Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by OldThinker
Differ in "details"??????????

Oh, I'm sorry,
I thought you had actually READ Acts.

There are several obvious differences:
* whether his companions saw anything
* what his companions heard
* whether Paul fell down or all did
* how long Paul was blind
* the words of Jesus differ
* what was said by Ananias differs
* what happens aftewards differs

Many obvious differences in the stories (all told by someone else, not Paul.)


K.

FINALLY!!!!!!

The old guy's got your attention.....


You have done a Masterful job...of helping OT....thx!




"his" companions saw?....who would that be....JESUS!

what "his" companions heard?....who would that be....JESUS!

Whether who "fell" down?...to who....JESUS!

How long was Paul blind?....by who....JESUS!

Words differ?...from who....JESUS!

Bystanders differ?...about who...JESUS!


Grammar, vs. INTENT!

You keep being JUVENILE.....this TRUTH will outlast us both....

WHY DO YOU SPENT TIME ON THIS? You are better than this!

edit size/readable!

[edit on 1-7-2009 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Scholars know.
They are not written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

If YOU claim they were, then cite the book(s) and the evidence..

I was merely just throwing them out there as a possibility. Their authenticity has always been in question, as those in the NT are as well, in my book.

It's a known fake.

If YOU claim it is, then cite your source(s) and the evidence..

I would also point out that I have not been nasty up to this point, and in no way have deserved the nasty responses I have received to my posts. If you need to add the bile to your responses, then just let me know, and I'll unsubscribe to this thread. It's really uncalled for. I am merely pointing out some of the possible sources that might support the historical proof that a man named Jesus existed. Not the biblical version, as I do not believe the biblical account.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by Kapyong
Scholars know.
They are not written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

If YOU claim they were, then cite the book(s) and the evidence..

I was merely just throwing them out there as a possibility. Their authenticity has always been in question, as those in the NT are as well, in my book.

It's a known fake.

If YOU claim it is, then cite your source(s) and the evidence..

I would also point out that I have not been nasty up to this point, and in no way have deserved the nasty responses I have received to my posts. If you need to add the bile to your responses, then just let me know, and I'll unsubscribe to this thread. It's really uncalled for. I am merely pointing out some of the possible sources that might support the historical proof that a man named Jesus existed. Not the biblical version, as I do not believe the biblical account.

Jason, we disagreed in the past.....but I hear you....


This person would post on my threads for months, to me and other posters......and ignore me/my replies.....till today

I can't even believe he responded to my post earlier....

same tired theme....for nearly a yr...JC never existed, no source is credible, it's all hearsay, historians manipulated, etc etc....


Don't know what's going on with him/her...but its a dead end!

K, am I wrong?

Please, give OT a chance my friend....no shyness here...u ready?

OK,

The arguments are getting silly.....

Show me one person who met Genghis Khan. Where is it in writing that someone met Hannibal and what he was like?... I want to see a first hand accounts written by someone who was there and met the men and tell us about the individual. Genghis maybe, it was over a 1000 years later but is there a known book about these men written within a few years of their lifetime? You tell me.

We have lots of stories and historians have stories of the ancient conquers, but where is the book? Something written down many years later?

Do you believe these people existed? If so, why? Because a book told you so that was written when?

Get the idea? Difficult argument.


Conquers are a bit easy because they left "marks" during their lifetime... So did Christ, and we know this why? Look at the marks made on history.







[edit on 1-7-2009 by infolurker]

Originally posted by badmedia
I've never meet a "Jesus". But I have meet the father, and have been given understanding. It was an experience and when it happened I knew the father was within me, and I understood many things.

When I had the experience, I was no where near a church, and disliked organized religion very much. I still do. A few months after my experience, I started to come across a few Jesus quotes. I was dumbfounded at what they were saying. The first one I read was:

John 14:20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I couldn't believe it, he was exactly right. I've known many Christians, been to many churches. Never was anything like this told to me. It was always "accept Jesus", and seeing who could say the nicest thing possible about Jesus and how great he was, mixed in with a large dose of hypocrisy. But it was exactly right.

