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.

 

Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Get this, and get it straight. I have said: "Jesus Christ most certainly never existed! Perhaps, a man called Jesus the Nazarene or Nazorean may have existed."

The mythological person that was born of a virgin during a census, while fleeing the wrath of Herod and the "murder of the innocent", never existed! The mythological character that walked on water, turned water to wine, turned 2 fish and 5 loaves into enough food to feed 1000's, sorry no. No one died on the cross for our sin and then rose from the dead. Nope, there is no evidence that person, Jesus Christ, ever existed!

Geesh. This is why the Bible can't be taught as truth in public school!




edit on 1-5-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Get this, and get it straight. I have said: "Jesus Christ most certainly never existed! Perhaps, a man called Jesus the Nazarene or Nazorean may have existed."

The mythological person that was born of a virgin during a census, while fleeing the wrath of Herod and the "murder of the innocent", never existed! The mythological character that walked on water, turned water to wine, turned 2 fish and 5 loaves into enough food to feed 1000's, sorry no. No one died on the cross for our sin and then rose from the dead. Nope, there is no evidence that person, Jesus Christ, ever existed!

Geesh. This is why the Bible can't be taught as truth in public school!





Unbelievable. That has been the argument all along...

The idea of a historical Jesus is not predicated on the miracles reported in the gospels. Those are circumstances that require faith. The academic argument in favor of a historical Jesus of Nazareth is based on the idea that the person reported in the gospels existed, not that he was the Son of God (which is a religious issue).

Now you are shifting the goal posts again?

Oh, and "get this, and get it straight": I never once claimed the bible should be taught as truth in public schools. Thats why we have churches.

I have never seen anyone twist their way through an argument so much. Anyways, now that you have admitted that Jesus may have existed, are you willing to retract your claim that there is no evidence whatsoever he existed? If not, why have you now admitted that perhaps he did?
edit on 1-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Jesus Christ and Jesus the Nazarene are two different people. One may have existed and one definitely did not, imo. Two people with two different narratives, teachings and outcomes.

My position stands, Jesus Christ never existed!



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Jesus Christ and Jesus the Nazarene are two different people. One may have existed and one definitely did not, imo. Two people with two different narratives, teachings and outcomes.

My position stands, Jesus Christ never existed!





You are simply avoiding the issue and cherry picking arguments. I will reiterate for you: The argument for a historical Jesus is not predicated on whether or not he was the Son of God or performed miracles. It is based on Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth (the man the gospels are based on) existed, not whether or not he was the Messiah (which is a religious issue).

Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth are the same person. The only difference is if you believe He was the Son of God. Instead of being dishonest and dancing around the issue, you could have saved us both a lot of time and frustration by simply stating that you don't believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life or that He was a miracle worker.

Instead you have chosen to erroneously claim that there is no proof for a historical Jesus when that simply isn't true, and even non-Christian academics understand that the evidence seems to indicate the gospels were based on the life of a real man.

In the end, you have demonstrated that you don't even understand what it is you are arguing about, but you choose to argue about it anyways. That seems like the height of ignorance to me, and I will leave you to it.
edit on 1-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Kris Kringle (St Nicholas) was a real person. Santa Clause never existed. Jesus Christ is a mythical character, whose birth, life, death and resurrection are all mythical.




edit on 1-5-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph



The evidence has been provided for you both in spades. You just refuse to accept it.

Really?

Okay. Yes, I refuse to accept that the Bible is "evidence."

The Bible does not prove that The Bible is true.
But - if that's what you need to believe to live in tranquility, then....okay.

I get that you're done talking to me. That's fine.
Have a great day!!


ETA: This is what you said to windword:

And if he was an Essene as you claimed elsewhere, Why did you come to that conclusion if there is no proof whatsoever for a historical Jesus?

You are one of the most disingenuous people I've ever talked to. Stick to your story.


She is clearly stating that a man whose name was later translated to Jesus probably existed, but that the "Christ" part is improbable (as in unproven, as well as unproveable which isn't even a word) as extrapolated from extant extra-Biblical documents.

The 'Jesus' who existed was an Essene, according to many very credible sources. They are readily available on ATS if you do a simple search.


And even if he was an Essene, a regular guy and not the God some see him as........so what?

Do you conduct yourself in the manner that he is reported to have suggested?

Then good.

The bottom line is that - it doesn't really matter whether the Bible stories are historical, bona fide 'journalism' (which they are decidedly NOT, no matter how you want to slice it and dice it and parse it --- NONE of the included 'essays' are from eye-witnesses - some think that they are, but in fact, they are not) as long as you follow the one rule: the Golden Rule.

