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.
I would suggest that you do a read on the Munich Talmud b. San. 43a and you will find your evidence of acknowledgement of Jesus outside the bible of the Greeks and the Hebrews both. The word Christ is not written in the Munich Talmud.
...
The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.[3]
The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
(In Latin:[2] ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.)
...
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
GAH!!!! No! - see?!! - you had me with your "concept" statements.
But; then you brought up "sin".
NO.
Just - no. "Sin" is a concept as well as a construct - It is imagined, described, devised and implemented BY WANNA-BE LEADERS to scare people into submission.
no.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Agartha
I am sorry but you are wrong.
For example, the Roman historian and Senator Tacitus mentions the "execution of Christ" (Christus) as the beginning of Christianity, which he wrote in the "Annals" on book 15 chapter 44.
This work was published in 116 AD, and is considered by historians as authentic and a non-Christian Roman source that verifies that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.
As for the Shroud of Besançon?... It was the shroud of Turin. It was only one. The name reflects the town where the shroud was kept at the time. This is why the Sudarium is called "the Sudarium of Oviedo", because it is kept in Oviedo. The name does not tell us where it was made, but where it was/is kept.
The shroud has been kept in many cities throughout it's 2,000 year existence, and to every place it was kept, the name of the city where it was kept was included when talking/writing about it.
The shroud is now called "The Shroud of Turin" because now it is being kept in Turin, not because it was made there.
How about you cite it for me. You do know, however, that text was written centuries after the advent, right?
I do not understand why so many uninformed people will not believe fact.
Because, the facts are that this text has been highly censored and edited by Christians, and dates well after any supposed advent! Besides, do you any idea how many "Jesuses" lived and were persecuted in and around the 1st century?
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” – Hillel the Elder, c. 100 BCE.
“Jesus” was a common name in the Second Temple time period. I’m going to list a couple of them that eerily share a lot with the Jesus of Christianity.
Yeshu ha-Notzri was a member of a Jewish sect called “Notzrim” around 100 BCE. He was charged with practicing sorcery and tried by the Sanhedrin. For 40 days a town crier was sent out into the streets of Jerusalem asking if anyone would come forth and speak in his defense. When no one came, he was executed; he was hanged on the eve of Passover. He apparently also had five disciples. How much of that is true or false, no one knows. It’s one of the many notes on Sanhedrin trials found in the Jewish Talmud. As you know, Jesus’ actual name is “Yeshua”. Translating this directly into English is “Joshua”, not “Jesus”.
deusdiapente.wordpress.com...
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Abednego
Wait. If Yosef is written for Joseph? Then why isn't Yeshua written for Jesus? It's common knowledge that Jesus was actually named Joshua.
Someone forged the names on the tomb apparently if thats the case. The guy is going for soemthing most will believe but not everyone.
The letter "J" never existed in the Hebrew alphabet and didn't exist in English until the 15th-16th century A.D.
Yeshu ha-Notzri was a member of a Jewish sect called “Notzrim” around 100 BCE. He was charged with practicing sorcery and tried by the Sanhedrin. For 40 days a town crier was sent out into the streets of Jerusalem asking if anyone would come forth and speak in his defense. When no one came, he was executed; he was hanged on the eve of Passover. He apparently also had five disciples. How much of that is true or false, no one knows. It’s one of the many notes on Sanhedrin trials found in the Jewish Talmud. As you know, Jesus’ actual name is “Yeshua”. Translating this directly into English is “Joshua”, not “Jesus”.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol now you are bringing up hoax number 2 The Sudarium which has been Carbon dated to 700 AD. You are really falling into the "I DESPERATELY want to believe camp".
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
...
Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189–194
Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin
Raymond N. Rogers
Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA
Received 14 April 2004; received in revised form 14 April 2004; accepted 12 September 2004
Abstract
In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.
Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Shroud of Turin; Lignin kinetics; Pyrolysis/mass spectrometry; Flax fiber analyses
...
Raymond Rogers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named Ray Rogers, see Ray Rogers (disambiguation).
Raymond N. Rogers (1927–2005) was an American chemist who was considered a leading expert in thermal analysis. To the general public, however, he was best known for his work on the Shroud of Turin.
...
a reply to: Seede What evidence do you have to challenge the accepted date for Jesus Ben Pandira's life being about 100 years earlier than Jesus of Nazareth's? As per the link: deusdiapente.wordpress.com... What date/year does that Munich Talmud placing on the "Eve of the Passover"? Do you have a link that gives us a reliable date as to this "Passover Eve" execution?
I don't read Hebrew so I wouldn't be qualified to determine if the translation were correct or not. The point, totally unrelated to spin doctors, was that the person we call "Jesus" would not have been called that in his time. Joshua (or Yeshua) would not have the letter "J" in the spelling. For that matter, Jehovah wouldn't be a word either; more like a bad translation of YHWH. I'm not sure what "James" would be but, again, no letter "J".