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 melatonin
Originally posted by tylersch
However, I think thehumbleone is reading your words just fine.
Your last post you managed to not answer ANY of my questions that I posted AGAIN.
I don't think any of your questions are actually directed at me, if they were I'd answer them...
Sheesh, people are so cranky.
Originally posted by NowAmFound
Maybe you should use a more objective and learned source?
III. Extant Pictures of Jesus.
1. Portraits Ostensibly Authentic:
1. Portraits by Painters, Sculptors, etc.
.....
(3) A "true and only portrait of our Savior taken from an engraved emerald which Pope Innocent VIII. received from Sultan Bajazted II. for the ransom of his brother, who was a captive of the Christians," frequently reproduced in photograph is in reality the copy of a medal which may have been cut at the command of Mohammed II., and which is, at all events, of comparatively modern date.
Originally posted by NowAmFound
Mel: You didn't really read the information sited, did you? Also, "may have been" doesn't mean much.
The emerald with the portrait of Christ (similar to your foto) was given by the Sultan Bajazid II to the Pope Innocent VIII (+ 1492). The Emerald disappeared probably with the sack of Rome (1527). But the same profile-image of Christ appears on papal medals, as of the Pope Julius III.
Even Augustine - hardcore bishop of the church hadn't a clue what jesus looked like.
Augustine of Hippo, aware that different artistic representations of Jesus were circulating, claimed that such variations were unavoidable since individual imaginations construct unique fabrications. The problem of verisimilitude, or even consistency, did not trouble him. Since no way exists to judge which image is closest to reality he said, the only nonnegotiable fact is that Jesus had a human face. In his treatise On the Trinity Augustine states that it is not "in the least relevant to salvation what our imaginations picture him like, which is probably quite different from the reality." What really matters is that we think of Jesus as a human being.
The same with Eusebius - didnt your site say that Eusebius had seen pictures???
One response to this quandary is attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea in a famous (but possibly forged) letter to Constantine’s sister, Constantia. He rebuffed her request for a portrait of Jesus, saying: "What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears his essential characteristics, or the one which he took up for our sakes when he assumed the form of a servant?"
Originally posted by NowAmFound
Mel: You didn't really read the information sited, did you? Also, "may have been" doesn't mean much.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
tylersch, first of all
i ignored kl's argument because that request would lead to a chain reaction that would end with a request for me to get the original documentation
and, in many ways you're asking me to do just that
essentially, i didn't bring the original article foward for any reason other than to spark discussion
secondly, i don't think i need to back up claims the dionysus was born of a virgin, fathered by a god, turned water into wine, and was seen by some as a redeemer of humanity
it's called common knowledge in the realm of mythology
just like the claim that the figure of osiris rose from the dead
Originally posted by maddnessinmysoul
jesus shares 19 out of 22 of the core characteristics of oedipus, a pagan myth
Originally posted by thehumbleone
And once again Mel and madness can't answer tylersch's questions, so what's new around here?
Originally posted by thehumbleone
And once again Mel and madness can't answer tylersch's questions, so what's new around here?
Originally posted by tylersch
What's wrong with original documentation? Do you have a problem with original documentation? Do you just rely on the lies people tell you to make you feel more at ease to believe Jesus never lived? I'm just saying if you're gonna spark a discussion and start making all kinds of claims, back it up. You should know this by now.
Oh, but I think you do. Why don't you? Because you know if you really look into it you'll find the truth, and if its common knowledge it should be reasonably easy to back up, don't you think?
Originally posted by maddnessinmysoul
Originally posted by tylersch
What's wrong with original documentation? Do you have a problem with original documentation? Do you just rely on the lies people tell you to make you feel more at ease to believe Jesus never lived? I'm just saying if you're gonna spark a discussion and start making all kinds of claims, back it up. You should know this by now.
no, i just don't want to have to go all the way back to a point where i'd have to hand-scan a papyrus jsut to prove a point
sure, asking for proof is good
but sometimes it can get ridiculous
Oh, but I think you do. Why don't you? Because you know if you really look into it you'll find the truth, and if its common knowledge it should be reasonably easy to back up, don't you think?
i did, with something from wikipedia
if you believe wikipedia is false in this situation, show me counterevidence
Originally posted by tylersch
At least admit that the stories oedipus and Jesus only have one similarity: they were male.
well, here's some similarites...
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, here's some similarites
taken from a book by Lord Raglan by the name of
The Hero:
a study in tradition myth and drama
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, here's some similarites
taken from a book by Lord Raglan by the name of
The Hero:
a study in tradition myth and drama
was that not citation enough?
it's a book by Lord Raglan, renowned mythologist
here's a link where you can buy it
he compared other heroes to oedipus
putting jesus to the same test yields 19 out of 22 similarities
i listed off a few
anyway
my claims on dionysus came from wikipedia
if you have a source that refutes those claims they stand
sure, wikipedia can be edited by anyone
but the claims can still be valid
do you have counter-evidence?
Originally posted by tylersch
Since this book was written less than a hundred years ago, I have to ask, where did he get his information? Does it quote anything before 6 BC?
You asking me if I have counter-evidence doesn't make any sense. My "evidence" is that you haven't showed me any real evidence backing your claims. As I said earlier, If I told you I was a billionaire, would you believe me? Just because some one claims certain characteristics about an ancient myth thousands of years later doesn't mean its accurate. You have to go to the source to find out the truth.
Originally posted by tylersch
I keep searching for stories of Oedipus, Oedipus Rex. All I keep getting is a story about a son having sex with his mom and then his mom killed herself when she found out that she had sex with her son.
Show me otherwise. PLEASE