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.
How do you know that the gospels didn't "redefine" Jesus, after the original version of Jesus was recorded by Paul?
He did redefine Jesus in them after all.
Romans 13
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
That sounds silly to me.
You trust a man who claims to have never walked with Jesus over those who did?
OK, how do you know that anything like this ever happened?
I wonder if Paul kept telling himself this while the authorities nailed him to a cross?
John 1
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
That may be where the gospel gets its name from but it is talking about John the Baptist, not the writer.
Here's one example of John claiming to be a witness.
Yest to all of those.
So you disagree that Christians were persecuted under Roman rule? You disagree that Paul was killed by Romans? That Jesus was killed by Romans? You disagree with the overwhelming evidence of Christian persecution by the authorities during antiquity?
1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
He was talking about the Logos.
John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus.
You are living in a delusional construct.
What about the authorities killing Paul for doing what was right?
The Bible does not record Paul's death.
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: jmdewey60
1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.
John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus...
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1He was talking about the Logos.
John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus.
I realize that Trinitarians have hijacked the Logos to support their theory, changing it to mean, Jesus, but it isn't really what the writer of the "John" letters was talking about...
This wasn't talking about the birth of the baby Jesus.
Logos became Jesus, God's word materialized !
It may have been back in the 1700's, but it isn't now.
Isn't all the historical and universally accepted evidence in favor of Rome torturing and killing Christians pretty much proof that the first passage in Romans 13 is 100% wrong in every way?
I don't think it was wrong.
Why would he inspire someone to write something that he knew would end up being wrong?
Can you cite your sources for this?
What was the situation? That Christians were being persecuted by the Roman authorities.
Just saying that they are verifiable, is not the same thing as verifying it.
You're denying Christian persecutions that are historically verifiable . . .