Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus be fake?)...

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
If he did write down the early parts of Jesus, where are the records?


Paul never wrote any Gospels and I don't think anyone is claiming he did. We are saying he spread the Gospel orally which is pretty obvious in the NT and extrabiblical texts. He mentions some things like the crucifixion, resurrection, and sin atonement but his works are epistles- not Gospels.




posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I do not doubt his beliefs, I doubt no ones beliefs. I just find it odd that there were no letters with the life and times of Jesus. Of course this could be because it was not needed for Paul. And remember, not only do I not question Paul's beliefs, I do not question anyones. What people believe is up to them to decide.

Actually this thread is a little help to what I believe. But not its main purpose.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I never assumed/thought that he did write a gospel. However, where did the gospels get their "proof" (for lack of a better word) on Jesus' life? They were clearly written long after he lived. At least 40 years after his death, which if I remember right was around 37 AD.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Matthew: Eye Witness.
Mark: Possible eye witness, Peter's assistant/scribe.
Luke: Historian, Paul's companion.
John: Eye Witness.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Ok that's cool. No problem.

I thought you were debating that Paul didn't think Jesus was ever a real person. With the context of Paul's life as first a persecutor of the Christians it is obvious that he new about his life. As a high ranking Pharisee, his job was to hunt down the remaining ones after the crucification, he knew all about it.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Mark, (I think was the one) wrote about the destruction of the Jewish temple. Which was in 70AD, Jesus (again I think) died around 37AD. Now for sake of argument, let us assume that Mark was the same age as Jesus. If he wrote his gospel the same year as the destruction of the temple, that would have made him around 77 years old. Why would he have waited to write these events down? Why not write them down as they happened, or right after?

Even if he was younger than Jesus, he still would have been over 40 years old when he wrote his gospel. If he was older, then he would have been well over 77 years old when it was written.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I apologize for misleading you in my thoughts. I blame text! Hard to convey ideas/thoughts in a medium such as this.

For the record, I do believe that Saul/Paul thought Jesus was a real being. Like you stated in an earlier post, people do not tend to do grand things based on circumstantial evidence.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Cool... I guess we got crossed up.

One reason I just thought of why Mark or anyone didn't write the gospels down is because they were being slaughtered by the Romans and Jews.

Possession of such a document could amount to death. Fed to Lions, boiled in oil and fun stuff like that. I posted that info on how they all died...

Kind of like wearing a Malcolm X T shirt to a Klan rally.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


The threat of being slaughtered did not stop them from preaching, I don't see why it would stop them from documenting.

The possession problem could have been fixed by keeping the documents under wraps. Similar to the supposed "Golden Plates" of the Mormons.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



But it did stop them... they all were killed in nasty fashion

Notice they decided to write it down near the end of their life before they died.

Makes sense to me.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You say they wrote it down at the end of their lives. yet as I stated above that would be around 77 years old for Mark. If I were running from the "law" and they had not found me for over 40 years, I would assume that I was for the most part, in the free and clear.

Of course that is me, and not them. However in order to take your thought to heart I will need some documentation about:

1: Them being hunted an killed.
2: Their age when they were killed

And let us not forget that much of the literature at the time (the gospels time) was allegorical. I am not saying that theirs was in fact allegorical, but there is a chance that it was.

[edit] their to there, Two too many, when two is to too, as two is to to.

[edit2] Sheesh, I said two too many times and thought I misspelled one!

[edit on 2/22/2008 by adigregorio]

[edit on 2/22/2008 by adigregorio]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



Remember this I posted in this thread already here

They had secret meetings and told it orally. Sign of the fish < was the secret symbol. You know that right?

You said yourself it was late in their lives when they wrote it. It follows they were old men and knew it was time to record it for posterity as they could not tell it orally anymore.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Do we know the year that Mark was killed? If not, this is okay, just curious to see if it was after 70AD or not.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I'm pretty good a google...



external source

It was not long before the opportunity arose to get rid of the evangelist. Mark's enemies, taking advantage of the Easter ceremonies held by the saint, sent armed men who surprised and arrested him while he was celebrating Mass. Mark died the following day, 25th April 68.


source



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Alright, since it was before 70 AD how did he know of the Jewish temple being destroyed? Or was he referring to one of the earlier temples destruction?



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   


Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to sometime between 60 AD and 80 AD. It was probably the earliest of the four gospels and a source used by Matthew and Luke.

The oldest clear evidence we have on regarding the date comes from Irenaeus of Lyons, who wrote in the second century:


.after their death [Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."

The most complete external evidence for Mark's authorship and his association with Peter comes in the church historian Eusebius, who quotes Papias (c. 60-130 AD), a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, as writing:


Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.




source



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


So it could very well have been an earlier destruction he was mentioning. Since this is a possibility I will remove it from my questioning. I have to get ready for my weekly dinner with my mother so I will have to hold off on any more of my questions till I return.

One question before I go however, in your opinion how possible is it that the Jesus depicted in the Bible is not the same person as the actual Jesus?

Do to our debate, you have changed my ideas that Jesus never existed. However, I still find it a bit hard to swallow that he is who he was depicted as in the Bible.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


The Jesus I met is the SAME one as in the bible, Though I have never seen him.
The destruction of Jerusalem by antiochus was prophesied by Jesus and it happened!
A precursor to the Antichrist.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Alright, since it was before 70 AD how did he know of the Jewish temple being destroyed? Or was he referring to one of the earlier temples destruction?


Dig this...

It's a gospel, Mark only wrote was Jesus said. Jesus predicted the temple would be destroyed 35 years before it happened and it came true.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 



bingo

Mark 13:


1As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."


yep in 70 AD it happened Supernatural foreknowledge!!!!!!!!!!





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join