It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by babybunnies
reply to post by manna2
If income tax is illegal, I hope you don't use ANY services that are provided by the Government's collection of this tax.
Of course, the minute you use a road, you're argument is null and void.
Julius Caesar marries Calpurnia Piso.
Julius Caesar married Calpurnia Piso in 59 BCE. The marriage was made to cement the famous triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. (Pompey married Caesar's daughter Julia.) Calpurnia's father was a close friend of Crassus. In reality, the marriage may have had another purpose: To protect Pontus, the Piso homeland, by including the Piso family in the aristocracy of Rome. When Crassus died in battle in 52 BCE, evidently Caesar no longer felt he needed to honor the peace with the Pisos. He defeated Pontus at Zela in 47. Apparently this defeat, and Caesar's bragging about how easy it was, greatly angered the Pisos. Caesar wrote the famous words "veni vidi vici" (I came. I saw. I conquered) in a letter from Pontus to Rome after his victory there.
Arius Calpurnius Piso and Scripture I’ve recently been reading about a person named “Arius Calpurnius Piso”. Apparently, this person, and members of his family, were responsible for creating the “New Testament”. Although I’m not particularly bothered by that, I am bothered by the contention that he is also responsible for writing certain passages of the Prophets, as well as the book of Esther. What is your opinion of all this? Throughout the ages there have been many critics of the bible who have asserted many things about its authorship.There are two types of biblical criticism – lower criticism, also known as textual criticism, looks at the differences in the available manuscripts to determine what is most likely the correct text for a given passage. The other type of biblical criticism, known as higher criticism, looks at the source of the text, the environment in which the given text was constructed, cultural context, and a few other factors. In general, with the exception of the canonical approach, higher criticism usually seeks to prove that the bible could not have been written by whom, and when, it has been traditionally accepted as having been authored. Many biblical scholars of religious origin, both Jewish and Christian, feel that the Bible, specifically the Jewish Scriptures or Tanach, have stood up to higher criticism; they have been proven to have been authored by those to whom we have asserted, and in the times that we claimed. The Jewish Scriptures were canonized several hundred years before the New Testament and the destruction of the Temple. The common date given is around 300 BCE. Therefore, it is impossible for it (or any part of it) to have been written by Piso, especially if Piso is assumed to be Josephus, who lived between 37 CE and 100 CE. Concerning the authorship of the New Testament, while Josephus certainly did live at the correct time, there is ample evidence that the New Testament was not authored by one person, but by several people. While the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are believed to have been written from Matthew’s notes (called the Q document), the style and quality of the writings are still different enough to be attributed to different writers (even though the original source notes may be the same). In short, there is no evidence that the New Testament, nor portions of the Tanach, were authored by Piso, regardless of his actual identity.
But prove him wrong? No. Because one cannot prove a negative.
A simpler way to bring down Christianity is to point out that the God of the Bible is clearly a schizophrenic, so trying to please Him/Her/It/They is rather a futile effort.
Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by autowrench
Now wait a minute here.
You get a bthread 404'd with this topic so you send a msg to klassified to make this thread on a topic he just learned about from you, one he has yet to research, and you come on here pretending to support him?
I call fraud!
Of course you s and f. It's your topic!
Could you be more incredulous and insincere?
It's a ridiculous assertion using history to cloud facts to spin an incredulous assumption.
So what was the reason for your thread being 404'd?
Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by manna2
The reason for his thread being 404'd is not what this thread is about. And there's no secret conspiracy as to why he's here either. I invited his input.