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: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by eight bits
It is too bad that your other current thread was consigned Below. You might want to write a mod to revisit that decision, since the problem may have been the combination of its title and its being spammed by off-topic posts from the guy who met Jesus in a hotel room.


Yah,
thanks - possibly so...

I will make a new post, better subject, more focussed on history or lack thereof.


Kap




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Ok thank you for the link ill review it when i come back from a family thing this weekend and i really do hope to see all the books (how many again?) that are fake.

But you should of said the books author/s never said they met Jesus because all the people who have met him can't say they did as they are part of the book and not the author.

And yes i said prove it not prove God is real or not or Jesus or leprechauns. Just prove a book is a fake. Thats all i asked is can they prove that? I bet if they had a big foot they could tell you if it is in "FACT" real or fake.

I know some books are fake some never made it to the Bible because of this but most did not make it because they said things the roman catholic church didn't like.

And i did not ask your point i said "I should of said what are you trying to say in a pointless round about way?"


So what are you saying?
A: no author says he met Jesus?
B:You don't believe there was a Jesus based on this?

The list goes on but you get it.

Anyway you said "The consensus of modern NT scholars says.
Brown, Fitzmyer, Crossan, etc.
Read details here:" but there was no link did you forget? Post it if you can please.

And its nice to see you relaxed a little lol.

Have fun kid im out for the weekend.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Incredible.
According to Christians -
Paul never met a historical Jesus, he just had a vision of the Risen Christ years after the alleged events.
According to Paul -
Paul merely had a vision of the Risen Christ years after the alleged events.
According to texastig :
Paul knew Jesus.
tex - your story is TOTALLY different to everyone else's.
Did you even KNOW that ?
Why don't you just claim YOU knew Jesus?
That would be as believable.
Kap


Kap, thank you for your reply.
Yale Professor Frank C. Porter wrote a book called,
"Does Paul Claim to Have Known the Historical Jesus?:
A Study of 2 Corinthians 5:16. 1928

( ) are mine.

In his book on page 257 he says this:
Does Paul claim to have known the Historical Jesus?
"The most emphatic affirmative answer to this question is that given by (German theologian) Johannes Weissin in his Paulus und Jesus, 1909, pp. 23-31 (English Trans. pp. 41-56) and his Das Urchristentum pp. 137ff. and 347ff.
If Weiss had lived, his interpretation of this verse would have had it's final elaboration and a conspicuous place in his Meyer commentary on 2 Corinthians. He begins his discussion in Paulus und Jesus with an assertion which, if it is true, is of such great importance in its bearing on the whole problem of the relation of Paul's Christianity to the person and the religion of Jesus that it deserves the most careful consideration. He says, "The wholly arbitrary assumption of theology that Paul had not known Jesus in his lifetime is finally excluded by the express statement of the Apostle himself in 2 Cor. 5 16." And at the end of his defence of this position, after acknowledging that the text is abrupt and obscure, he insists that "the words as they stand admit no other interpretation than... that Paul had seen and known Jesus in person:" but he adds, "and that he himself designates this as a knowledge (I'm having trouble putting in the Greek words) on which he now puts no value, since it is superseded by a better knowledge, (I'm having trouble putting in the Greek words). Paul only refers to the point because his opponents boasted of such knowledge on their own part."
Weiss's arguments involved understanding (I'm having trouble putting in the Greek words) as an emphatic "I," since while verses 14-15 (the page ends there).
From: www.jstor.org...

Kap, this is the answer. Paul claimed that he met Jesus.
Seems my story isn't different than 'everyone else's'.


[edit on 7/15/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
and you still have'nt disproven (unless you count your ridicule) that I met the historical Jesus who was raised from seeing decay just as it was written about and even says that would happen(hear His voice-like Paul,"I am Jesus") by these same men who said they were eye witnesses(thereby validating) of this same historical man-all you really have is another unbeliever's rejection of a claim whether then or now using any excuse he can muster

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.-Acts10.43

See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.-Ex23

The LORD will cause men to hear his majestic voice-Is30.30

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."-Matt3.17

if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.-Rom10.9

oh yeah tell your buddy to get his facts straight-I never said a hotel room!


[edit on by No King but Jesus]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Was Jesus a drunk? is that why we drink his alcohol filled blood ? And yes we are eating his flesh as well. Maybe just maybe , if you drink enough Jesus blood and eat Jesus flesh, you will eventually see him, meet him, talk to him ?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by texastig
Kap, this is the answer. Paul claimed that he met Jesus.
Seems my story isn't different than 'everyone else's'.
[edit on 7/15/2010 by texastig]


So, you actually found someone from a 100 years ago who agrees with you nonsense claim.

