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 d60944
Sorry for a long delay before I replied.... work.
My point in talking about St Clement was - utterly ignored,
Originally posted by d60944is that there were most definitely people who knew people who knew Jesus.
Originally posted by EricD
While the baiting back and forth has been mildly entertaining, I'm not sure what the point is.
If the OP is correct, how does it impact anything?
It seems like rhetoric for rhetoric's sake. The OP is clearly not a Christian and seems determined to find something that he deems detrimental to the faith of others, but I just don't get how it matters in the least.
No one doubts the existence of Confucius or Ghengis Khan (amongst many) in spite of there being no contemporaneous accounts of their actions or writings. We have no extant first hand accounts of many historical figures and still accept their existence.
Why the focus on Jesus?
Eric
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Originally posted by d60944
Sorry for a long delay before I replied.... work.
My point in talking about St Clement was - utterly ignored,
No it wasn't.
I answered your point about Clement back on page 2.
You ignored my answer, then falsely accuse me of ignoring you ?!
Let's consider Clement more closely -
He merely gives us 2 SAYINGS about Jesus - nothing historical at all about Jesus.
mentions Peter's name once and Paul's twice :
Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned.
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy.... Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance....
Clement does NOT say ANYTHING about a historical Jesus.
being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke:...
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him.
[long quote from Isaiah follows here]
You see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?
Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us
Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ...
Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said...
On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.
The evidence is clear -
we do not have ONE SINGLE 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.
Originally posted by d60944
Aside from the interpolations into the gospel of John at the crucifixion, there is no firsthand written claim to have seen Jesus.
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Originally posted by d60944
Aside from the interpolations into the gospel of John at the crucifixion, there is no firsthand written claim to have seen Jesus.
Fantastic !
I am glad we agree.
There is no 1st hand claim to have met Jesus - the subject of this thread.
Like I said.
Thanks.
Regarding the wider subject of whether Jesus existed - yes, that is a complex subject with many issues and factors to be considered and weighed.
One of those issues is eye-witness accounts - of which we have none.
K.
[edit on 5-7-2009 by Kapyong]
Originally posted by Imago Dei
Why do you think you can get away with denying the authours of scripture as eye witness accounts?
Originally posted by Imago Dei
1. John. 1. 14...and we beheld his glory (beheld =. to observe; look at; see.)
Originally posted by Imago Dei
2. John 21:24 - 25 This is the deciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true.
Originally posted by Imago Dei
2. 1. John. 1-4 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and our hands handled concerning the word manifested and we have seen and witnesses, and declare to you the life, the eternal which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard declares we to you also that ye also may have fellowship with us yea and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and these things we write that our joy be made full.
Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
What about the text, known as the Gospel of Thomas?
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSome scholars believe it was written as early as 60 AD, while yet others believe it to be as late as 120 AD.
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctUnlike the gospels found in the NT - this is just a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus by Thomas. The only saying in question is number 114 itself and there are some who feel it was added at some later date.
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctThis testament actually opens with the line "These ARE the secret sayings, that the LIVING JESUS SPOKE AND DIDYMOS JUDAS THOMAS RECORDED."
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSaying number 13 - has Jesus talking to the disciples and then taking Thomas aside and telling him some things and when Thomas returns the others want to know what Jesus told him.
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSaying number 28 - has Thomas recording Jesus saying "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty."
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctSaying number 61 - has Jesus stating "two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live." Immediately after this and included in the same saying, Thomas records Salome as saying to Jesus, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone."
Originally posted by Myrtales InstinctPhantoms don't climb on couches do they?
Originally posted by Roark
I would echo EricD's point about the many other historical figures for whom we have no contemporary accounts. Why doesn't it seem to matter to recognised secular historians that these accounts are absent for them to believe that these historical figures existed?
Originally posted by Roark
Why is the same situation not good enough for many people on this forum in terms of Jesus?
Originally posted by Roark
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Originally posted by Kapyong
Other figures from ancient history ARE doubted and treated with scepticism - such as :
* Socrates
* Solon
* Lao Tzu
* Krishna
* Zoroaster
* Gautama Buddha
* Pythagoras
All of those names have been doubted to various amounts.
Originally posted by Roark
Are you actually suggesting that these people didn't exist? Or are you merely offering the (somewhat weak) argument that someone somewhere doubts their existence?
Originally posted by Roark
Why doesn't it seem to matter to recognised secular historians that these accounts are absent for them to believe that these historical figures existed?
Originally posted by Roark
Let me spell it out for ya. They are generally held to have existed at some point in history within serious academic circles,
Originally posted by Roark
as is Jesus.
Originally posted by Roark
And no, the lack of any contemporary eyewitness accounts does NOT equal vidence of absence.
Originally posted by Roark
I don't understand how you can suggest that with a straight face, except that you have dug your heels in over some agenda. Apply the same standards to poor old Genghis Khan, dude.