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: 20
20
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Another nay sayer. If you read just like it says, "and our hands have handled". What do you think their hands handled?


Well, he certainly doesn't say it was Jesus.
That's your problem!

You got so excited with those words "and our hands have handled"
that you somehow convinced yourself it was Jesus without actually reading the words properly.

But he doesn't say that all.
Which is why you cannot show where he said anything like that, even after I asked you to.



Originally posted by texastig
How about "which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us".
That is Jesus.


He doesn't say Jesus at all.
He is talking about a spiritual experience that felt real to him.

It appears you go so excited that it was "manifest" that you just assumed it was Jesus when he does not say that at all. The writer felt and saw the truth made plain - no Jesus there at all.

There is NOTHING here to suggest he saw or touched Jesus.
So why do YOU believe it's about Jesus?


G




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baloney
Kapyong is one MILLION percent correct if he said it is CRAP.
It couldnt have been said better any other way.
One MILLION percent correct.
Get over it! Boo-hoo. Waaaa!


Yah.
Kapyong totally owned the believers here.
I see they banned him and erased his posts.


G



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Hello folks

Hyam Maccoby says :
"...Paul, who met Jesus only in dreams and visions. "
www.positiveatheism.org...

Lewis Loffin :
"... Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision ..."
www.sullivan-county.com...

Wiki :
"Paul never met Jesus ... rather, Paul's conversion occurred after Jesus's crucifixion, and the accounts of Paul's conversion experience describe it as miraculous, supernatural, or otherwise revelatory in nature."
en.wikipedia.org...

About.com
"Paul insisted on using the title apostle despite never having met Jesus"
atheism.about.com...

John Stone
"Paul is a guy who never met Jesus;"
www.christianity-revealed.com...


In reality -
there is a clear consensus that Paul did NOT meet a historical Jesus.
But somehow, faithful BELIEVERS believe that he did.


G



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13

Originally posted by Baloney
Kapyong is one MILLION percent correct if he said it is CRAP.
It couldnt have been said better any other way.
One MILLION percent correct.
Get over it! Boo-hoo. Waaaa!


Yah.
Kapyong totally owned the believers here.
I see they banned him and erased his posts.


G


And I see you created yet another sock puppet account. They gave you a timeout for repeatedly violating their terms and conditions, and whatever lip you gave them when they told you to knock it off.

But I look forward to your next thread of babbling nonsense. They are quite amusing.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Jim Walker :
"However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. "
www.nobeliefs.com...


Dan Barker :
"Paul, we know, never claimed to have met Jesus, not before he died. "
www.infidels.org...


Robert Sewell :
"Paul never met Jesus."
www.freewebs.com...


There is a huge collection of scholars and authors who understand that Paul did NOT meet a historical Jesus. All the mainstream NT scholars agree - Brown, Crossan, Fitzmyer, Schnelle etc.

Meanwhile - there is a huge collection of believers who claim he did - based on BELIEF. But as we have seen - there are no authentic writings of anyone meeting a historical Jesus.


G



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Greenfly13
 


Citing atheists who don't believe in Jesus is about as useful as looking to Communists for advice on Capitalism, Kap. But you go right on, trying to keep your woefully incompetent threads going. You never know when that imbecile Baloney might wander back in here for a good old "atta boy".

G'day! lol



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
The consensus is that Paul met Jesus after the resurrection. He met the resurrected Jesus.


That is correct. That is the consensus of scholars and even atheist scholars because the historical is there.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
Jesus died in the 30s (allegedly)


Not allegedly. It could have been 30-33


Originally posted by Greenfly13
Paul came along in the 50s - DECADES after Jesus was dead.


I must disagree. Paul came along within 2 years. This is the consensus of scholars.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
Paul did not meet Jesus at all.


He met the resurrected Christ more than once. On the road to Damascus and it was real because his eyes had gotten scales on them.
And in 1Cor 15:8 he said he was seen of me.
And 2Cor 5:16 we have known Christ after the flesh.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
You are pretending a claim to have seen a vision (Greek "opthe" is the word Paul uses - meaning an appearance or vision); or a ghost - as a historical meeting.
In fact scholars do not agree with that at all.
You have been mislead.


