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 ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by No King but Jesus
K's point is that all the examples you gave are hearsay. They were not written by the actual eyewitnesses.
And as K pointed out, 2 Peter is a later forgery.
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
The other meaning of hearsay is a strictly legal terminological one, and that is hardly in place on a general forum
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
So, I'd like to bring us back to the topic please.
texastig -
please read the topic again to make sure we are talking about the same thing, OK?
The topic is :
"Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus"
Originally posted by Kapyong
So,
what the evidence has shown is :
there is NOT ONE early Christian who claimed to have personally met a historical Jesus (except the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)
Kap
Originally posted by Wertdagf
WHEW! what a thread!
kapyong is doing an amazing job. Still so far the OP remains standing while the beaten stagger. Almost reminds me of the Black knight... tis but a flesh wound.. o running away eh?... ill bite your legs off.
Originally posted by d60944
To nitpick, this thread is not showing that there were no eyewitnesses. It's not even come vaguely close to doing that.
Originally posted by d60944
It is showing that there quite possibly (i.e. on the balance of scholarly opinioin abuot authenticity of certain texts) exists no written account (now??) originally penned by a physical eyewitness.
Originally posted by d60944
I don't know what logical step is meant to follow from that.
Originally posted by Abuaisha
reply to post by Kapyong
Hi Kapyoug,
What about Barnabas, who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met with Jesus.
Many thanks.
Originally posted by texastig
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
So, I'd like to bring us back to the topic please.
texastig -
please read the topic again to make sure we are talking about the same thing, OK?
The topic is :
"Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus"
No one had to have met a historical Jesus to prove that He is real. The apostles were with Jesus and Paul met some of the apostles. So your theory is FALSE.[edit on 7/13/2010 by texastig]
Originally posted by texastig
Originally posted by Kapyong
So,
what the evidence has shown is :
there is NOT ONE early Christian who claimed to have personally met a historical Jesus (except the 2nd century forgery 2 Peter.)
Kap
From the Bible, there are many people who met Christ while He walked the earth. What would you say to that?
Originally posted by Kapyong
So, you cannot cite a single claim to have personally met Jesus.
Originally posted by Kapyong
None of the apostles left a claim to have met Jesus.
None. (Apart from the forged 2 Peter.)
Originally posted by Kapyong
My claim stands firm.
There is NOT ONE claim to have personally met a historical Jesus.
(Apart from the forged 2 Peter.)
Originally posted by Kapyong
Your post is wrong.
Again.
Kap
Originally posted by texastig
Originally posted by Kapyong
So, you cannot cite a single claim to have personally met Jesus.
I have cited claims of those who personally met Jesus but you don't believe them.
Originally posted by texastig
... it doesn't matter if someone cannot cite a single claim to have personally met Jesus.
The Bible states that Peter, James, John, Thomas, etc... had seen Him. Doesn't matter if it was written by someone else.
[edit on 7/13/2010 by texastig]
Originally posted by texastig
But I think your wanting someone who cited that they personally met Him.
Originally posted by SunIsSon
Its quite funny, to be quite honest, the humor within this thread.
It is as if Kapyong is debating against young children here, in all seriousness.
Originally posted by SunIsSon
The posts here in defense of a historical jesus, consists of no greater substance than one would argue in defense of establishing the reality of a historical Easter Bunny (or any fictional character). NOTHING of greater substance coming from the pro-jesus camp, NOTHING.
Originally posted by SunIsSon
Kapyong excellent job! Clearly you outclass those who are debating you. I do not understand why they refuse to admit defeat here. It is clear that they have been defeated. Crystal clear.
Originally posted by skajkingdom
There is not one single historical note written by anyone who claims to have met my father. Therefore he did not exist.
This is the logic behind these threads.