In fact, John 14 completely describes what I experienced. And when I read Jesus, I see all the understandings I learned. I know for myself that what he is saying is true.

So I don't know Jesus, but I can recognize the father within him. I know he speaks of understandings and wisdom that only come from the father. And no man can give you those.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me at all if the "historical Jesus" actually exists. At all. It's not even an important question in things. Either way, it's just a story to you. And even if there was no "historical Jesus", whoever wrote that story certainly knew the truth and knew the father, and it shows.

So it doesn't matter. Arguing and even worrying about if Jesus is literally real or not is about like arguing over if Neo and the machines are literally real. It doesn't matter what side of that argument you are on, you missed the entire point and real truth of the movie.

It's all about the understanding. Understanding can not be told, it can only be expressed. If you are arguing over the literal - on either side of it, then you are just listening. You can't hear the real words, you can't hear and you have no real clue what is being said or talked about.

Honestly, I don't find it that hard to believe that someone like Jesus lived. Someone obviously lived that could think of the story if nothing else.

I'm not saying go to church or anything. I am not a Christian. But try focusing on what is important. How about debating the principles and understandings he gives, rather than worthless debates of trying to prove if someone 2000 years ago lived or not? Either way, it's just a story as is all of history you weren't there for.

What is it that Jesus teaches and does that you think is bad/wrong? Lets talk about that. Those are things we can apply to our lives in a helpful way.

You cant meet the Father, unless of course its your old man, father christmas, father time and or the father of all lies you refer to, until you've met Jesus.

As you quote scripture a lot one assumes "after your experience" you deleted from your copy the part where Jesus said. "I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE including (badmedia*) comes unto the Father accept through me".

*Bracketed parts are only found in the new improved version which people can cut and paste and add to whenever they want, badmedia invented it, it took him a day to rewrite it, as he cuts and pastes arbitrarily and copiously form online bibles.

He appears to be a member (perhaps even the leader) of the new up and coming popular end times disinformation church whose vision is simply to believe whatever you want based on personal experience and feelings and the idea is to make scripture line up with feelings and experiences instead of the other way around. Its a lot of fun for children under nine and for those who have imaginary friends. Admission is free but you can pay at the door. There's also a big bouncy castle at all meetings but sometimes it isn't blown up because members often expend all their hot air in internet forums during the week or leading the blind in bible disinformation lessons on Wednesdays. Members gather on whatever day of the week they happen to be free but it must be a day ending with Y. (which cuts the options down to 7 and never on a school day) There are no evening services because of course that's way past the members bedtime.

Nite Nite!

PS: the church is currently looking for wolves in sheeps clothing to lead disinformation lessons on Wedensdays and the only requirement for membership is that you have never actually read the bible in context, and if you know nothing about it all that's even better. Ex cons and fraudsters all welcome. (please bring a big bag of smarties, we all love lolly scrambles). Oh, and if you have ever had an experience when praying to the baby infant jesus (or whom so ever else it is you pray too, its not important) in your room and it started to snow, we would be very keen to talk with you yesturday. If it's already today, sorry the position has been filled.













[edit on 2-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by badmedia
...I don't think it was OT.

Mate !

The post is about people who cliamed to have met a historical Jesus 2000 years ago.

Your post had NOTHING to do with that.

K.

mate the thread is about your trolling with disinf, this has all been covered in another thread, where you've said all the same krapolla. Your just grandstanding with athiest dogma. And you didnt give your source, you just stole from the other OPs weblink.

Originally posted by infolurker
OK,

The arguments are getting silly.....

Well, I think, not to be offensive, that this argument is silly.

Originally posted by infolurkerWhere is it in writing that someone met Hannibal and what he was like?

