Why the Hate Towards Jesus Christ on ATS?

page: 17
30
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Jesus promise to come again, and people have been waiting foeva, they need to be satisfied, knowing that God exist. The hate is demonic, phrophecy by the bible at the end of time, there will arise scoffers Scumsss!.

Satan Envy human, and plans to destroy your soul! to gehena.

Stop Hate!!!, Start Love with Cautions, for the bible foretold that love will grow cold in the end days, why? because people backstab without thinking, anybody who met the girl and marry her 1 time raise your hands!...none...multiple girlfriends? huh? You = Sinners Scummmmsss

Why is there no post on the indian treasure temple here? hmmm

God Speed




posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by sting130u
 


That "math" is based off a biased principle. Especially since you used the english letters to determine value.

Works for other languages too, sir.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sting130u
 


I'm just saying we are better off admitting that "GOD" does not exist up in heaven, but only in the hearts of men.
I'm also pointing out the fact that too many people have been killed in the name of this "GOD" or that "GOD". If we were to eliminate HIM from our belief system and admit to ourselves that "GOD" only exists in our hearts we would all be better off...PEACE BE WITH YOU MY FRIEND



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


When George met Jesus...he said, "NOT AGAIN"



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Jesus, was he a real person?
What records of Jesus do we have?
How old are these records?

If it's a fairy tale, it was started shortly after the death of the central character. Within memory of people who would have known if he did walk in their midst or not. If there was no person Jesus, this fairy tail would have died quickly. Why make a fairy taie about an ordinary man son of a carpenter, who many in the area knew, saw him often, and heard him speak, unless he did some amazing things too! (miraculous signs)

Why make a fairy tale about a man who never existed, and ascribe all these details to his life, including historically verified persons into the story, and release this tale upon the unsuspecting public so soon after he was alleged to have died? Who would even find that take plausable, enjoyable or even worthy of perpetuating, especially considering what this fairy tale required of its 'believers?' What is gained? Control of the people? Really?

It looks to me that if you believe there is no truth at all about Jesus, then you must believe it to be the biggest hoax ever pulled on human kind. And this hoax is tied to the thousands of years of history (a great deal of it archaeologically supported) of the ancient Israelites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc.

It requires something like a religious faith to believe in the existence of things you've never seen or directly experienced such as quarks, dark matter, black holes, alternate universes, aliens, string theories, evolution, the big bang. The basis for belief in these things is founded on the faith that the scientific method is the absolute and unfailing method towards the ultimate truth. Sounds like a religious-like belief system, complete with ideologies, methods, rituals, and so forth.

I'm no logician, and I am sure one would find some faults in my logic. As to truth, does truth exist independent of the beholder? Does truth exist if there is no one to proclaim it as such? And who would verify it?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Well, the Jews and the Romans certainly disputed such ideas. I'm not sure what your argument is here. Even if they didn't dispute it are you saying that it must be true until someone can prove it false?


The Jews never disputed any of the things that Jesus did. They dispute that he was a prophet and the messiah, but not what he did. And I am saying that you should not say that something is false until you can prove it false. Demanding that something must be considered false until proven true is also an argument from ignorance, don't you know?


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And I often see that point raised as criticism against those recent books - that they don't engage the theological concepts. Though I don't necessarily see why they need to in order to make their point.


Given that those books are discussing theology, and engaging in theological concepts provide the answers to the questions raised by them, the reason why they need to do it in order to make their point is pretty self-evident. So they don't ask questions for which the answers already exist.


Originally posted by SNAKE13X
Most of the GENOCIDE that has occurred in the last 2000 years has been in the name of one "GOD" or another.


The Encyclopedia of Wars says that less than 9% of the wars that happened since records started being taken are somewhat related to religion, and only two wars out of all the wars that ever happened since records started being taken were trully for religious reasons.


Originally posted by TupacShakur
The odds of this may seem too astronomical to happen by chance and must have been put into motion by some divine being, but there are hundreds of billions of stars and billions of planetary systems in our Milky Way Galaxy, and that's just one of the hundreds of billions or even trillions of galaxies in the visible universe, so by sheer chance alone the universe is undoubtedly teeming with life. A God had no part in this, it can be explained logically, and in the distant future I believe that we will have all of the answers, and religion will be a forgotten thing of the past that humans will laugh at.


