrote in the Apocalypse to seven churches, nevertheless he speaks to them all."

The sentence we have been discussing reads:

apocalypses etiam Iohannis, et Petri, tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.

Literally:

The apocalpyses also of John, and of Peter, only we receive, which (singular) some from us to be read in the church are not willing.

That only one of the two apocalypses is meant by the author is indicated by 'quam' (singular); the word order indicates the second, and the earlier statement treating John as author of the Revelation confirms this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
[Redited to make sense]
[edit on 19/5/2005 by roger_pearse]

[edit on 19/5/2005 by roger_pearse]

[edit on 19/5/2005 by roger_pearse]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Just to clarify the meaning of this sentence: the author makes it clear earlier that the Apocalypse of John is accepted; "For John also, though he wrote in the Apocalypse to seven churches, nevertheless he speaks to them all."...

The apocalpyses also of John, and of Peter, only we receive, which (singular) some from us to be read in the church are not willing.

That only one of the two apocalypses is meant by the author is indicated by 'quam' (singular); the word order indicates the second, and the earlier statement treating John as author of the Revelation confirms this.

The words are best served up in context, and neither you nor your compatriot seem to grasp the hesitance to preach this gospel to the masses. I can only presume it is because you have extended minimal effort into reading and or understanding the text, for Peter declares:

And my Lord answered me and said to me: Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.'
Therefore the interpretation that only one of the two is meant, is not sound, firstly because they were both accepted, and secondly because of the order as per above.

I rest my case.

[edit on 5/19/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Just to clarify the meaning of this sentence: the author makes it clear earlier that the Apocalypse of John is accepted; "For John also, though he wrote in the Apocalypse to seven churches, nevertheless he speaks to them all."...

The apocalpyses also of John, and of Peter, only we receive, which (singular) some from us to be read in the church are not willing.

That only one of the two apocalypses is meant by the author is indicated by 'quam' (singular); the word order indicates the second, and the earlier statement treating John as author of the Revelation confirms this.


The words are best served up in context, and neither you nor your compatriot seem to grasp the hesitance to preach this gospel to the masses.


I'm afraid I don't understand this comment at all. I'm the one offering context here. You don't explain the second point.



I can only presume it is because you have extended minimal effort into reading and or understanding the text, for Peter declares:


And my Lord answered me and said to me: Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.'
Therefore the interpretation that only one of the two is meant, is not sound, firstly because they were both accepted, and secondly because of the order as per above.


The logic of this -- that a citation from the AofP (presumably) proves that the MC did or did not mean one rather than two texts -- escapes me.



I rest my case.


Case dismissed, I'm afraid.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearseI'm afraid I don't understand this comment at all. I'm the one offering context here. You don't explain the second point.
Context? Where?


The logic of this -- that a citation from the AofP (presumably) proves that the MC did or did not mean one rather than two texts -- escapes me.
Of course it escapes you, why even your interpretation in the previous quote is incorrect.


Case dismissed, I'm afraid.
Ah, judge and attorney you are.


All the best,
et vous aussi.

[edit on 5/21/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
not to go off topic, but somewhereinbetween, your signature is a little misleading as i believ it goe "and you shall have no other Gods before me, not savior." just thought id point that out
.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
not to go off topic, but somewhereinbetween, your signature is a little misleading as i believ it goe "and you shall have no other Gods before me, not savior." just thought id point that out
.


The first part is Isaiah 43:11.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Early writers:

www.mcall.com... /news/nationworld/chi-0505190301may19,0,3589461.story?coll=all-tjinationworld-hed&track=email_newsletter


A relatively new technology called multispectral imaging is turning a pile of ancient garbage into a gold mine of classical knowledge, bringing to light the lost texts of Sophocles and Euripides as well as some early Christian gospels that do not appear in the New Testament.


There were plays by Sophocles and Euripides, poems of Pindar and Sappho, and some of the earliest documents recording Christianity's spread to Egypt. The gospel of Thomas, for example, records the "Sayings of Jesus" in a manner that some scholars of early Christianity believe is more authentic than the Gospels in the New Testament

There also is an abundance of life's everyday stuff and miscellanea--tax records, marriage contracts, horoscopes, erotic musings, advice on how to buy a donkey and advice on how to cast a decent magic spell.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
not to go off topic, but somewhereinbetween, your signature is a little misleading as i believ it goe "and you shall have no other Gods before me, not savior." just thought id point that out
.
You point out incorrectly. Exodus is not the reference, it is Isaiah 43:11, and as such, my signature stands as represented.

[edit on 5/22/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango


Several of them appear to be Jews, writing Jewish histories and whatnot - I don't think I'd mention a renegade who claimed to speak with God and claimed to be the messiah - it's embarassing and anti-noteworthy.