What is so hard about that?????? It's the only thing that matters! It's the ONLY thing in the Bible that would or will or can EVER make any difference whatsoever on this planet, where we all have to live together, like it or not.

edit on 5/2/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
This thread is going crazy. Josephus being a forgery argument has been refuted, as he really had no reason to lie or to acquiesce to the demands of Christians, who at the time of his writings would not have been as substantial as they became, but rather would have been a rag tag bunch who were constantly persecuted wherever they went. Many of the remaining disciples martyrdom was documented and has never been questioned by anyone.

If you were to ever consider psychology, Peter was the one who confirms it to me. Peter's crucifixion is documented multiple times by numerous different sources. This is the man who in the Bible was said to have denied Yeshua thrice. Now from the period of time where it was indicated that he betrayed this supposedly fictional man, and the time that he was crucified, he dedicated his entire life to preaching the words of this supposed fake individual. There is no indication that he ever profited from doing so, in fact he was killed because of it. Not only was he killed, but after a life devoted to this fake man, he requested to be crucified upside down, as he supposedly did not feel worthy to die in the manner of the fake man he considered his savior. Now from a psychological perspective, this does not share the traits of a con man, as when the going gets touch, they always try to save their own behind, and he never appears to profit from his illogical(if fake Yeshua) endeavors. It doesn't share the views of a madman, as he showed extreme determination, and was quite well liked by many who followed him. It is partially why he was killed. So something happened between his betrayal and his crucifixion that made him dedicate his life to this man. I believe it is why Yeshua changed his name to Peter(Rock) and said He would make him the rock that His church was based upon. He probably knew they would try to stamp Him out as if He didn't exist. But nobody thought about old Peter. Therefore to anyone with knowledge, his response is confirmatory of the special nature of Yeshua, as was his response when Yeshua asked "Who do you say I am?" A intelligent person with vision would behold the message here, but I won't hold my breath, no offense.

I found this above statement, and thought it was interesting, I hope you don't mind if I quote it
"as long as you follow the one rule: the Golden Rule.

What is so hard about that?????? It's the only thing that matters! It's the ONLY thing in the Bible that would or will or can EVER make any difference whatsoever on this planet, where we all have to live together, like it or not. "

Now curiously, you afford that the Bible possesses wisdom, but yet you try so vehemently to cry the Son did not exist. Well according to the book that created the Golden Rule, He did. Also, you say we all have to live together? Do you think by questioning the very existence of a man millions of people hold dear to their heart as a savior, that you are furthering this goal? Or becoming part of the problem? It's always very interesting to me the paradoxical irony that is possessed by people who do not think about what comes forth from their person. It is okay for you to disagree, but some mean things have come from your camp. Doesn't seem very tolerant. Must mean that tolerance is great when it applies to you, but bad when it applies to us. And that seems to confront in a personal way any hippies I have met. I can remember another Yeshua hater who went on and on about empathy, only to then post that she wished another person would have a car crash and she could pass by and not help that person and somehow feel justified about it, because she didn't like the way he drove. Something is not how it should be. Maybe Christianity isn't the problem? Maybe people who apply all the negative they are responsible for on someone who according to them doesn't even exist are the problem.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Also, consider the fact the Essenes taught that Moses law was not to be followed, and Yeshua taught you should write it on your heart. You should probably read the Dead Sea Scrolls before you claim something, as that is the origination of the purported existence of the "Essenes".

And I'm sorry, your quote at the bottom is illogical. It's kind of like saying to see you must first close your eyes. If you possess views on something, it has already revealed itself to you. This is the problem with some people today. They disregard wisdom and hold things that sound deep but truly are utter nonsense. Same thing used to happen to me when I hit the weed too hard. Say no to wake an bake. Keep it once a week, kids.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I just thought of another thing. For years many archaeologists said the Exodus never happened, as there was no indication in the Egyptian hieroglyphs that the Pharaoh ever went to war with the Hebrews. Then, on one of the pillars, their was a small stela, their was an inscription which stated something to the effect of "The pharaoh went out to war with the Hebrews(or whatever name they used) and they were no more". Now this wasn't covered at all, really. Only caught it in passing on a History documentary. Why was that? And why did it say they were no more?