A lot of people met Hannibal. Scipio Africanus met him before defeating him at Zama. The entire Carthaginian Senate knew of him, because after the second Punic War, Hannibal was a statesman in Carthage. His father produced coins with Hannibal's likeness on in Spain. He is the subject of pages and pages and pages of Roman historians, Livy in particular, because he was such a big deal. He traveled to the Seleucid Empire and was at the court of Antiochus the Great, where again he met Scipio Africanus.

Originally posted by infolurker... I want to see a first hand accounts written by someone who was there and met the men and tell us about the individual. Genghis maybe, it was over a 1000 years later but is there a known book about these men written within a few years of their lifetime? You tell me.

Livy never met Hannibal, but the Romans were incredibly anal about keeping records; Livy's accounts came from historians of the time who had written about him, who's works are now lost.

Originally posted by infolurkerWe have lots of stories and historians have stories of the ancient conquers, but where is the book? Something written down many years later?

Do you believe these people existed? If so, why? Because a book told you so that was written when?

Get the idea? Difficult argument.


Conquers are a bit easy because they left "marks" during their lifetime... So did Christ, and we know this why? Look at the marks made on history.
[edit on 1-7-2009 by infolurker]

The difference is that none of these historians are claiming something that, by all testable human knowledge of the universe, couldn't happen. None of them are saying "Hannibal was the only begotten son of God and you must worship him because of it".

Hannibal did very identifiable things within his own lifetime. After the Second Punic War, he undertook agricultural reforms in Carthage that enabled them to bounce back, financially, to actually be able to pay the crippling war indemnity owed to Rome, and offer to pay it in one lump sum (which Rome refused).

My point is, if you are going to listen to a bunch of Jewish zealots who claim that they follow the messiah who performed miracles and was born of a celestial deity, then you need to actually back up those claims with something, don't you think? If we can't even prove Jesus existed, let alone him performing miracles etc, then isn't it just as likely the whole damn thing is made up (in my opinion, most likely by Paul)?

Gday,

Originally posted by OldThinker
"his" companions saw?....who would that be....JESUS!

Let's recap shall we ...

OT brought up the conversion of Paul - in the wider context of 'seeing Jesus.'

I reminded him of the glaring differences in the various accounts.

OT argued there were only minor differences, such as grammar.

I then listed some of the differences which OT seemed unaware of.

Now OT emphasizes that his companions 'saw Jesus' !

While completely ignoring the key fact that in one version of the story - they did NOT see Jesus !

Thats exactly the most glaring DIFFERENCE in the versions :
* one says they all SAW the light
* one says they saw NOTHING

The very issue of 'seeing Jesus' is one of the glaring differences in the accounts - yet OT IGNORES that glaring difference in accounts of 'seeing Jesus' while continuing to insist this is actual evidence for seeing Jesus !

What incredible dishonesty !
These anonymous stories tell DIFFERENT versions of OTHERS who allegedly 'saw Jesus'. Obviously at least one of theses stories must be false, putting all of it in doubt.

But OT ignores that key fact and goes on a personal attack - anything to avoid admitting being wrong. Anything to draw attention away from the obvious problems with these stories of 'seeing Jesus'.

That's why I don't always answer every post - I'm not interested in personal attacks or emotional invective. I'm interested in the facts and evidence found in the ancient documents.

An interest which seems unusual here - we get endless posts about all sorts of wild claims without any evidence to back it up. Like the crazy 25th Dec post - a perfect example of false claims being repeated without critical examination.


So please, enough with the emotional pleas, OT.

Stick to the facts, stick to the subject -

"Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus?"

So far we have seen not one such claim.
Just claims about OTHERS.



Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Just for the record, this has been cut and pasted from www.nobeliefs.com a rationalist athiest website which is a conspriarcy against religion under the guise of "freethinkers". Freestinkers is more apt.

False.

It was not - I wrote it myself a few weeks ago.

You just LIED outright !

You have 3 choices :
1. withdraw your lie
2. admit you are a liar
3. show proof I copied it.

Are you from some bizarre sect that allows lies?
Hmm?


