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.
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSYou are clearly not conversant with the texts of the "bible" which you seem to quote in English so freely.
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSYour attachments are superficial and do not address the "problem of the scrolls" i.e. the time capsule element of caves 1-11 which were sealed in June of AD 68 which show massive differences between the "bible" of modern Rabinnic Jews (who mainly use the pointed Masoretic Text of AD 980 from a SINGLE copy in Leningrad) and the unpointed Hebrew and Aramaic texts in copies which are more than 1000 years older
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSThe Time Capsule element of the Dead Sea Scrolls put a large nail into the coffin of those who would claim that the "bible" is inerrant or "unchanging" (it is neither) or that the texts known to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (i.e. "Jezzuzzz") were the same as the ones read by (and held to be sacred by) modern day people who style themselves as "Christians" (99% of whom CANNOT read unpointed paleo-Hebrew or even Greek in the first place, and yet "believe every word of the Bible"... )
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSEddie, you CANNOT believe what YOU CANNOT READ....plain and simple. And you CANNOT hold up a book and say "this is the ONLY VERSION" when plainly there are competing versions of the same writing from antiquity (read the fragments of Origen's HEXAPLA that have managed to survive e.g. the Psalms....and notice the 6 to 7 columns he used for the different Greek versions of the OT many of which were widley circulating BEFORE R. Yehoshua was even born !)
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSEven as late as AD 110, there were Rebbes in Palestine arguing over whether the Song of Songs or the Book of Daniel or the Book of Esther "defiled the hands" i.e. were sacred scripture to be included in the Old Testament---this was more than 70 years AFTER the death of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean---and the Jews STILL did not have an absolutely fixed canon even by then....
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSIf you are going to provide links to subjects which are clearly WAAAAAAAY over your head, you need to provide links that actually can be substantiated.
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSI would STRONGLY advise you to get a book (which is written in modern English so there is NO excuse for you !!) called THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE compiled by real scholars such as Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg (with Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint) = ISBN # 0-06-060063-2 (1999) put out by Harper Collins Press NY.
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSIt shows the various differences between the Masoretic Text of the OT (AD 980), the SamPent (BC 420), the HEBREW UNPOINTED VORLAGE (Hebrew underlay) to the Greek Septuaginta Old Testament (BC 200) as well as the various Qumran versions which show MARGINALIA (i.e. added verses placed into the margins) dating from BC 250 (to the sealing of the caves in AD 68) as well as the various Aramaic Targums of books like Job (BC 150 to AD 68) and show these differences by ITALICS and also in footnote format.
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSIt is a GREAT book for the beginner who is (like yourself) NOT CONVERSANT with the essential problems of establishing a coherent text of "the Bible's Old Testament"....
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSAnd a MUST READ for people like you who like to spout nonsense based on the fear you might discover that many of the most beloved tenets of your "Christian" belief systemand the assumptions that spring from these tenets are based on nothing more than empty air....
Originally posted by NEOAMADEUSThis discussion group is for people who DEAL WITH FACTS, so let's start there, Eddie!!
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Edsinger,
Why on earth would you offer Tacitus, a man who referred to the Christian belief as an abomination and most mischievous superstition, as proof of God? Superstitions by any rationale is nothing but some psychological diversion. He is the second to last person believers should be hanging their hats on as proof of Christianity.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenAnd why would you also offer Paul's cited mental distortions as proof, when whatever no account lackey wrote about his epiphany in contradictory terms, and when he, the no-account, is the last person believers should be hanging their hats on as proof of Christianity?
It would seem to me that I have never claimed to be a Biblical Scholar by any means
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisinI feel bad for christians like you who try to make claims and come up against people who truly have studied this, but in another sense I do not as you make claims about things you obviously do not understand...Not a good idea ever.
Well BS, just because you CHOOSE to not believe in God, the Trinity, or a Creator for that matter is YOUR business
I guess my level of understanding is much much to ignorant to even hold conversations here.
You can deny God all you wish, worship science if you feel it has the answers. Its your right.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Do you actually read what people post or do you just respond to what makes you feel better? Funny thing was I was trying to be nice ed, and perhaps give you some things that could help you, because honestly you look pretty foolish by now.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
That's what I have been trying to tell you this whole time, even before you were ripped a new one with evidence to counter your claim.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
And I already I said I DO believe in God, I just do not believe that some Jew in the first century was God in the flesh, and there is plenty of reason for this.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
To believe in Christ is to believe in the absurd, however it is this leap of faith that is nec for one to believe in anything. Until you realize this you will continue to sound foolish ed. After all if any religion just dealt with facts then there would be no need for faith now would there ED? Quit trying to prove your religion is right, you will never be able to do it.
Well right there, you call my belief absurd based on your own knowledge. To believe in Christ is not foolish
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Well right there, you call my belief absurd based on your own knowledge. To believe in Christ is not foolish
Yes it is which is why I STRONGLY suggest you read Kierkegaard, let me try to explain. To believe in God is one thing, yet when you take the next step and claim that an omnipotent being has actually manifested himself in the flesh, through somemwhat normal processes (i.e like every other human entered this world) then that completely defies logic.
Jesus, a Semite and a man among men, continues to speak throw all the ages. His Human personality, his loving nature and his simple teachings will live forever and continue to enrich and embrace the hearts of the human family everywhere.
When the unpretentious teachings of Jesus are fully realized, all subtle forms of imperialism which advocate absolutism - such as an infallible Church, infallible bible, infallible doctrines or infallible anything- can no longer stand.
The desire for infallibility is a lust for undisputed authority, absolute power, and seeks to dominate individual freedom and free thought. The Human Jesus was a simple man. His source was God, and his spiritual insight continues to ignite the hearts and souls of men, women and children the world over.
Originally posted by marg6043
Until this day is not archaeological prof or historical prof of a God born into man to save the world.
Originally posted by Jehosephat
sorry to burst your bubble. But sometimes Logic has to be thrown out
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Like I said though I do not remember anyone saying it was not possible, so I don''t quite think I get your point. Maybe I missed something though
Your Jesus did travel through the birth canal yeah? He did have a birth by a mother (according to you) yeah? That is pretty much how EVERYONE comes into this existence, no? That is all I was saying. Except for your "miracle" of immaculate conception he was born and he died just like every other human.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
2) I did not understand how he choose one of the most absurd aspect of christianity to use as an argument against the statement that his belief is absurd.
Originally posted by Jehosephat
sorry to burst your bubble. But sometimes Logic has to be thrown out when there is not enough facts to supply reason to it.