There is a human psychological element that must be taken into account when studying these written histories. As a pharaoh, would you say a bunch of slaves just beat my tail through some unnatural stuff when you held yourself as a god? Of course not. You would have had the soldiers go out to maintain face. But then some of them died. Possible a lot of them. Now to say you got beat and lost a bunch of the peoples family members to an act of G-d would have been tantamount to at least a change of religion. Probably a death sentence and new pharaoh. So if one is to look at politics today you can see parallels. The truth isn't always the truth that's told, for many different reasons. After all, this is a conspiracy forum. One could also look at the story of Joseph, who was sold into slavery and became the pharaohs right hand man, and say "Well where is he at? He didn't exist either." Until one reads of Imhotep and the saving of egypt during a seven year famine. Also the G-d he worshipped was Ptah, the creator G-d. Also, his tomb has never been found, as I imagine his family took his bones back with them upon his passing, as they swore they would. He also constructed the first pyramid, if I am not mistaken, as a tomb for Djoser. So if Imhotep was, in fact, the Joseph in the Bible, then the Bible is a little older than you might think, and a little more historically significant then it is given credit for.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

Dear Pleasethink,

You've written a lot and I haven't read it all yet, because I couldn't get past this.




This thread is going crazy. Josephus being a forgery argument has been refuted, as he really had no reason to lie or to acquiesce to the demands of Christians, who at the time of his writings would not have been as substantial as they became, but rather would have been a rag tag bunch who were constantly persecuted wherever they went. Many of the remaining disciples martyrdom was documented and has never been questioned by anyone.


No one is accusing Josephus of committing a "forgery" in order to "acquiesce to the demands of Christians". What most all scholars agree is that an area of Josephus' work had been tampered with, probably by Eusebius , almost 300 years later.

THE JESUS PUZZLE; JOSEPHUS UNBOUND


Although it may well be that we owe Josephus’ survival through the Middle Ages to the unknown Christian interpolator who gave us the Testimonium, it is time to release Josephus from his Christian captivity—and from the bonds of those who continue to claim him as a witness to the existence of an historical Jesus. But if the weight of argument would impel us to acknowledge that Josephus seems to have made no reference at all to Jesus, what implications do we draw from this?

Here is a Jewish historian who was born and grew up in Judea shortly after Pilate’s tumultous governorship, with its presumed crucifixion of a Jewish sage and wonder worker, a man whose followers claimed had risen from the dead and who gave rise to a vital new religious sect. Here is an historian who remembers and records in his work with staggering efficiency and in voluminous detail the events and personalities and socio-political subtleties of eight decades and more. Can we believe that Josephus would have been ignorant of this teaching revolutionary and the empire-wide movement he produced, or that for some unfathomable reason he chose to omit Jesus from his chronicles?

Destroying the credibility of the Josephus references inevitably places a very strong nail in the coffin of the historical Jesus.


Okay, now I'm going to read the rest of what you've written.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It just doesn't make sense psychologically. But I can say one thing to you honestly. I have a genuine love for you despite the fact that we disagree, and are probably very different from one another. It is because of G-d that I am like this. I get frustrated at times. But in my heart I wish you to be happy and comforted, as I do with all people. There just seems to be a political motivation that goes against reason. A hate that has no logical foundation. This is just the point I am making. Love is tolerant of all, no matter if one disagrees. That is the power of His message. Would the world be better without that?

I'm sure we will disagree, but I believe He existed, and I believe He was who He said He was. But besides that, Marc Maron(an unobservant Jew) said it best I believe when he said "There are no athiest soup kitchens" He also made some valid points about the tenacity of those who would try to take someones faith through logic. What if they win? What if you steal his hope and faith? Is he better off? Do they gloat? This is why I use logic to defend it.


But on a personal level, no offense taken or intended. I hear you win the game called life when you love the most. The Bible told me that. But a mother suffices.

Thanks for reading.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink




It just doesn't make sense psychologically.


What doesn't make sense physchologically?



but I believe He existed,


That's the way it should be, in the realm of belief. It's when believers try to prove that their beliefs are facts that problems arise.



"There are no athiest soup kitchens"


Besides that being a misnomer, what does that have to do with anything? Not believing in the Christian god does not, necessarily, an atheist make.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

I think you would find this interesting. It is a lengthy read, but well worth it and sheds a lot of light on some of the claims made about Josephus mention of Jesus, and the accusation that both times he mentioned Jesus are Christian interpolations.

While some people like to claim this is a proven matter of fact, it is not that simple, and not all scholars believe that both passages were complete interpolations. most seem to believe that only the larger passage is a result of tampering by a Christian hand (and even then, that only portions of it were altered), and many seem to believe that the second reference is completely authentic:


Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.


Certainly there are scholars out there who contend that both passages referencing Jesus are forgeries created later, but they are few, and the issue is far from settled, as most scholars disagree with that criticism, so the debate is not an open and shut case as some claim. At any rate, while Josephus' mention of Jesus certainly bolsters the case for a historic Jesus of Nazareth, the case for His historicity does not rest solely on the writings of Josephus alone.

