Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Love vs Tyranny

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


What does that have to do with love and tyranny?




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Josephus is one, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are others. James and Jude. Those are all historical documents, Josephus is the greatest historian of the Jews. But humor me for a sec please. I'm really scratching my head over has here. On one hand you're going round and round arguing that Jesus was an Essene, now you're arguing that He never existed as a historical person. Which position do you want to take? Perhaps you should take a brief time out to decide upon and articulate your official position?


The citation about Jesus, that someone later inserted into Josephus' work, has been debunked by scholars. Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

He did, however, describe the Essenes and their messianic movement, customs and beliefs in depth. He also talked fondly about John the Baptist. Josephus himself was initiated into the Essenes brotherhood.

Since it's impossible to prove that the Biblical character of Jesus actually existed, and their is no contemporary record, no Jewish temple records of his education, no Roman record of his birth or death, other than the Bible, there is no way to prove through what sect Jesus arose to "Rabbi" status.

The only proof that Jesus existed and that his ministry reflected Essenes values is within the scriptures themselves.

Again, my point is that Jesus rejected the tyrannical God of the Old Testament and introduced a "new", kinder, gentler "father of all" God.

The purpose of introducing Jesus and the Essenes into the debate, was to offer evidence that the God of the Old Testament's brutality and tyranny was acknowledged and rejected by this Jewish sect and they squarely put the blame of promoting intolerance and tyranny on the Pharisees and Sadducees.

They believed that the Torah, the true path to enlightenment and spiritual freedom, had been deliberately corrupted by wicked, self serving priests. Jesus echoed this sentiment in his teachings.

The God of the Old Testament and his tyranny needs to flatly rejected, not emulated or whitewashed or disguised as love, but seen for what he is, EVIL!


edit on 4-3-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



The citation about Jesus, that someone later inserted into Josephus' work, has been debunked by scholars. Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

That isn't true -- the passage in chapter 3 of book 18 is generally accepted to have been embellished at a later date, though it was based on an original bit about Jesus, and the reference in chapter 9 of book 20, as well as the bit about John the Baptist in book 18 are both almost universally held to be authentic. Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


From your link:


The critical revival since the 19th century brought about a shift of opinion among leading scholars, tending towards the denial of the authenticity of the Jesus notice, and less frequently of those about John the Baptist and James. Nowadays, opinions are divided. Hence the question must be asked: Are the three notices the work of Josephus, or have they, or some of them, been produced wholly or partly by a Christian forger?


In a court of law, if a witness is found to be lying, committing purgery, that witness' entire statement in invalidated.


Regarding the authenticity of the Testimonium, three stances are possible:

1. One may accept it lock, stock and barrel, as did all the pre-16th-century authorities.

2. With more recent scholars, one may reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation.

3. In the company of an increasing number of recent students, it is possible to recognise some parts of the notice as authentic and discard the remainder as spurious.


I'm going with #2.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
I'm going with #2.

He's talking about the Book 18 quote there, not Book 20.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



The three passages appear in separate sections of the Antiquities. The short Jesus notice comes first, followed by the longer accounts of John and the execution of James. Leaving the controversial Testimonium to last,


I can find place where he references book 20 at all. the author his defending a redacted version of the text in question.

Please show me what works of Josephus regarding Jesus you are defending.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 



The three passages appear in separate sections of the Antiquities. The short Jesus notice comes first, followed by the longer accounts of John and the execution of James. Leaving the controversial Testimonium to last,


I can find place where he references book 20 at all. the author his defending a redacted version of the text in question.

Please show me what works of Josephus regarding Jesus you are defending.

The "Testimonium" is the bit in Book 18 that says stuff like "if it be lawful to call him a man".

Book 20 has the section about James, which reads "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". That's the whole of the reference, though the rest of it fits in with what we know about James, the brother of Jesus, as described in the New Testament.