Shimon Bar-Kokhba obviously doesn't ring a bell.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RazorDragon3000


Though Jesus linage did give him more credence,


According to Christianity, no it doesn't. Jesus was a miracle child thus not able to claim the tribal lineage of Joseph. According to Judaism, that would be the ONLY messianic fulfillment.


If he was Gods son


All Jewish males were and are sons of G-d.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion


But several of these writers DID write about renegade Messiahs, e.g. the Talmuds has many cases of false Messiahs, Josephus wrote about dozens of minor prohets and renegades who lead Jews astray.

Such figures ARE recorded in history - funny how Jesus never gets a mention.

The argument that the Jews would not write about something that is embarassing is outright nonsense - their histories are filled with many embarassing failures and disasters.


And Jews are ashamed of those things. Each year the entire Torah is read including all of the vile stuff. There is no picking and choosing this scripture to back up that scripture to back up the first 2/3s of that scripture.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


James wasn't Jesus brother. He was a blood relative, a cousin
perhaps, but not the son of Mary and Joseph. If Mary had children
other than Christ, then Christ wouldn't have left her to the care of
John when he died on the cross. Mary would have gone to the
care of one of her other sons, and Jesus wouldn't have had to
have given her into the care of John.


Revelation 12:1-6, 13-17...particularly verse 17. "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea." Are these her other children or the church?


If there had been other sons then Christ doing this would have gone against every Jewish sacred tradition and it would have insulted his family. He wouldn't have done that.


Why wouldn't he have done that? His family didn't believe him. NT says so. But Jesus wasn't a law abiding Jew so he most certainly would and could have done it.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
not to go off topic, but somewhereinbetween, your signature is a little misleading as i believ it goe "and you shall have no other Gods before me, not savior." just thought id point that out
.


Just thought I would point out that it's technically "I, even I, am HaShem; and beside Me there is no saviour" and that says the same thing as having no other G-d before him.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShawNee922


Proving Jesus did or did not exist has no bearing on the Christian faith.


I know many Christians who will say otherwise. If he doesn't exist, then is the entire NT not false? What about the salvation and promises? The people who rely solely on being 'saved' would without a doubt be lost because they would have nothing else. IMO they focus too much on the religion and living to die in order to obtain their glory rather than doing good things, living a good life and establishing a relationship with G-d.


The man from galilee, who many know as Jesus, never claimed to be a Christian nor the son of god...


He most certainly could have claimed to be the son of G-d as all Jewish men are the sons of G-d.


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 ...


Jesus being a Pharisee did not agree with the rabbinical Judaism but that by no means says that he was trying to get rid of Judaism. If in fact Jesus lived and uttered these words, "I did not come to abolish the law" shows just the opposite. The school of thought between the Pharisees and Sadducees were so different. I suppose it's fortunate for the Jews that they no longer exist. IMO, the only religions that are false are the ones who think their way is the only one. And honestly, that could be left up to the individual and the religion they are practicing. I know one Christian who takes away a completely different message being preached on Sunday morning than her sister sitting next to her. Religion is man made and our way of attempting to connect with G-d. The overall principle behind it is not bad as it can be used to teach a 'better' way of life but again, it's left up to the individual and how they see it.


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..


One cannot debunk what one does not know. A person would have to have heard about Jesus and his teachings in order to deny them, right? There are certain elements to the mosaich that did not happen and since there was a travel/communication issue, not everyone could necessarily know about Jesus but they could see that things didn't happen as promised by G-d. And there were a slew of false messiahs. Surely the Talmud writers would have mentioned the one to come along and be the source of persecution for many Jews, Christians and non-Christians in the years to come.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
someone may have already mentioned these guys but if not, what about the people who were christian antagonist and recorded things about Jesus and his followers and/or natural disasters surrounding a certain death; Thallus, Tacticus, Suetonius, Lucian, Josephus, Letter of Mara Bar Serapian, Pliny the Younger, etc. A lot of these writers were very anti Christian, referring to Christ as a crucified sophist and the teachings of christianity as disgusting and detestable. not to friendly, kinda like a lot of people on ATS who post things about christianity but at least the originator of this post was decent about his convictions.




en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.geocities.com...
www.geocities.com...

scroll down on "The fishermen's Net" link to see these extrabiblical, some very secular Jesus/ Christian referrences. I included another link to show the historical veracity of the bible.

Just because someone fails to mention something doesnt make a deductive conclusion at all logical. Its like writing about the victorious attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and failing to mention the use of the atomic bomb. Then concluding that an atomic bomb was never used. definitely need something more and i recommend an inductive conclusion based on the premises. An inductive conclusion based on the above post would be that since the literature didnt mention Jesus, the writers didnt write about Him



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Of course the existance of Jesus is of extreme importance to christians and the christian religion.
If Jesus never existed the NT is untrue.

To me it takes is an objective mind and some common sense to come to the conclusion that Jesus DID exist.
The many sources that did refer to Jesus just make the sources from that time that didn't look like sources that failed to include events of importance in their logs and diaries.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join