I thought I would share the link with you, since I felt you might find it interesting at the very least.

edit on 3-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   


Jesus of Nazareth, whom we aren't even sure really existed in the first - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
a reply to: windword

He did exist. For if Jesus there wouldn't be written tales of him or his works on helping people.
edit on 3-5-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




and the issue is far from settled


Thank you!

Obligatory second line.




edit on 3-5-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink


And I'm sorry, your quote at the bottom is illogical. It's kind of like saying to see you must first close your eyes. If you possess views on something, it has already revealed itself to you. This is the problem with some people today. They disregard wisdom and hold things that sound deep but truly are utter nonsense. Same thing used to happen to me when I hit the weed too hard. Say no to wake an bake. Keep it once a week, kids.

I'm not a kid, and I didn't expect you to understand the signature quote - It's obviously way over your head.

As should be expected from those indoctrinated from childhood and told to never, ever ask questions.
I should alert you for drug-speak, but I won't bother. I want your ridiculous post to stay there so someday you'll come back and read it and be embarrassed.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oops! Never did I glorify the use of "drugs" and the legality of the one I referenced is changing to a degree that it will be accepted worldwide in the next twenty years. Would you also alert me if I say tobacco or caffeine or sugar? Thanks thought police, but no thanks. It's funny how everyone always uses the tolerance and intolerance until you say something they don't like, then it's run and go tell the authorities.

And I don't believe your quote went over my head, I believe it confused yours, as it makes no sense. It's kind of like "freedom isn't free". Illogical but strangely repeated often, as if it makes sense. This is the nature of todays wisdom. People repeat things that make no sense, and deride things that possess wisdom. 1984-esque. If that is how you wish to conduct your day to day life, so be it. It is no wonder why many are confused.

And as far as being "indoctrinated" from childhood and told not to ask questions, rather I never listened to anyone and questioned everything. Still do. I also advise all others not to listen to me, but to learn about these things themselves, as opposed to just regurgitating what someone else told you, without even really understanding the meaning of what was quoted. Quotes can be useful to show where the knowledge is learned, but one's own views it where understanding is visible.

As a test, please explain what your nonsensical quote really means, so my limited mind might witness understanding in action.

Also, as a side note: vapid is not a compliment. And hippies as a law preach tolerance of all. Even christians.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Also, as a side note: vapid is not a compliment. And hippies as a law preach tolerance of all. Even christians.


Ha! In my experience, the opposite has been true.




edit on 3-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I've already explained it. Psychologically, the effect of Yeshua on His followers, is duly noted and historically documented. If one understood people, it doesn't make psychological sense for one to dedicate their entire life to preserving the words of someone who did not exist. I could go further, but it's a different topic for a different thread.

I will say this, Napoleon could have never existed, also. Have you ever met him? How about Alexander the Great? Did he like his coffee black? You probably don't know, because you never met him personally. But you, I am sure you believe he existed. Why? Because of his impact on society around him. Because of the words written about him by others. Even those that didn't necessarily like him. This is how history is documented. The same things apply in the life of Yeshua, yet modern politically motivated individuals disregard all that proves these other mans existence, and instead look for reasons not to believe. This doesn't happen to anyone else throughout history. One might ask why? But they don't.

Want to know why? Because he said the way they were was not okay. That is the reason logic does not apply. It is because their arguments are clearly not based upon the same logic that let's us know Alexander the Great existed, or Napoleon, or Djoser, or anyone else they never met but read about in writings. If you can read this and then say, that's bullcrap, then congratulations! You yourself have just denied logic to accept a politically and emotionally motivated teaching. You should not use logic to argue any more in the future, because you have glaringly denied it's application. This is why most scholars(of note) do not debate the fact that He existed. They would also have to deny Djoser. To deny Constantine. To deny anyone else who shares the same description: writings exist and his impact is evident, but I personally never met the man, so therefore he did not exist. If you are okay with this, then denying ignorance is obviously not first on your agenda.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

True in some cases, I was talking about the true hippies from the 70's, not the modern liberal political illogical whacked out crazy hippies who are not hippies.

Also, Josephus is but one of many. And I did mention he had no reason to acquiesce to the demands of some people who were persecuted by all sides. The Talmud also acknowledges the existence of Christ but not as favorably. This is why understanding psychology plays a role in understanding history. The Jews of the time had a vested interest in discrediting Yeshua, and it shows in the Talmud. Thanks for the helpful information. Also, great meme.




top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join