No pretending. The consensus of scholars is that Paul seen the resurrected Jesus. The world's leading historian on the resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas, has told me that the majority of atheist scholars believe that Paul met Jesus. We talked on the phone and emailed each other about it.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
Claiming to have seen a ghost 20 years AFTER THEY DIED?!
And that's "meeting Jesus" in your eyes?
How silly.
The only people who believe that are faithful Christians believers.


It was two years and it's not silly.


[edit on 8/27/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
Well, he certainly doesn't say it was Jesus.
That's your problem!


Who do you think the Word of Life is?


Originally posted by Greenfly13
You got so excited with those words "and our hands have handled"
that you somehow convinced yourself it was Jesus without actually reading the words properly.


I don't have to convince myself. Everyone knows it but you.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
But he doesn't say that all.
Which is why you cannot show where he said anything like that, even after I asked you to.


Who else would they talk about? I did show you and you still don't believe.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
Kapyong totally owned the believers here.
I see they banned him and erased his posts.
G


If he's one million percent correct then why does Dr. Gary Habermas and the consensus of scholars (including atheist) believe that Paul seen the resurrected Christ? Kapyong is not even a historian or scholar.
Kapyong came in as another user which is against the rules, deceptive and being deceitful. His credibility has been shot down.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
When it come to the jesus character, there is no proof, no 1st hand eyewitness accounts, NOTHING.

The attempts here at claiming otherwise are failed attempts in pure desperation with some real wild BS going on.

The nonsense claims here in favor of this newest God-man is no more convincing then that which someone could say to verify that Santa Claus is real, seriously.

There was some REAL educational information posted throughout this thread.

Some of the thick skulls here are completely IMPENETRABLE!!!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
In reality -
there is a clear consensus that Paul did NOT meet a historical Jesus.
But somehow, faithful BELIEVERS believe that he did.
G


What three people?
The majority of scholars believe that Paul met Jesus.
J. P. Moreland confirms this and quotes other scholars:
Almost no New Testament scholar today denies that Jesus appeared to a number of his followers after his death. Some scholars interpret these as subjective hallucinations or objective visions granted by God which were not visions of a physical being. But no one denies that the believers had some sort of experience. The skeptical New Testament scholar Norman Perrin admitted: “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” Dunn, professor of divinity at the University of Durham, England, agrees: “It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.”
J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1987), pp. 171,172.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
Jim Walker :
"However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. "
www.nobeliefs.com...


I'd rather hear the person who seen Him say it. We have the first hand account of Paul himself.
Let's hear what Paul says:
1Cor 15:8 "he was seen of me also"
2Cor 5:16 "we have known Christ after the flesh"

Case closed.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baloney
When it come to the jesus character, there is no proof, no 1st hand eyewitness accounts, NOTHING.
The attempts here at claiming otherwise are failed attempts in pure desperation with some real wild BS going on.
The nonsense claims here in favor of this newest God-man is no more convincing then that which someone could say to verify that Santa Claus is real, seriously.
There was some REAL educational information posted throughout this thread.
Some of the thick skulls here are completely IMPENETRABLE!!!


You don't understand. Paul said he met Him. Paul said he knew Him after the flesh. Those are Paul's words. It's like A,B,C and 1,2,3. The majority of scholars believe that Paul met Jesus. The majority of scholars believe that Paul wrote six of his epistles. That's why I have a thick skull, because Paul said he met Him and knew Him after the flesh and the majority of scholars believe that Paul met the resurrected Jesus.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
would love to know as he was not written about till roughly 250 years after his death. hell michael jackson- brittany spears are written about within months after their affairs. but hey, who is counting huh? hmm come to think of it hasnt every culture had some kind of savior that was born from a virgin woman, then wise men that had come about the same time the stars are just aligned - could go on and on, but seems as if the mass needs a super hero and guess we have one, just kinda curious who the next messiah will be for the future generations! i pitty them! as the people in charge have got to be out of f ideas as if anyone that has done research from sumeria- to present knows their is a savior and hell, how many times can you copy and paste the same old redundant bullshizzle



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


I wouldn't waste your time with these idiots, texas. Kapyong/TiglathPileser/Greenfly13 is a one trick pony who trots out the same argument over and over, lies when you point out his mistakes, then disappears for a week or so when you point out his lies before coming back to repost the same nonsense.