I suggest that you read and understand the concept of "Goldlocks Zone" that demonstrates that less than 10% of the known Universe has a shred of chance of supporting life. Billions of billions of stars mean nothing. It is like realtors say, 'location, location, location.' It is not merely the location of the planet that is important, but the importance goes all the way up to the location of the megacluster on the spiral arm.

Then I suggest a basic statistics and logic course, so you can understand that "sheer chance alone" is a fallacy known as "Gambler's fallacy". The truth is that chance doesn't care about number of tentatives.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid
For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

-Matthew 10:35-36


It is funny how you miss the meaning that the members of the men's house would be his foes, but nowhere saying that he would be a foe to them. This is talking about Christians being persecuted for their beliefs, by family members, which trully happen.



If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

-Luke 14:26


The greek word for "hate" is the same word than "enemy". This is correct. Given the fact that Christians should expect persecution, including from members of their own family, without "hate" one might be inclined to abandon Christ and stay with one's family, therefore, he cannot be Christ's disciple.



"What would you think of a boss who rebuked a worker for wishing to bury his recently deceased father and instead, insisted that the worker follow him? According to the Bible, Jesus responded to a request from a disciple who wished to attend to his father's funeral:"

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury the dead.

-Matthew 8:22


You're incorrect in your interpretation. His father was not dead. The man was asking for permission to stay at home until his father died, upon which he would not have any more wordly obligations and would be free to go with Jesus.



You won't see anti-abortionists citing this verse. It applies to Judas; note how the last part plays right into abortion:

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

-Matthew 26:24


It is good that you admit yourself to be using contextomy. It saves me the trouble of pointing it out to you.



Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.

-Matthew 10:34


Which is true. Many people would die because of their belief in Christ. People don't like being told that they are wrong and God wants them to repent.



Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

-Luke 22:36


I fail to see the point on this, so I can't really reply.



But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

-Luke 19:27


Contextomy. I advise people to get a Bible and read the whole passage so they can understand what it is about. The passage itself refutes his argument.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz
What about a person like me who was a christian for 23 years and knows the bible well?


You sure you know the Bible well? Wanna me to evaluate you?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz
YES! I was wondering when this nonsense would come up. You truly are displaying an unbelievable amount of ignorance. Pol Pot was a theravada Buddhist and attended a catholic school, Stalin disliked the worlds religions because it took away from the cult of personality that he created (he reinstated the church after WW2), Hitler was also a Catholic.


Dawkins was created Catholic, yet he is an atheist today. Should I say that everything that Dawkins does is in the name of Christ because he was created Catholic. How a person was brought up has little force in any argument regarding what the person was when the events ascribed to them happened.

Attending a Catholic school doesn't make one catholic, and being brought up as a buddhist doesn't mean that one will remain as one till the end of his life. Pol Pot was atheist, deal with it.

That Stalin reinstated the Church after WW2 is completely irrelevant. His actions were still in the name of atheism.

Not a single historian today believes that Hitler was Catholic. Hitler is said to be neo-pagan.



Have you ever heard of someone committing genocide in the name of reason?


Yes. Stalin, the French Reign of Terror, Pol Pot, Mao...



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scytherius
The elevation of mythology to dogma and absolutism has resulted in the murder of MILLIONS throughout our history.


Prove?



Religion and the belief in mythological figures has only brought about death and destruction. (Terrorism anyone?)


Religion and the belief in mythological figures has brought about art in all its forms and shapes, philosophy, science and mathematics.

Terrorism is politically motivated, even when religiously inspired. The biggest terrorist group in the world, the Tamil Tigers, is an atheist organization. What does that tell you?



Religion and this idiot "Jesus" is just about to kill off mankind. These beliefs are to no longer be tolerated.


And your solution is? Let me guess. Child endocrination against religion and worldwide mass murder of any person with religious inclination?