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Just for the record, this has been cut and pasted from www.nobeliefs.com a rationalist athiest website which is a conspriarcy against religion under the guise of "freethinkers". Freestinkers is more apt.

False.

It was not - I wrote it myself a few weeks ago.

You just LIED outright !

You have 3 choices :
1. withdraw your lie
2. admit you are a liar
3. show proof I copied it.

Are you from some bizarre sect that allows lies?
Hmm?


Kapyong

Hah! No doubt you have rewritten it, however since you havent stated your soucre it appears evident that the site I mentioned is your source.

Every thing, well the bulk of what you are stating under the guise of "scholarly" evidence is a lie. Please define what on earth "Historical" Jesus is supposed to mean anyway?

The gospels and the New Testament are full of scriptures that reference eyewitness accounts of Jesus written by those who walked with Him. Until you can disprove the bible as an accurate Historical record of the life of Christ and of those who witnessed his life, your arguement is a strawman, special pleading nonsense position.

Further more focusing on the authors of each book and "discrediting" them as authtentic is stooping to a lower level that I haven't come accross before. In actual fact, if every book in the bible was written anonymously it would not change on iota the words that are written in it, so the point or premise of you arguement is liken to stating that; I dont exist or in fact never lived, because I never wrote anything down. My friends and family would beg to differ, although all manner of evidence including photographic evidence can be rejected by anyone who chooses to do so.

When you can disprove the validity of the bible you may have a case, you havent done that, so now when you can prove that there is no mention by anyone in the NT who ever claimed to have witnessed Jesus Christ, and who walked with Him, And I dont mean Paul, Because Pauls vision of Jesus was indeed supernatural, so you why you see fit to bring Him into the equation, I find rather odd.

So...,

1. Define "Historical Jesus"
2. Prove there is no mention of eye witness accounts in any NT book
3. prove that the bible is not the innerrent infallible word of Almighty God. Startng with the Greek and Hebrew texts, not the English translations.

Since you are a Scholar or have friends who are, I imagine they can read greek and hebrew.

Until then stop mucking about. Admit your an athiest, get on with your life and stop trying to disprove what is already irrefutable. Your "evidence" and musings are all subjective, opinion based, hersay and not a sceric of it would stand up in a court of law.

I posted the following in the other thread which is of an almost-identical topic:

If we universally applied the same principles (about the absence of contemporary accounts), we would be disbelieving the existence of many ancient historical figures other than Jesus. The fact of the matter is that there simply weren't as many records back then, except for those conquerers who smashed their way across the known world, carving their names into monoliths and keeping a bevy of scribes retained under the royal budget.

Absence of evidence doesn't necessitate evidence of absence. Seriously, people need to get their heads around this.

The evidence that does exist for Jesus is good enough for the vast majority of serious scholars, theologians and historians.

It's interesting to note that the ones who DO make a big hoo-haa about his non-existence often seem to have a sensational new book out as well. More sales for alternate-history books. It's trendy at the moment. Dan Brown opened the floodgates, and now everyone thinks they can make a million.

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Hah! No doubt you have rewritten it,

WTF?

Originally posted by Imago Dei
however since you havent stated your soucre it appears evident that the site I mentioned is your source.

You pathetic lieing idiot.

I told you my source - I WROTE it MYSELF.

I actually READ the ancient works and wrote the article as a result.

A concept so alien to your ignorant and childish mindset that you falsely assumed I lifted it from somewhere and lied outright that I plagiarised it. Anyone who checks will find no article anything like mine on that site.

Then, when caught in a bald-faced lie, you try to brazen it out with some stupid comment !

Begone, you snivelling brat !


Kapyong

Kapyong.... why do you even give a damn?
if it's all so wrong, surely you wouldn't give it a second thought?
Unless you are worried that you are missing out on something and have a sneaky feeling that its all true?
If not stop worrying yourself about it and move on..
some people know the truth because they have experianced it.. stop trying to put them down