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.
I'm happy to insult absurd notions, beliefs, hypotheses.
Darkened minds are not very open to enlightenment. Nor do they seem to WANT to be.
reply to post by Gryphon66
I fail to live up to his standard in lots of ways.
I will endeavor on this thread to do better.
Thanks for all the feedback.
I HAVE wandered those paths in earlier decades and found them exceedingly wanting, empty, hollow, wrong, false, deceptions, destructive, etc.
in noticing that the switch in one position results in light and in the opposite position results in continued darkness.
My construction on reality is different.
It would be irresponsible for me to characterize destruction and darkness as wonderful or even neutral.
Not really no.
They are accounts of Jesus written decades after his death.
The Gospels are a religious doctrine, not a history book. At least not to those of us who have extensively studied ALL religious doctrine from that era, before than era and beyond.
Why is that the most convinced people are the ones who know the least about it?
Ah no, that's just false.
The notion that there IS NO objective right or wrong
is a lie
Why do Christian apologists lie about facts? Outside of the Bible, there is NO PROOF of the existence of Jesus Christ. There are no contemporary records of his life and teachings until well after his, supposed, death.
The supposed writings of Josephus on existence of Jesus have been proven to be bogus forgeries.
There is no proof of the existence of Nero, Caesar, etc... outside of the writings about them.
Not according to the Josephus Scholar, Steve Mason. And I will quote him again:
Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering.
The "bibliographical test" is a concept created for Christian apologetics by Christian apologists. The only "historians" who use the "bibliographical test" are those who intend to make their rationalizations sound formal or more academic. Use your favorite search engine to find references for the "bibliographical test" and you will find that out of first 100 or so hits, 100 are at Christian apologetics sites -- "for believers by believers."
"Anointed" means smeared with oil. Except for some random woman performing an erotic massage with expensive perfume, her hair and her tears on Jesus' feet, to the horror of his disciples, Jesus was never officially anointed by anyone or through any ritual.
Will you show me quotes of the gospel writers calling him God.
I would say they thought of him as all others did who foretold of his coming. King, Priest, Lord, Anointed one, Son of God, Son of Man, Christ..... Jesus did not equate himself with God.
Since I was raised as christian by fundamentalists I know that Church (at least the orthodox one) accepts
the Holy three; Father, Son and Holy spirit, but anyway...
Thinking of him as the son God still proves my point that they were biased and thus their writings are not reliable.
And... if you go back and re read what I said about Logos and how it could be another term ( modern to those days) as Christ, you may see where I'm coming from. Maybe not... as we are seeing things different per our perspective and research.
The "word" made in the flesh/reality = Christ = Logos.
I liked your thinking, although it might sound a bit heretic to christians. Either you accept Him as an idea, a philosophy, or as an actual person. In my oppinion these two can't come together.