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 Boywonder13
I understand your post, im just want to ask specifically what evidence you would like again...
Originally posted by Convex
Originally posted by Boywonder13
I understand your post, im just want to ask specifically what evidence you would like again...
i can only speak for myself, but
personally, i would be happy with even one CONTEMPORARY document mentioning jesus, in other words in his lifetime or soon enough after to be written by someone who might have been around when he was.
something still might be found, who knows.
Originally posted by Boywonder13
Paul's letters
Written between c48-68 CE.
Contemporary enough?
[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]
Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to The Acts of the Apostles, his conversion took place ('conversion' not in the sense of changing religious identity since the early Christians were viewed as members of a sect of Judaism not as members of a different religion, but in the sense of metanoia, also see religious conversion) as he was traveling the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He was temporarily blinded.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6]
Originally posted by Convex
paul's writings are some of the ealiest accounts oabout being a christian, but the references to a historical jesus are disputed as not being written by him. they include a lot of contradictions, etc.
here is a quick link i found.
there are people who believe paul talks about a non-historical, non-literal christ only.
paul himself says he only met jesus after he died.
Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to The Acts of the Apostles, his conversion took place ('conversion' not in the sense of changing religious identity since the early Christians were viewed as members of a sect of Judaism not as members of a different religion, but in the sense of metanoia, also see religious conversion) as he was traveling the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He was temporarily blinded.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6][/qoute)
[edit on 15-9-2008 by Convex]
[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]
My friend everything in history is disputed, they say Shakespeare didnt even write his plays.. go figure.
I know he never met a physical Jesus, but he did interact with people who would ahve claimed they knew him (peter, james, other disciples etc). So we have the 12 disciples as promiment figures at the time, and they werent just some later creation of the century.
Contradictions? i would be interested in knowing some.
and taking in account the undisputed letters (not all are disputed), the idea is that Jesus was a real figure.
[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]
Originally posted by Boywonder13
My friend everything in history is disputed, they say Shakespeare didnt even write his plays.. go figure.
[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]
Originally posted by Convex
paul's writings are some of the ealiest accounts about being a christian, but the references to a historical jesus are disputed as not being written by him. they include a lot of contradictions, etc.
here is a quick link i found.
there are people who believe paul talks about a non-historical, non-literal christ only.
paul himself says he only met jesus after he died.
Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to The Acts of the Apostles, his conversion took place ('conversion' not in the sense of changing religious identity since the early Christians were viewed as members of a sect of Judaism not as members of a different religion, but in the sense of metanoia, also see religious conversion) as he was traveling the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He was temporarily blinded.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6]
Records that Paul's reputation as a former fierce persecutor of the church preceded him to the area of Judea. He described himself as a Pharisee.
"... they all rushed at him (Stephen), dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. . . . And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison..."(Acts 7:57-8:1)
"I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished" (Acts 22:4-5).
"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' " `Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "`I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. " `What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. " `Get up,' the Lord said, `and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.' My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me" (Acts 22:6-11).
Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you . . . " (Acts 22:3).
Originally posted by Jen639682
Everything in history is hearsay really. You take one single event and ask five different people to go into detail about it. These five people come from five different backgrounds and give five completely different accounts of an event. Therefore you cannot say with complete truth that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the "Savior" and vice versus. It all in a matter of opinion. We cannot ever be truly certain about any event in history because of this.
Originally posted by mhc_70
Why then do many people, including wiki, accept many other events in history, that have nothing but hearsay to give them credibility, as factual history?
Originally posted by Jen639682
Everything in history is hearsay really. You take one single event and ask five different people to go into detail about it. These five people come from five different backgrounds and give five completely different accounts of an event.
Originally posted by Jen639682
Therefore you cannot say with complete truth that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the "Savior" and vice versus. It's all in a matter of opinion. We cannot ever be truly certain about any event in history because of this.
Originally posted by mhc_70
LOL, then Iasion I challenge to provide us with some authentic writings about Pilate from an author that you haven't labeled a forgery.
Originally posted by Iasion
Originally posted by mhc_70
LOL, then Iasion I challenge to provide us with some authentic writings about Pilate from an author that you haven't labeled a forgery.
Easy.
Josephus.
Philo.
Tacitus.
What was your point?
Iasion
Originally posted by shearder
And then I can play this hand:
In John 5:1-15 Jesus heals a man at the Pool of Bethesda. John gave the precise location and a description of the pool as having 5 porticoes (pillars):
Originally posted by shearder
Do you remember Jerusalem was liberated from the Romans? The Romans were killed. Do you know that the High Priest was also killed? Am i making this too easy? You do know that the High Priests house was also burned? You knew this - right? Need i go on??
Originally posted by mhc_70
You have already attempted to label every record a forgery.
Originally posted by mhc_70
Dude, you claimed earlier in this very thread that the records attributed to Josephus Flavius are a forgery.
Originally posted by mhc_70
Oh wait...just the ones that tell of Jesus, right?
Originally posted by mhc_70
Josephus Flavius? According to Iasion, he is a forgery.
Originally posted by Boywonder13
Mr. Iason i am intersted in what archaelogical evidence, you would like?