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.

 

Was Jesus declared divine posthumously?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
The statements of Josephus are not consistent with a mythical Jesus, except by finding reasons to ignore them or add to them.


Of course they are. Since Josephus wasn't there, he had to have had a secondary source for his information. Since you consider Josephus to be evidence of a historical Jesus, you are implicitly assuming his source was not ultimately myth. Do you have something to back up that assumption, or are you simply speculating to support your position?




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
The statements of Josephus are not consistent with a mythical Jesus, except by finding reasons to ignore them or add to them.


Of course they are.


Oh yes they are... oooh no they aren't.... oh yes they are....

Why not try reason, instead of assertion? Some of us have read Josephus, you know.



Since Josephus wasn't there, he had to have had a secondary source for his information. Since you consider Josephus to be evidence of a historical Jesus, you are implicitly assuming his source was not ultimately myth.


Does this just apply to Jesus, or also to the remainder of what he wrote?

Indeed, I presume that his source was not aliens from another world, and that his work is not the secret product of silicon-based life forms from the planet Tharg.

Anyone can make up excuses to ignore evidence. Josephus says what he says. His statements are not compatible with the 'mythical Jesus' theory, except by using the sort of excuses you get from used-car salesmen, such as these.



Do you have something to back up that assumption, or are you simply speculating to support your position?


I see no need to comment on the strawman you have invented. I will remark on the impudence of someone who offers no evidence, misrepresents ancient sources, and, when cross-examined, claims that any source not by an eye-witness might be based on something that would support his theory and so doesn't count.

Integrity seems to be an early casualty of the 'Jesus Myth' fairytale.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



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

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Does this just apply to Jesus, or also to the remainder of what he wrote?


All of it of course, including the flying chariots.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Indeed, I presume that his source was not aliens from another world, and that his work is not the secret product of silicon-based life forms from the planet Tharg.


Congratulations! You've eliminated two of the possibilities as to what his source was. I suppose that makes you somewhat closer to revealing it.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
His statements are not compatible with the 'mythical Jesus' theory,


I guess we have your word on that - and nothing else.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Integrity seems to be an early casualty of the 'Jesus Myth' fairytale.


You seem to have inadvertently inserted the word 'myth'.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Does this just apply to Jesus, or also to the remainder of what he wrote?


All of it of course, including the flying chariots.


Obscurantism seems a heavy price to pay for self-indulgence.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
Indeed, I presume that his source was not aliens from another world, and that his work is not the secret product of silicon-based life forms from the planet Tharg.


Congratulations! You've eliminated two of the possibilities as to what his source was. I suppose that makes you somewhat closer to revealing it.


Jeer noted.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
His statements are not compatible with the 'mythical Jesus' theory,


I guess we have your word on that - and nothing else.


Reiteration of assertion noted.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
Integrity seems to be an early casualty of the 'Jesus Myth' fairytale.


You seem to have inadvertently inserted the word 'myth'.


Pathetic.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
nobody here cares to argue this one, is it because of lazyiness?
exhaustion?


Nope, it's called "being too busy with the other threads". It's been a busy life for me all around, especially lately.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
or maybe it's because i've found the biggest chink in the armor of the world's most powerful religion?


Or maybe not. Thanks for accurately addressing Roger Pearce, you da man!


[edit on 21-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
It does not matter if Jesus is God. Jesus never said he was god. He said he is the son of man, whatever that means. Jesus said that we could only know God the father thru Him. Jesus said he was one with the father but he also said we are his brothers. It was common during the Roman era to deify famous and greatly admired people who had died. Julius Caeser was officially declared a god. this practise came to Rome from religions in the eastern part of the empire. Jesus describes God with a Oneness that He and we are all part of. If we are one with God then we are God and so is Jesus. It is a matter of faith but also a matter of common sense. If we are all a part of God and that is what Jesus believed then what he said is all true. Jesus was far more spiritually evolved than most or all humans. Jesus was showing us the way to our spirituality. Jesus is the light that reveals the road to God, the road back home.
God bless you,
Rick



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Mizar...when Jesus awa alive there he drew quite a following and it upset many people.


Pardon?
We have NO evidence (for Jesus or the Gospel events) from the time of Jesus.


We have letters from this time, from the romans, that speak of "this Jesus the alleged Messiah."


What "this time" ?
The Roman references to Jesus date from 2nd century, and are merely from Christian beliefs, not any records.


Kapyong



[edit on 7-2-2009 by Kapyong]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Sparkie the Wondersnail
He was declared divine in 325 A.D. at the first Council of Nicaea


So says Dan Brown in his book of fiction.

But the reality, however, is that he was always considered divine - Paul talks of a divine being, not a historical person (that came later.)


Kapyong



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by pieman
in short, yes he was,
the divinity of christ wasn't established until the ''council of nicea'' in 325 AD. it was a close vote.


Not true.
Why on earth do people repeat this fiction?

Here are the actual canons, creed and letter of the Council of Nicea :
www.newadvent.org...

That site gives the original documents produced by the Council - the actual 'minutes of the meeting.'

Note well - there is NO mention of any VOTE about Jesus divinity.

Furthermore, anyone who knows ANYTHING about Christian beliefs would know that Jesus was considered to be a God from the very beginning.

The earliest NT books (Paul) clearly speak of a divine Jesus.

It's the HUMAN Jesus that was added latter - by Mark, and then endlesly copied and repeated and expanded.


Kapyong



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join