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.

 

Is the New Testament Accurate and Reliable? Archaeology?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham Throwing logic out is the quickest approach to self destruction.




I take it your not married then?

Come one, logic is not always the right way nor does it always have the answer. There are many things that are not logical, but yet they are there.




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by spamandham Throwing logic out is the quickest approach to self destruction.


I take it your not married then?


Why would you take that? Have you thrown logic out again to arrive at such a conclusion?


Originally posted by edsinger
Come one, logic is not always the right way nor does it always have the answer. There are many things that are not logical, but yet they are there.


There is nothing actual that is illogical. That's what makes the axioms of logic axioms.

I'm guessing you are using the words "logic" and "intuition" interchangably?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by spamandham Throwing logic out is the quickest approach to self destruction.


I take it your not married then?


Thanks Ed, now I have to clean up. That was frickin hillarious.




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandhamI'm guessing you are using the words "logic" and "intuition" interchangably?



woman



I need to add some stuff here I guess, but seriously......you are not married then....



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by spamandhamI'm guessing you are using the words "logic" and "intuition" interchangably?


I need to add some stuff here I guess, but seriously......you are not married then....


Seriously, how do conclude that?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   



You need to ask? Then I definitly know the answer.


"Throwing logic out is the quickest approach to self destruction"

Think about that one......I could argue that "throwing logic out is the fastest approach to self-preservation"


and



"Have you thrown logic out again to arrive at such a conclusion"

I have just used logic to prove that it isnt always logical.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


You need to ask? Then I definitly know the answer.


No you don't.


"Throwing logic out is the quickest approach to self destruction"


Originally posted by edsinger
Think about that one......I could argue that "throwing logic out is the fastest approach to self-preservation"


Why not provide some real world examples where throwing logic out results in self preservation?


Originally posted by edsinger
I have just used logic to prove that it isnt always logical.


All you have proven is your unwillingness to use the gray matter between your ears.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham



Originally posted by edsinger
Think about that one......I could argue that "throwing logic out is the fastest approach to self-preservation"


Why not provide some real world examples where throwing logic out results in self preservation?


Originally posted by edsinger
I have just used logic to prove that it isnt always logical.


All you have proven is your unwillingness to use the gray matter between your ears.



Well ? Your not married then are you?

If you were you would understand a real world example where throwing logic out results in self preservation.



Edit: Every married man is laughing his arse off right about now...

[edit on 21-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
i just wanted to add a verse about paul.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

this was written by peter.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
If you were you would understand a real world example where throwing logic out results in self preservation.

No offense, Ed, but if you're married then either you're married to a very conservative "my man is boss" woman or else you've got a terribly unhappy relationship.



Edit: Every married man is laughing his arse off right about now...

No, only those who don't know how to treat women as their equals.

And married women are giggling at your suggestion, Ed, that the only way to handle us is to get emotional. Tisk.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
No offense, Ed, but if you're married then either you're married to a very conservative "my man is boss" woman or else you've got a terribly unhappy relationship.



Edit: Every married man is laughing his arse off right about now...

No, only those who don't know how to treat women as their equals.

And married women are giggling at your suggestion, Ed, that the only way to handle us is to get emotional. Tisk.



No I am not the controlling type. She is my rock. We are one flesh. Treat her as an equal? Who are you kidding? They are more than just equal, they are much better at some things than men and visa versa. One flesh......She is superior in my eyes as she is the mother of my children and runs a very tight ship. I have the best wife in the whole world, bar none imho. Am I head of the household? Yes, but the last time that was even brought up was the day we were married. Again, we are one flesh, there is no need for captain/subordinate relationship. That is a farce of the feminist movement.


but both of you fail to catch how I knew he wasn't married.


No man will ever be able to figure out a woman, they will lie about it, but they can't do it. Logic is not how they think at times, its heart and it is limited to a woman and her unique way of looking at things. Just tell one , "Honey, your being illogical!" ....see what happens.

Thats why I would not mind seeing a woman president, there would be no war.



(Just intense negotiations every 28 days)



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Well ? Your not married then are you?

If you were you would understand a real world example where throwing logic out results in self preservation.


Actually, I am married, and I don't see how it can be considered an illogical choice.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsingerGood question but if you go back and read, marg was telling me that there was no non-Bible history of Jesus in the first century. I figured if anything would have an non-Christian clout it would be a non-Christian Roman. So in what interest would a Roman have for recording that on a man whom did not exist?

