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.

 

Conspiracy: The Rapture Doctrine

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
He's in alot of places in history.


In fact the alleged Jesus is completely absent from history.
But later BELIEFS about Jesus are well recorded.



Originally posted by texastig
Josephus made two mentions of Jesus.


One is forged, the other is doubtful.
That's the BEST evidence Christians can come up with - a TAMPERED passage that is clearly corrupt and dates from over 1/2 a century after the alleged Jesus.



Originally posted by texastig
There's more reliable history for Jesus than any other person that came after Him.


In fact there is no reliable history for Jesus at all.
Just BELIEFS about him rom many years later.




Originally posted by texastig
Paul's writing were before the Gospels. Paul talks about Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead.


Paul does NOT mention anything historical about Jesus - no date, time, place, people. Paul never mentions the trial, or the miracles, or the many many events in the Gospels - Paul says nothing, even when the situation demands it.



Originally posted by texastig
99% of all scholars believe that Mark was written around 65-70ad.


G.Mark was written by an unknown person who never met Jesus and knew little about the place or culture.



Originally posted by texastig
There is no historical evidence for these supposed deities. Jesus has lots of historical evidence.


Actually there is NO historical evidence for Jesus - Philo never mentions him, nor Justus, nor Seneca, nor many other writers of the period.

What we DO have is a lot of evidence for BELIEF in the alleged Jesus from long afteewards.



G




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
hello,


Originally posted by texastig
The evidence for the gospels is that they are all written in the first century and the early traditions about their authorship are unanimous.


In fact, the Gospels were originally anonymous. The title were added only in late 2nd century.

Furthermore, the authorship of G.John WAS disputed, and tex knows this, but he chooses to ignore that fact.



Originally posted by texastig
There are no other credible attributions of these gospels other than to the men whose names they bear;


In fact the consensus of modern NT scholars is that not one of the Gospels was written by the persons whose name they bear.

Sadly, tex ignores the consensus when it disagrees with his faithful beliefs. Of course he trumpets it from the rooftops if he thinks it agrees !
What a laugh.


Originally posted by texastig
There is no valid reason to doubt the attribution of John either.


Ah, so now it's no "valid" reasons hey?
So you admit there IS a reason - but it's not "valid" to you?
This Gospel was originally atributed to Cerinthus and rejected - later is was attributed to John and accepted. tex has been told this, but he simply ignores this key fact and keeps right on preaching his false beliefs.




Originally posted by texastig
The Jews were looking for a conqueror to come and to get them out of Roman oppression. That wasn't what Jesus came to do. You can find that
in the Bible.


Jesus FAILED as the Messiah - that's the point!
Didn't you get it?



Originally posted by texastig
Paul received the Gospel creed from Jesus disciples who were eyewitnesses.


In fact Paul specifically says the exact OPPOSITE!
Another key fact that tex ignores because it shows he is wrong.

Paul says he got it from NO MAN but from REVELATION - but you keep preaching that Paul got it from men - the OPPOSITE of what Paul actually says!

Haven't you ever READ Paul, tex?

Paul :
For I did not receive (parelabon) it from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation (apokalupseos) of/about Jesus Christ.

But YOU keep pretending Paul says the opposite - do you belong to a cult that is allowed to CHANGE the words of Paul ?


G


[edit on 29-8-2010 by Greenfly13]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Paul spoke to the eyewitnesses of Jesus. Thus Jesus is real.


Paul's actual words say the EXACT OPPOSITE :

"For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation (apokalupseos) of/about Jesus Christ."

Paul says : "I did not receive it from any man"

But tex says "Paul got it from men"

So, sadly,
tex's words cannot be trusted on this issue.


G



new topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join