ETA: And just to show you what a snob I am, here's a picture of my "source" for that, lol

edit on 4-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Originally posted by AfterInfinity

What does that have to do with love and tyranny?



Now that I think about it. It has nothing to do with it because whether or not Yahweh truly was the devil Jesus still said nothing against slavery.. So I guess it is still tyranny instead of love.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Holy crap, I can't walk away for 8 hours without the thread going so far off topic I can't begin to figure out where it went. What is wrong with you people?


We've all shared our subjective opinion several times already. What else do you want from us?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



The citation about Jesus, that someone later inserted into Josephus' work, has been debunked by scholars. Josephus never mentioned Jesus.


No, one of Josephus' two mentions of Jesus is in doubt amongst historians, not both of them.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Book 20 has the section about James, which reads "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". That's the whole of the reference, though the rest of it fits in with what we know about James, the brother of Jesus, as described in the New Testament.


Since Josephus was not a Christian, I find this statement "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," highly questionable.

Off Topic: My avatar is so shiney on your monitor! I should have known you'd be a MAC user!



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Citation? Source?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



But humor me for a sec please. I'm really scratching my head over here. On one hand you're going round and round arguing that Jesus was an Essene, now you're arguing that He never existed as a historical person. Which position do you want to take? Perhaps you should take a brief time out to decide upon and articulate your official position?


Reposted, please address.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Citation? Source?


Source of what? Historians have doubt of the phrase "if He can be called a man", thinking that was a later addition to Antiquities. But that's not Josephus' only mention.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Since Josephus was not a Christian, I find this statement "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," highly questionable.

Josephus was writing in a time when Christianity was a minority, but known, Jewish sect, so there's nothing suspicious about him differentiating Jesus Christ from all the other Jesuses that were around at the time (it was a common name.)


Off Topic: My avatar is so shiney on your monitor! I should have known you'd be a MAC user!

Mac engineer, since 1985, actually



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





We've all shared our subjective opinion several times already. What else do you want from us?


Why do you think "God" is love? Even after what Windword posted?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





We've all shared our subjective opinion several times already. What else do you want from us?


Why do you think "God" is love? Even after what Windword posted?


I already answered that. Because of what He has done for us in His Son, Christ Jesus.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




I already answered that. Because of what He has done for us in His Son, Christ Jesus.


Do you really see such a sacrifice as necessary? If he was all-powerful and all-knowing, why did he need to sacrifice a mortal incarnation of himself to eliminate something he himself gave to all of us? He invented evil, sin, all of it. And he had to sacrifice a flesh and blood avatar in order to cleanse the world of his own creation?

Do you really see that as necessary? Theoretically, he could have avoided the whole thing...and with just a thought! Why do all of his miracles require sacrifices? Blood sacrifices, no less! He could have avoided all this death and destruction by skipping sin entirely. So why did he create sin?
edit on 4-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Do you really see such a sacrifice as necessary? If he was all-powerful and all-knowing, why did he need to sacrifice a mortal incarnation of himself to eliminate something he himself gave to all of us?


First of all, God gave us free will, not sin. Sin is the natural consequence of free will and the knowledge of good and evil. And the father placed all of mankind's sin on his Son and His Son took a punishment for that sin. Thus atoning for us all. And I don't think there was another way out. Plus Paul argues, and this makes sense, that God gave the law that condemned all men, therefore the only way to free man was for that lawgiver to die. God being immortal cannot die, thus the incarnation and a new covenant in Christ.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



But humor me for a sec please. I'm really scratching my head over here. On one hand you're going round and round arguing that Jesus was an Essene, now you're arguing that He never existed as a historical person. Which position do you want to take? Perhaps you should take a brief time out to decide upon and articulate your official position?


Reposted, please address.


Already addressed again, www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Citation? Source?


Source of what? Historians have doubt of the phrase "if He can be called a man", thinking that was a later addition to Antiquities. But that's not Josephus' only mention.



Addressed already, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you, please, try a little harder to not be so redundant and obtuse?





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join