Again I was making the case that Paul did MEET Jesus. You don't have to believe it, but if I was walking down the street with the blood of many people on my hands and I was suddenly blinded and confronted that I was in the wrong and yet the people next to me did not witness anything other than a blinding flash. I would say I had a Divine encounter and that I met the man in whom I was persecuting and who was already dead but risen, simply because He said as much and I wouldnt argue.
And Tacitus’ statement confirms Marg’s assessment., since he, Tacitus that is, did not purport to believe in Jesus, he simply mentioned a: “Christus” and the superstitious belief of his followers. It is in essence, negative commentary on a supposed construct. Lower North America and much of South America believes in the superstition of voodoo, does it make voodoo believable? Hence Tacitus is not one whom you or anyone else should be pushing as proof of Jesus.

Paul did not meet Jesus! Let me make that very clear to you. Not only did he not meet Jesus, the accounts in Acts is contradictory which means that since they are, neither can be believed and as such should be tossed out as being written by an unintelligent person in a confused state.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.

Versus:

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

In no sense of the imagination can it be both.


And I second phoenixhasrisen’s request for you to read Kierkegaard, for there was a man who was sure his existential philosophy was correct until he was forced to understand that his scapegoat was…denial and subjectivity.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Paul didn't write Acts. Anything attributed to Paul within Acts that is uncharacteristic of Paul based on his own writings is highly suspect ayway.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by edsinger

Well ? Your not married then are you?

If you were you would understand a real world example where throwing logic out results in self preservation.


Actually, I am married, and I don't see how it can be considered an illogical choice.



Well so much for my Logic then........I was wrong. I guess you have figured them out.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
anyone who even attempts to match their historical knowledge with SomewhereinBetween had better pack a lunch! This is a person who knows more, perhaps, than any person whom I've had the pleasure of reading.

I'm just saying....pretty much none of us is in the same league.

Moral: don't come to a gun fight armed only with a butter knife.




posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Hi Somehwere in Between:

Actually, there is an explanation (of sorts) for the evident confusion/contradiction of Greek words/expressions in the Koine Greek book of Acts (9:7 compared with 22:9) and the vague descriptions of seeing a light then hearing a voice (Heb QOL) and all that....

It has to more do with the vagueries of the underlying Hebrew ideas of interpreting thunder than any real contradiction, in this case:

See for example:

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a Voice (Heb QOL, "voice", "thunderclap") , but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid;
but they "heard not" the voice (Heb: QOL "voice", "thunderclap") of him that spake to me...

The verb "hear" in Hebrew and Aramaic (as well as the LXX Greek and the Koine Greek of the NT which echoes the Greek of the LXX) often connotes an idea of understanding (i.e. "it is because you cannot hear my words..." Iesous is made to say in John's gospel...or in the synoptics we read, "let he who has two ears hear" in the sense of "understand the deeper meaning of", etc.)

So Acts 22:9 could well mean "but they UNDERSTOOD NOT (i.e. were not able to interpret) the thunderclap" of Him who spoke to me..."

This whole episode in Acts has to do with the larger issue in the 2nd Temple period in Judaea of "Listening v. interpreting" to a (Heb.) QOL (lit. VOICE or THUNDERCLAP) following a brilliant flash of lightning and trying to "interpret the corresponding thunderclap" as being an verbal oracle from YHWH.

Whereas some people can "see lightning" and "hear a thunderclap", but not be able to interpret it as language, others of a different mind set can see and hear the same phenomenon, but are able (somehow !) to think they understand (i.e. lit "hear") the same thunder as language.

We see this idea of the QOL(i.e. thunder) of YHWH coming from the midst of the Thunderclap reflected in John's Gospel...(the Greek text dates from around AD 110) where depending on who is listening, different opinions as to what it "means" ensue:

John 12:29

"And there was a peal of thunder....and when the crowd heard the peal some said, behold, it thundered. Others said, an Angel hath spoken someting to him" ---wgucg shows that some "standing around" were looking to give the QOL (Thunder/Voice) a kind of interpretation which would require interpretation in order for the message to be understood (evidently by someone "of the spirit..."): this is also the implication of the Brontologion of the Dead Sea Scrolls... (see below)

In the second Temple period (BC 420 to AD 70) it was common to "interpret" thunderclaps in terms of the words of YHEH (read the "Brontologion Scroll" from the Dead Sea Scrolls Corpus, c. BC 60 which attempts to intepret thunderclaps as the language of EL)

The Hebrew word for VOICE is QOL, which ALSO means "thunderclap" or "sound" and used in the connection with the sky/heaven or lightning/rain, it usually means thunder which the ancient Hebrews thought was the voice of their god speaking to them...but it needed an interpreter.