Baloney is a nitwit sixth grader whose prejudice and bigotry would impress any Ku Klux Klan member, who believes that taking your kids to church is child abuse, and who thought I funded the "Jesus Camp", because in 2010 I live within 100 miles of the place, which closed in 2006.

It's kind of funny how predictable and pathetic these meat sacks are. Nothing but anger, otherwise, completely void of any thought. And I'll wager that none of them have the stones in real life to stand up to a waitress who brought them a bowl of water with a rock in it for the soup course.

At some point, maybe they'll grow up and learn how to behave like rational adults, in the meantime, leave them in their squalor of intolerance, prejudice and hatred.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I wouldn't waste your time with these idiots, texas.


I know what you mean.
I don't know why they believe other people when they can read what Paul said himself. Paul said he seen Him and knew Him after the flesh. The majority of scholars say that Paul wrote at least six of his epistles and that they are accurate and that Paul is a first hand witness of the resurrected Christ.
Doesn't matter if Paul had a vision because Paul and Jesus engaged each other.

[edit on 8/27/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

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.


The unknown writer was Luke, one of Jesus' 12 apostles. Luke also wrote the book of Acts. Luke and Jesus met.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by nlouise
The unknown writer was Luke, one of Jesus' 12 apostles. Luke also wrote the book of Acts. Luke and Jesus met.


I'll save Goofus and Gallant the time and correct this myself -- Luke was NOT one of Christ's Apostles. He was Greek, historically considered to be a physician, and was an associate of Paul. Both his Gospel and the Book of Acts were written by him at the behest of Theophilus, though who this was remains a bit of a mystery. The Gospel and most of Acts are written after the fact, using Luke's research, not personal knowledge, as the basis, though a bit of Acts does recount things that the author witnessed.

It is unlikely (though not impossible) that Luke ever met Jesus.

The authorship of the other Gospels are questioned. I personally believe that both John and Matthew were written by the Apostles of those names, and there are those who believe that Mark was written using the testimony of Peter (who was most likely illiterate, which may account for the differences between epistles attributed to him) but I have no idea about that.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
s914.photobucket.com... I am confident that Paul never met Jesus as He was dead and atoning for the sins of the world...it took about 1960 years before HE could be resurrected. See video above.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nlouise
The unknown writer was Luke, one of Jesus' 12 apostles. Luke also wrote the book of Acts. Luke and Jesus met.


Oh dear!
You actually think Luke was one of the 12 apostles?
Wow.
Well, you are totally wrong, even according to CHRISTIANS !

Christian tradition says Luke was a travelling companion of Paul, not an apostle at all.
Luke never met Jesus according to Christian tradition. Only you claim he did.

There is NO apostle called Luke, here is the list :
1. Peter (also known as Simon Peter)
2. Andrew (Simon Peter's brother)
3. James son of Zebedee
4. John (James' brother)
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew
9. James son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddaeus (Judas, son of James)
11. Simon the Zealot
12. Judas Iscariot (who betrayed Jesus)

Luke admits he never met anyone in the story, or met any eye-witnesses:

The actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."



Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses?
No.

Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses?
No.


All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That's ALL he says about eye-witnesses.
In a nut-shell : "many have written ... based on eye-witnesses"

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN
Luke describes his OWN VERSION :
"after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you"

NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.


In summary,
the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writings.

Luke was not an eye-witness,
Luke met no eye-witnesses,
Luke identified no eye-witnesses,
Luke does not directly connect his writing with any eye-witnesses.


G



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join