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.

 

Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
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.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

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.


I think Kapyong is too smart to want to use a word like "hearsay"....

This has two meanings really. One means broadly the same as "rumour", though it has a wide variety of shadings in what it encompasses (including perjorative and subjective ones that are useless here). Most basically completely unverified statements. It would be a larger claim to make that the writings about Jesus are mere "rumour" though.

The other meaning of hearsay is a strictly legal terminological one, and that is hardly in place on a general forum. Different jurisdictions have different views on the value of such evidence in any case and it can only lead to confusion to employ legal terminology in a thread that has nothing to do with law.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by d60944
 

I use hearsay in its simplest terms. That is, a second hand account of an event.


Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.


I was unaware of the derogative meaning. (rumors) Thanks.


The other meaning of hearsay is a strictly legal terminological one, and that is hardly in place on a general forum

I'm quite sure ATS can handle it.



[edit on 13/7/10 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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.


Thanks :-)

Faithful believers find it hard to accept there are no eye-witnesses to Jesus or the Gospel events at all.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Gday,


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.


Please pay attention -
This thread is showing there is NO EVIDENCE of anyone claims to be an eye-witnesses. You have failed to show any example of such a claim.



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.


Wrong.
Please READ the title, and the thread before making incorrect claims.

This thread is about ancient Christian who CLAIMED to have met Jesus.
It is NOT about whether people BELIEVE there were any witnesses.



Originally posted by d60944
I don't know what logical step is meant to follow from that.


Sure you do.
You just don't want to admit it.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Gday,


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.


Really?
Did Barnabas write a claim that he had personally met Jesus?
No.

Please note that this thread is about Christians who personally claimed to have met Jesus.

It is NOT about people who are BELIEVED to have met Jesus.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Gday,


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]


So,
you cannot cite a single claim to have personally met Jesus.

None of the apostles left a claim to have met Jesus.
None. (Apart from the forged 2 Peter.)

My claim stands firm.
There is NOT ONE claim to have personally met a historical Jesus.
(Apart from the forged 2 Peter.)

Your post is wrong.
Again.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

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?


I would say that your repeated failure to cite anyone who claimed to have personally met Jesus shows that you know I am right.

You just can't admit it.

Every time you preach about someone who is BELIEVED to have met Jesus - you highlight the fact that there is NO SUCH 1st-hand CLAIM to have met Jesus.

13 pages in and you still :
* cannot cite any example
* cannot admit you are wrong.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


faithful to futility?

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.-1Cor15



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

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. You make excuses to prove people wrong on purpose to try to make them look like fools. I know you had a mom and dad but I've never seen them but I know they lived on the earth because you are here on earth. I know they were real.
No one needs to cite that they have personally met Jesus.
Mary and Joseph were His parents and it stands to reason that they personally met Him without citing it.
But I think your wanting someone who cited that they personally met Him.
Does it really matter that someone cannot cite a single claim to have personally met Jesus?
What matters is that we are still sinners who sin and are in need of the Savior Jesus Christ.


Originally posted by Kapyong
None of the apostles left a claim to have met Jesus.
None. (Apart from the forged 2 Peter.)


2Peter talks about it but you don't believe it. Whose to say 2Peter is "really" a forgery? What if scholars are wrong like you say some scholars are wrong about proving Jesus?


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.)


Your claim doesn't matter. Paul said he seen Him but then you start putting baggage on that.


Originally posted by Kapyong
Your post is wrong.
Again.
Kap


Your post is wrong because 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]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Gday,


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.


You have cited many examples of people later BELIEVED or CLAIMED to have met Jesus.

But THIS THREAD is about people who actually claimed THEMSELVES to have personally met Jesus.

You have failed to cite a single example.
You lose.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

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]


You appear to be admitting I am right.
Thanks.

There is NOT ONE 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus (except forged 2P.)

I win.


Kap



[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
But I think your wanting someone who cited that they personally met Him.