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not sure we can blame the actions of psychopathic tyrants solely on their religion or lack thereof.

However, history has plenty of examples of tyrannical genocide done in the name of gods, though no examples of tyrannical genocide done in the name of there-are-no-gods. The god of the bible actually commanded some of those genocides. Where is the balance indeed

edit on 7-7-2011 by traditionaldrummer because: (no reason given)


The Encyclopedia of Wars say that less than 9% of the wars recorded in history were in any way related to religion and only two were trully of religious motivation. If you consider "two" to be plenty of examples, I beg to differ.

The French Reign of Terror killed around 10k people in the name of atheism. Pol Pot himself did what he did in the name of atheism. So did Mao. All of them did what they did to destroy religion and advance "reason."

I do, though, agree with you. We can't blame the actions of psychopathic tyrants solely on their religion or lack thereof, so why do atheists keep doing it?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Nobody has proven that there are deities. That's all that counts.


And nobody has proven that there aren't, so both sides are irrational.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Nobody has proven there isn't a Santa Claus.


Yes, we have. Despite atheists' ignorance of what entails an evidence of absence, we have plenty of evidence of absence of Santa Claus. From start, we've been to the north pole and his house isn't where the legends say that it is.



Oh, and you haven't proven you're not a dangerous criminal.


Sure, but law grants him innocence until proven otherwise. In this sense, the law is not rational, and is biased towards his side. He does not have a burden of proof for his innocence.


Originally posted by megabytz
You have to be kidding, yet again! Can one person really be this ignorant of logic or argumentation?


Yes, many people are this ignorant of logic and rethoric. I hope you do not consider yourself a shining example of each.



No one has stated unequivocally that god does not exist.

We say there is no evidence to justify a belief in god or gods.


Plenty of people have stated unequivocally on this thread that God does not exist, by calling it a fairy tale. To be fair, you haven't, but you are not everyone, and your position on the subject isn't the same as everyone else's.



You were not born with a belief in god, it was conditioned in you over time.


Everyone is born with a belief in god. What is conditioned upon you over time is which one. The belief in god melds naturally with the human brain and its notion of cause and consequence. It is atheism that triggers strong waves of cognitive dissonance are requires strong conditioning to be accepted.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Please present the evidence for this extraordinary claim.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by megabytz
Look at the american prison system. It is full of christians.


Off topic.... we may want to discuss this maybe off forum some time... but I think this argument may not be as valid as we think. You are not incorrect in any way whatsoever, but the argument should be examined


There are no statistics regarding crimes committed by religion.

There are no statisticis regarding whether they were trully convicted or wrongly convicted.

There are no statistics regarding whether the person was already a Christian when one commited the crime or was converted later in prison.

There are only statistics that give you a snapshot of each person's alleged religion at any given time in prison. The idea that such statistics are in any way meaningful is flawed.


Originally posted by megabytz
Do you think we had a concept of god before we were in our current form?


Yes, as there is evidence of religious worship all the way back into the Neolithic. There was already religion before the homo sapiens appeared on Earth. It is in no way a product of civilization.


Originally posted by AutomaticSlim
I'm no logician, and I am sure one would find some faults in my logic. As to truth, does truth exist independent of the beholder? Does truth exist if there is no one to proclaim it as such? And who would verify it?


Yes, truth exists independently of the "beholder" despite the saying. It exists despite no one noticing it, despite no one being able to verify it, since truth is not an experience, so it needs not to be experienced to exist.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim
Jesus, was he a real person?
What records of Jesus do we have?
How old are these records?


well, my post's gonna be really very long and there's no intention to offend believers or bash jesus, it's pure research and i'm objective, so here we go:

jesus was in fact a rebel. to understand his life and actions requires knowledge on judaism and the political environment of the era during which he lived.

