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 badmedia
...I don't think it was OT.
Originally posted by randyvs
well i can definatly say you've absolutly put up one the best arguements i've ever seen to convince yourself. carry on. i mean does
that matter?
Originally posted by texastig
That is your first problem. You need to go read 1Cor 15:8 before stating things like that.
Thanks,
TT
Originally posted by d60944
Peter the apostle certainly claimed to have met Jesus. And Clement of Rome certainly knew that.
Originally posted by d60944
Clement of Rome writes as if he knows (of?) Peter and Paul. He speaks of them as recently martyred (1 Clement 5). He speaks of them being in some way of his generation - though surely he was at least 30 years younger than they. The impression is that he knew them personally in some way (it would be odd to be a Christian contemporary of theirs in the same city, of high rank, and not to have known them indeed).
Originally posted by d60944
Tertullian claims that Peter actually ordained Clement.
Originally posted by d60944
Clement also writes about a historical Jesus - clearly the same one known to Peter.
Originally posted by d60944
It's not too hard to see that Clement could not have sanely done all these things if the historicity of Jesus was false.
Originally posted by d60944
Unless Peter was an inveterate and elaborate lier perheps... (one willing to die for his own lies - which would be very odd indeed).
Originally posted by d60944
Finally, it's as well to remember that the suriving Christian writings are not intended as historical testimony.
Originally posted by d60944
They were written to encourage, discipline, exhort, teach various communities - it is no surpirse that they didn't feel the need to be claiming a historicity for Jesus. Preaching to Converted. Literally :_)
Originally posted by Kapyong
It has NOTHING about Paul meeting a historical Jesus - probably why you failed to quote it :
Originally posted by Kapyong
The Risen Christ APPEARED to Paul in a vision, YEARS after the alleged crucifixion.
Originally posted by Kapyong
Do you really seriously claim this refers to a historical Jesus?
Because that's not what Christians generally believe at all.
Originally posted by d60944
It's a bit unfair to expect me to go through the entire letter of Clement and point it all out. Read it - it's online.
Originally posted by texastig
Paul was alive when Jesus was alive.
Originally posted by texastig
Yes, I do. Christians don't pay attention to details very well.
Originally posted by texastig
Also, there's over 16 ancient "non-Christian" sources for the historical Jesus".
Originally posted by Kapyong
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
...
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
Originally posted by OldThinker
Acts 9:
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Originally posted by OldThinker
Acts 9:
So,
some unknown writer described Paul having a supernatural vision of Jesus - the story is told more than once, and the stories DIFFER in details.
That's not someone claiming to have met a historical Jesus at all !
That's differing stories by OTHERS about people having VISIONS.
K.
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
nice work breaking that down. i wish you wouldve gotten responses, could've been fun.
Yah,
apologists insist we have numerous personal eye-witness accounts of a historical Jesus (e.g. Myrtales Instinct.)
But when we examine the facts, we find that is NOT TRUE at all !
There is NOT ONE (authentic) claim to have met any historical Jesus in ALL the CHRISTIAN writings !
The alleged god-man who FOUNDED their religion - but NOT ONE Christian is on record as personally meeting him.
K.
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
There are the Gnostic Gospels, which contradict the ones in the NT.
Yah, they tell all sorts of bizarre stories.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
There is also the documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus", which presents compelling evidence that his tomb was found.
Get off the grass!
That's as real as Noah's Ark or the Shroud of Turin or the foreskins of Jesus !
Originally posted by OldThinker
Differ in "details"??????????
Originally posted by OldThinker
There is more evidence for JESUS than any other figure in history...pls don't be fooled by this BS!
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Yes, the stories can be bizzare, but some are claimed to be from some of the disciples and Mary Magdeline. As to their authenticity... Who knows?
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
And your basis for this? Have you actually viewed the documentary? While it would prove that Jesus actually existed, it would crush the version of Jesus in the Bible, as it would prove that he never rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. It also eludes to him being married and having a child, Judah, which also contradicts the biblical version of Jesus.