But you ignore the fact your silly claim is the opposite of -
* what PAUL says
* what the Gospels say
* what the church says
* what NT scholars say.

What a laugh...


Kap



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by texastig
Kap, this is the answer. Paul claimed that he met Jesus.
Seems my story isn't different than 'everyone else's'.
[edit on 7/15/2010 by texastig]


So, you actually found someone from a 100 years ago who agrees with you nonsense claim.

But you ignore the fact your silly claim is the opposite of -
* what PAUL says
* what the Gospels say
* what the church says
* what NT scholars say.

What a laugh...
Kap


I agree with them.
They knew it 100 years ago and your still fighting against it. The fact is that we are sinners and we are in need of the Savior Jesus Christ to set us free from our sins.
Your not even a believer and your trying to tell me what the Bible says.
My fact is not silly. That's what Paul says. He says what he means and means what he says.

[edit on 7/16/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
bump for adjensen.


Kap



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Hey i forgot about this post i have been real busy but last night i was walking past the book shelf and seen one of my bibles. And for some reason it reminded me of this post so i opened it up flipped a few pages and BAM there it was smack dead in my face.

John 14:25 at the last supper he said ---I asked him lord who will it be and HE said----- ok im not quoting it word for word but he said "I asked" so there ya go hope you reply but if not and if i remember ill U2U it ta ya. Oh and if someone posted it im sorry i have not reread the replys just cam on to post this.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by GunzCoty
John 14:25 at the last supper he said


English Standard version :
25"These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."



Originally posted by GunzCoty
---I asked him lord who will it be and HE said----- ok im not quoting it word for word but he said "I asked"


No he didn't.
The writer never refers to himself as "I", and never says "I asked".
The only "I" in the passage is Jesus making a speech.


Kap



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
bump for adjensen.


Looking for me to call you out for lying?

The fallacy of your claim is that it relies on Matthew being written by someone other than the Apostle, which means you rely on the denial of the two-Gospel hypothesis. You rely on this, not because you've studied, or have an intelligent opinion, but because you have a pre-existing bias, which means that you must choose to reject it.

Ergo, your claim is based on dishonesty, just as your claim that 100% of modern NT scholars reject the apostle John as the author as the Gospel of the same name. I responded to your whinging with one such scholar (and there are others, of course,) in the other thread, and you scuttled away.

In short, you are a liar, and your obvious bias makes any opinion that you render on this subject to be of little value.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Hmm thats funny in your book its John 13: um 25 i think but in yours it does not say "I asked" however in my other (older) bible it does so we must ask what the original language of the bible says.

But truth be told it does say it in some translations and it does answer your post "Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus?" Well in some translations this is the claim.

It's a sad shame that many words translate to more then one word and some words people think are the same. As in thou shall not kill yet the real word is murder and as you may know murder and killing are not the same.

So if you feel you must research it and all the translations then have at it but please U2U me i just don't have the time to come back and see if there have been updates. Got the full time job and 2 websties i have to have done before the 14th and not to mention the photo i have to restore in time for monday.


P.s I will try to find out what version my old bible is. If i can ill let you know.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
This is one of those easily disspelled confusion points.

GunzCoty originally cited the passage as being in chapter 14, but it is actually in chapter 13 (and then GC referred to it as 13:25 in a later post). So, some of the confusion is just a typo.

The witness-claim status of John depends on how the reader interprets 21:24

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

The referrent of this disciple is unambiguously "The Beloved Disciple." The verse asserts that the Beloved Disciple was an eyewitness, and that he wrote his testimony. It does not say that the Gospel of John is that testimony.

Some people interpret 21:24 that way. I don't. I think that the author of John is, like the author of Luke, writing his own narrative based upon another's testimony.

Only in the very last verse does the Gospel author speak for himself, and when he does, he uses the first person. That's how I read it.

However, if a translator believed that 21:24 meant that the Beloved Disciple was the author of the Gospel, then it is reasoanble to translate third person material as first person.

As to the original, the new Lexham Translation (at page 209 in the pdf) gives he, and Young's Literal is

and that one having leant back on the breast of Jesus, respondeth to him, `Sir, who is it?'

On that basis, I infer a third-person construction in the orginal(s).

Note that Lexham gives 21:24 as

This is the disciple who is testifying about these things, and who has written
down these things. And we know that his testimony is true.


which "sounds" more like a claim to be the Gospel author than a Gospel author's source, compared with the version I gave above. Both use nearly the same English words, so probably both are unforced translations of the original(s).

I believe that the immediately preceding material in John 21 suggests that the Beloved Disciple has died, however, and as noted, the Gospel author does use a first-person construction at the end, despite using third person references to the Beloved Disciple throughout.

Finally, the late appearance of John, 90 CE being among the earliest dates with any following, and 120 CE is not out of the question, renders an eyewitness author barely possible, at best.