This is why we read the ancient Canaanite hymn (Habu Baal Benei Elim) to Baal's 7 fold Peal of Thunder in Psalm 29 (adjusted to fit the cult of YHWH, e.g. Habu YHWH benei elim, with the alliteration BBB distorted...): makes use of the word QOL

"The voice (QOL) of YHWH (is) upon the waters:
El-Cavod thundereth:
YHWH[is] upon many waters.
The voice (QOL) of YHWH [is] powerful;
the voice (QOL) YHWH[is] full of majesty. ..."

We also see this VOICE/QOL=THUNDER equivalence in some poetic parallelism in the prophets (e.g. Amos chapter 1:2

"YHWH thunders from Zion;
yea, he will utter his VOICE (QOL) from Jerusalem..."

and also in the Elamite Hebrew poetic parallel expressions in the book of Job where QOL ("VOICE/THUNDER") is paralleled to lightening....

Job 38:34-35

Can you lift up your voice (QOL) to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, `Here we are'?

Job 37:2-5
Hearken to the thunder of his Voice (QOL)
listen to the rumbling that comes from his mouth.
3: Under the whole heaven he lets it go,
and his lightning to the corners of the earth.
4. After it his voice (QOL) roars as thunder :
yea he thunders with his majestic voice (QOL)
and he does not restrain the lightnings when his voice (QOL) is heard.
5: Eloah thunders wondrously with his voice (QOL) ;
yea, he does great things which we cannot comprehend.

We also see this in the baptism of Iesous pericopes which was set in the Jordan river area (i.e. outdoors: "and a voice from heaven spoke saying, This is my beloved son...") and in the socalled Transfiguration pericopes in Mark chapter 9 and parallels (also out doors, on top of a mountain, where A FLASH of LIGHT precedes the QOL (or thunder). The interpretation of the thunder by the "spirit filled disciples" heard words like "This is my beloved son, my chosen one, listen to him!!" etc.)

The fact that "Iesous" has to "rouse" the disciples by touching them after the transfiguration pericope on the mountain in Matthew's version of the story in his gospel shows that somehow outward phenonmena (e.g. a flash of lightning and thunderclaps while Ieosus was praying) gave way to a vision of brilliant light and a booming sound from heaven, while the "disciples eyes were still heavy..." --and later the same Gospel has Iesous say, "tell this VISION" to no man until the son of man (Aram. Bar Enasha) has been raised from them that sleep..." (see Matthew 17:1-7)

Clear as mud?







[edit on 22-8-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Moral: don't come to a gun fight armed only with a butter knife.


A good moral Al. I know of no one's knowledge. I know some of the Bible. What I bring to the "fight" is a strong heart. Some with all the Biblical, factural knowledge there is don't use their heart in translating the writings. So very important.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I appreciate your interpretation Amadeus, and I salute your work as well as your resume concerning your ability to read and decipher the languages of old. However, allow me to tell you from where I approach theological belief of today.

Firstly, it would be the tracing of religious belief from the first known (at this point in time) construct relative to the nurturing of same and the progression to where it is today.

Secondly, it is from the context of the English Biblical narratives most prevalent after translation. That would be relative to the text thus far which has for several centuries been the guide for the English speaking: The King James; and those of the English Pentateuch as translated and disseminated by Hebrew scholars for the English speaking masses. While I understand the varied points you try to make relative to the actual interpretations of the Greek; Vaticanus; Sinaiticus, others or even the Hebrew and Aramaic texts now in our domain, I prefer to render my opinions on the aforementioned text, as flawed as they are, as they are those by which the majority have been indoctrinated, understand and swear by. The point of reference first and foremost for me and what should be for obvious reason, is the Old Testament.

Thirdly, it would be the fringe elements; i.e. cults; sects and amorphous disciplines and how they attached themselves to the root of their structure. Christianity is one of these, and when it comes to that fringe element, I need only show the incongruent; superfluous and contradictory accounts within itself as relative to my first point to make my case. This third element is often enough to cause the gears to grind into motion.

Fourthly, extra-Judeo-Christian text and the research of its history secures my position relative to whatever I may post in here. These texts when mentioned in here are so far away from truth it hardly warrants more than facial gesture.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
edsinger,

I also decided to test some New Testament scriptures using archeological evidence
most of which was found on the Internet.

The method is almost as interesting as the discovery.

ablebodiedman.blogspot.com...


The feedback I have had to date has been either total indifference or even contempt however, the scriptures themselves give me comfort this will eventually set matters straight concerning the validity of scripture as well as who is preparing to rule the earth.

regards


ablebodiedman



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join