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.
posted by Al Davison
posted by uberarcanist
I will conclude by stating that I do not think that the Jews would have ever felt required to refute Christianity, but it would have been very hard to explain if they could have but didn't. Jews, like adherents of many other religions, often have very heated debates in print on religious subjects that outsiders would consider trivial and of no practical consequence.
Some individual Jews will hold forth in some media or another - same as any other individuals who have some strong opinion on something and the desire to be heard. I believe your premise was that there should have been some official response or some major form of protest. You need not concede your opinion on anything - even in the face of evidence to the contrary. You are entitled to hold any opinion you like. But, you proposed some piece of "evidence" and I pointed out a number of different reasons why that evidence cannot be credited. Happy to help!
Originally posted by exitestablishment
Josephius, a secular historian, wrote accounts of Jesus.
Originally posted by Al Davison
Originally posted by exitestablishment
Josephius, a secular historian, wrote accounts of Jesus.
Doubtful on so many, many counts.
1) "Jesus" was, of course, not his given name
2) that name was common in that time
3) Messiah was a great cottage industry in that time - lots and lots of Messiahs and more than one was named "Jesus"
4) all the "historic references" that modern Christians like to toss around as "proof" were really nothing more than a reporting of what Christians had to say about the subject - meaning that it was accurate to report that Christians believe this or that about this "jesus" guy.
5) Don White is correct - pretty much every historian (even the Christian historians) believe that some translator added the whole 1-line, 8-word reference.
Originally posted by donwhite
This is a popular debate topic, and there are strong feelings on both or all sides...
There was one noteworthy effort made in the 1980s. The Jesus Seminar. It lost its impetus for a variety of reasons. Now in 2007, the cause has gained new momentum and is about to begin anew in December, 2007...
R. Joseph Hoffmann, Ph.D.
Chair, Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion...
Originally posted by Iasion
Originally posted by uberarcanist
The Jews of the time could have easily refuted the Gospels if the events depicted were distortions or outright fabrications. The utter lack of such a refutation speaks volumes in favor of the veracity of the Gospels.
Rubbish.
Firstly -
Many ancient myths were never refuted - e.g. The Golden Ass of Apuleis - therefore. according to YOUR argument, he really DID turn into an ass and meet the Gods.
Secondly -
The Gospels were unknown until early-mid 2nd century (e.g. Papias, Justin),
There were no Jews left there, and only few left living in other parts. There were NO Jews left to refutre it at all.
Thirdly -
When the Jews finally DID start hearing about Jesus, here is what they said about him :
* he was a bastard son of Roman soldeir Pantera
* he was conceived during menstruation
* he learned black magic in Egypt
* he worshipped a brick-bat
Does that sound like accepting Jesus, or rejecting him?
They just never realised he was a myth.
Originally posted by Iasion
Originally posted by Steff
I dont think many people ever doubted his existence as a historical figure.......More likely, "some" people are doubtful wheter the storys are indeed true.
Justin has a Jew Trypho saying this (from c.130) :
"But Christ —if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."
Numerous other writers (even Christians) denied Jesus ever came in the flesh.
Several 2nd century Christian writers describe Christian beliefs at length in detail and NEVER mention Jesus !
Originally posted by Headhurts
Nazareth did not exist during Jesus time.
Jesus was a Naserine - a cult.
Jesus was a man. The Council of Nicea voted to make Jesus devine,
which is why all references to him being a man were removed from the Bible.
The Catholics turned Mary Magdalene into a whore when she was really the successor to Jesus and an Apostle in order to subjugate women.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by roger_pearse
you talk about evidence... yet you have none yourself
no credible evidence exists that jesus was alive, ever
the first reference to him in anything written was over 2 decades after he supposedly died by someone who didn't even live in the same area
and there was actually an argument over whether or not jesus was divine,
there were 4 camps
jesus is wholly human
jesus is wholly divine
jesus is partially human and partially divine
jesus is 100% human and 100% divine
the decision over the nature of jesus was decided by committee