Either way, John does represent a claim that first-person written material existed (and was lost if I am right, or is in our hands if, say, adjensen is right).

Of course, Kap can disbelieve the claim, but the answer to his thread-title question as written, and as later clarified to exclude Paul and pertain only to written testimony, is "The 'Beloved Disciple' of John."


[edit on 10-8-2010 by eight bits]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'm sorry if someone already mentioned this because reading all those biblical 's source hurt my head. I think the OP's question should be best answered with non-biblical sources.

EDIT: I delete all 3rd witness accounts as I find they're no longer relevant.

I can't believe you abruptly dismissed archeology's find, The Lost Tomb of Jesus as Noah's Ark Tales. One of the nine remaining ossuaries bear inscriptions, Yeshua bar Yehosef Aramaic for "Jesus son of Joseph". You see the inscriptions yourself. That makes you witness Jesus yourself. So what does it mean to you then?

"kapyong son of ignorance?"


EDIT : Before you try to dispute me, take note of this :
University of Toronto mathematician calculated that the odds that the tomb does not belong to the Jesus of the Gospels is 1/600.

"To them I give a word of caution: Dan Brown wrote fiction that had everso fragile filaments to the truth but ossuaries are ossuaries, names are names and bones are bones. I choose to remain interested but joyfully skeptical about all the new discoveries." Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D.

www.sciencedaily.com...







[edit on 10-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicodin
 



ya, that's exactly right.


edit second line.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Finally, the late appearance of John, 90 CE being among the earliest dates with any following, and 120 CE is not out of the question, renders an eyewitness author barely possible, at best.


The difficulty in establishing such a late date as this, and it's one of the reasons that OP's claim of 100% agreement from scholars is false, is that none of the Gospels, or the book of Acts, give any indication that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had taken place, which happened in 70AD. To say that John was written in 90, but included no reference at all to such a cataclysmic event seems odd.

Similarly, Luke's book of Acts not only fails to mention the events of 70AD, it also spends about half of the book describing Paul's ministry, and yet doesn't record his death in 67AD, and, in fact, cuts off rather abruptly prior to that. The logical conclusion is that it was written in, say 65AD, so the exclusions are to be expected. In his prologue, Luke references his previously written Gospel, so, again, the conclusion typically come to is that the Gospel of Luke predates Acts. The other Synoptic Gospels, thus, need to be around the same time, as well, as few see Luke as being written prior to Matthew.

This is not the only conclusion that may be drawn, of course, just the natural one. Unlike the OP, my biases do not require that the Synoptic Problem or the authorship of John be resolved this way, but, given the logical conclusions, the fact that these dates are in accordance with tradition and the fact that the "evidence" pointing to another solution relies on subtle details and interpretation, I believe it more likely than not that this is more likely to be true.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by EasternShadow
I'm sorry if someone already mentioned this because reading all those biblical 's source hurt my head. I think the OP's question should be best answered with non-biblical sources.


OP is not questioning that Christianity exists, which is all that your sources indicate. OP is attempting to discredit the documentary evidence of Christ, the Bible, by indicating that it is all hearsay, and, thus, demonstrating that there is no evidence of Christ, whatsoever, thereby vindicating whatever bias he holds.

There are two types of disbelievers. The first simply says "I don't believe", he doesn't believe, and that's the end of it. The second says "I don't believe", then sets out to make darn sure that he doesn't believe, and the only way to do that is to discredit the people and sources that disagree with him. My experience is that the second disbeliever is the angry, arrogant type who fails to see the forest for the trees, doesn't care who or what he hurts, and is, often times, so hostile about the matter because he really DOES believe in some fashion, he just doesn't like it. Am not saying that this is the case here, and I presume that OP will be around at some point to adamantly deny it, but those have been my experiences.

Just as I'm not particularly fond of evangelicals and other proselytizers, I'm much more keen on the first kind of disbeliever.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


No No No ya see, it is as i said. In one bible it is 14 in the other (because of translation) it is 13 in the bible at John 14 it says "I asked Jesus" In the other it says "He" So one is in the 3erd person and the other is in the 1st. Its all about translations and i made my point and i did technically answer the post.

Now i got to get back to work i keep telling myself stay off ATS until all your work is done. But as you can see ima have to rush everything now lol



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I find it very ironic that there is such a long, passionate, and heated debate over the possible existence of a poor carpenter who lived 2000 years ago... why so much disdain and dismissal in the mere possibility? Why are we still talking about this man after 2000 years if he were a nobody?

That in and of itself says something, don't you think?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The Bible mentions several several times the apostles along with Mary Magdalene where in the same location and the same time. If they where there with Jesus how would they not have met him?

You guys are reaching.




top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join