israelites and israel were invaded by the romans. romans did not intervene with the judaist religious practice and the rules on matters which they deemed as details were rather trivial in nature. quite on the contrary, romans were in a good collab with the high council of judaist priests and the elders of temple of salomon, as these folk who were the holy elite were keeping the people of israel from revolting. after all, judaists had been practicing their rituals for quite a long time as they were taught. so what does this mean? it means that there was a single temple, which would be the temple of salomon in jerusalem. worshipping a single entity as god and making sacrifices outside of this temple was void, and even forbidden. entering this temple had certain rules. well, i'll get back to this later.

it was not that romans would stick their nose in the israelites' religious practice in general, but the main issue was that the land of israel was under roman invasion. the onset of rebellions resulting from the restrictions imposed by the seleucos rendered the sovereignity of israel necessary in terms of religious freedom over the time. israel was promised land for the israelites by their god. that land was god's gift to them, and therefore, establishing control over the region was the duty of the isralites. this belief became more widespread as time passed by. the people of israel who revolted against the romans also during the invasion were rebelling for the exact same reason: their religious faith.

any attempts of sovereignity were to no avail. therefore, the israelites were waiting for a savior to free them from captivity (which of course, was rome during that age). the story that the savior would come with certain signs was a religious mythos made up during the course of time. and jesus was aware of the situation.

i said that there were certain rules which applied as a requisite to enter the temple of salomon to worship. one of those was to make a sacrifice for god. as a perfect example to the religious economy, there was this livestock market with "fresh meat for sacrifice at competitive rates!" right around the corner of the temple. you may think that it's quite ok, leddus buy the cattle and do the sacrifice, but hey, this was not as easy as you may think. in order to afford these animals, one was required to make the payment with holy / clean money sanctified by the very temple itself. the regular cash in your pocket wouldn't do the job, and the value of the holy / sanctified money fluctuated depending on the supply and demand situation of the market. there you have the holiest stock exchange known to mankind. last but not least, entering the temple required also taking a bath (baptism?) with the clean and holy water, which in turn had to be also paid with the same holy currency. and even after gaining access to the temple once you met all these conditions, you'd need to be accompanied by a high priest. grabbing the knife and sacrificing the animal wouldn't be as simple. you had to hire a priest for the ritual. and of course, pay him with the holy cash. to sum it up, the surroundings of the temple in jerusalem where jesus lived had a huge religious economy ticking like a clock back in those times. and on top of this financial environment sat the religious elite, high priest and collaborators of the romans who were also conformists. you had no access to your god without them. they wouldn't let you. and there was no other temple around. you'd have to force your way through the temple in order to follow your religious practice, or else, your god would abandon you. you'd be thrown into the pit of hell.

anyway, one day, jesus attempted to enter the temple. but he was denied access because he didn't fulfill any of the requirements above. on his way, he met john the baptist. john told him that the savior's coming was near, and that everyone should be cleared and baptised before his arrival. jesus got himself baptised by john and had disappeared for 40 days. whatever had happened, must've occured during the meantime. whether he said to himself "good riddance'" and made a perfect plan with a religious background and support to organize the people of israel against the roman persecution is not known. but something changed with his return, making him turn to the path leading to his demise. he began to preach. since he was highly knowledgeable about the story of the savior, he did anything attributed to the savior with perfection, like riding a mule en route jerusalem, etc. he declared himself as the messiah and savior. he entered the temple and destroyed the holy cash & currency / livestock market and whatever financial stuff was going on there. as a consequence, he rained on the parade. quite naturally, unrest began among the roman collaborators, the high elite priests and their sheep... ahem.. the public. such unrest caused pontius pilate, the roman governor to leave his palace and comfort back in caesarea to take the matter in his hands, arriving at jerusalem, saying "wtf is going on in here?! enuff already!", having jesus prosecuted and eventually crucified.

his tomb was found in talpiot, israel in 1980. matthew, james, john, his mother maria, wife maria magdalena and judah's remains are also resting in cubicles in that tomb.

although there are zillions of resources on this subject, a few documentaries incl. "the saga of the israelites", "jesus the real story" and "the lost tomb of jesus" would be highly useful.
edit on 9-7-2011 by jamsession because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-7-2011 by jamsession because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by Scytherius
The elevation of mythology to dogma and absolutism has resulted in the murder of MILLIONS throughout our history.