You think ?
You THINK ?!

13 pages in,
after WEEKS of repetition,
after numerous times of reminding you the TOPIC
after I told you DOZENS of times thats what I wanted !

NOW, you finally THINK
I want someone who cited they personally met Him?

You FINALLY figured it out?
You're a real fast thinker there tex :-)


Kap

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
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.

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.

We have Kapyong answering all questions in absolute stellar fashion. On the other side of the table is total lack of substance with obvious desperation!!

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.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Gday,

So,
back to Paul, and whether he claimed to have met a historical Jesus.

What does Paul say about the source of his Gospel ?


Gal. 1:16
"God chose to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach him among the gentiles"

Jesus was revealed to Paul, IN Paul, by revelation.

Rom. 16:25-6
Paul's Gospel "about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings".

Until NOW it was secret, but Paul now has knowledge about Jesus - derived from his revelation about what the scriptures mean.

Eph 3:5
"The mystery about Christ which in former generations was not made known to the human race, is now revealed to dedicated apostles and prophets through the Spirit."

Knowledge about Jesus Christ is only NOW known by revelation - not a recent historical Jesus.

Gal. 1:11-12
"For I neither received (paralambanoo) [my Gospel about Jesus Christ] from man, nor was I taught it, but [I recieved it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ"

He received his gospel about Jesus from personal revelation - specifically saying that he did NOT learn it, and got it from NO MAN.
Paul uses 'paralambano' to refer to receiving revelation.

1 Cor. 15:3-4
"For I delivered to you ... what I also received (paralambano), that Christ died for our sins, as learned from the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day, as learned from the scriptures"
(Translating "kata tas graphas" to "as learned from the scriptures".)

Paul has received this knowledge about Jesus dieing and rising again from HIS personal REVELATION about what the scriptures really mean, probably referring to Isaiah 53, Hosea 6:2, Ps. 22:16, Zech. 12:10 and Ps. 2.


Paul makes it clear that his Gospel about Jesus comes from HIS new revelations about what the scriptures actually mean.

Whan Paul says "according to the scriptures", he does NOT mean
"Jesus' historical actions fulfilled the prophecies found in the scriptures"

Rather, he means :
"I have now grasped the TRUE meaning of scripture - and from it, I learned about Jesus".

Paul had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus. He was preaching a spiritual Risen Christ that he had now come to understand because of his new grasp of what the scriptures mean, what the scriptures REALLY said about Jesus.

That's why all those other early Christians mined the OT for episodes and details about Jesus - to them, Jesus was IN the scriptures, that's where they learned about him - not from any historical Jesus traditions.

LATER, the Gospels arose, and THEN Christians started writing about historical Jesus traditions. But those 'historical' traditions all came FROM the Gospels - there was no historical Jesus before G.Mark was written.


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Gday,


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.


Thanks for your kind words :-)

Young children are OK, all ages welcome here :-)
On the 'net we all get mixed together - some here may be young, some maybe old, all types here...
So I have no problem talking with all sorts, and try to stick to the issues as far as possible (but I do get a bit snippy at times sorry :-) (Actually I am also trying to improve my ability to keep my temper.)


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.


Yes indeed -
this is turning out to be quite a hot-button topic, as we see a dissonance between :
* a 100% certain for sure no doubt knowledge that Jesus was real
vs
* NO hard evidence of Jesus at all

This lack of historical evidence can be surprising to some believers. Particularly when their priests etc. have been telling/preaching them there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus.



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.


Thanks.
Do you think tex agrees?
;-)


Kap



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
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.

I am not saying that OP is not right. There indeed IS NO historical document by any eyewitness of Jesus. But this does not mean he did not exist.


Peace be with you.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Gday,


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.


Come on !
:-)
It strikes me that you're a reasonably smart grown-up, regardless of faith.
That silliness is beneath you.


Kap



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join