Prove?



crusaders / inquisition / taliban / jihad / suicide bombers etc. etc. etc.

btw, i live in the middle east, the core of the craze, we just had the 18th memorial for the alevites who were trapped in a hotel in which they gathered for an annual event involving poetry and folk music, and the hotel was set fire and 37 poets and guests were killed just because the prominent author who held the opening speech was an atheist. details can be found here. more proof anyone?
edit on 9-7-2011 by jamsession because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Not gonna read the entire thread. But I will say this. There is no "conspiracy" against jesus on ATS. Whether you want to accept it or not, not everyone who disagrees with your religion is a reptilian Illuminati dis-info agent in disguise.

It's not hate towards jesus, or hate towards christianity (at least not in my case). You're implying that if someone criticizes anything about christianity, it means they hate it. This mass labeling is typical of christians. I do not hate christianity. I hate the bad things it has done, and I hate it's intolerant small-minded followers. I realize that it has done any good things, but it has done many, many bad things as well. I'm disgusted by the fact that most christians don't even acknowledge or care how christianity destroyed and erased nearly all Norse and Native American religion and beliefs. But that's totally okay, because those were pagan beliefs and the people needed to see the light of christ! I also find it funny how OP talks about "intolerance", when christianity teaches intolerance of anyone who isn't a christian.
edit on 9-7-2011 by CRDDD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CRDDD
I also find it funny how OP talks about "intolerance", when christianity teaches intolerance of anyone who isn't a christian.
edit on 9-7-2011 by CRDDD because: (no reason given)


And which scripture can you point to in order to prove such a statement?
edit on 9-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jamsession
 





jesus was in fact a rebel. to understand his life and actions requires knowledge on judaism and the political environment of the era during which he lived.


Jesus was the solar deity of the Gnostic Christian sect... the first historical reference to him is... uh oh...there is NO historical reference to him... oh wait,... the Bible,... yeah got it... Saul of Tarsus... (St. Paul)... he didn't start writing about "Jesus" for at least 40 years AFTER the supposed existence of this so-called Messiah... 40 YEARS...

That's almost an entire generation..

The Council of Nicaea around 325 A.D. historized the Jesus figure FOR SOCIAL CONTROL...Rome picked that particular deity because it personified human characteristics more than the other many sects that sprung up after mono-theism became popular...

Someone who performed such amazing "miracles" such as walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, RETURNING FROM BEING DEAD... you would think amazing feats like that would make it into the historical record...IT DIDN'T.. because he is an ASTRO-THEOLOGICAL ALLEGORY ...

That is how entertainment got attention back then,...you had to associate your story with what was familiar to the general public at that time..most common people had a general understanding of the stars in the sky, and would be more willing to listen to a story that incorporated that knowledge...



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid


Jesus was the solar deity of the Gnostic Christian sect... the first historical reference to him is... uh oh...there is NO historical reference to him... oh wait,... the Bible,... yeah got it... Saul of Tarsus... (St. Paul)... he didn't start writing about "Jesus" for at least 40 years AFTER the supposed existence of this so-called Messiah... 40 YEARS...


I recommend that you study the works of "Josephus" and some of the other major historians of ancient times before making such a statement.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


Josephus
John E. Remsberg, The Christ

Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).

For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.

Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning, him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame:

“If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.”

Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.

As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,” written early in the fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss. if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).


freethought.mbdojo.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid


Like I said, you need to study more. This would have been a better rebuttal.

"A third passage, the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form summarizes the ministry and death of Jesus; but the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. The most widely held current scholarly opinion is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.[3][4]

In those parts of the Testimonium that are commonly regarded as authentic, Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker, attracting a large following who revered him after his death; but, other than James, Josephus names none of the founders of the Church such as St. Paul, St.Peter or any the Twelve Apostles, nor does he refer to basic Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation or the Atonement. This led William Whiston to suggest that Josephus may have been an Ebionite Christian.[5]". en.wikipedia.org...

The only point I'm making is that you said there is no historical record. I think both my post and yours proves otherwise.





top topics
 
30
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join