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.

 

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

page: 14
94
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I think he really did live, but he was one of the minor "prophets" of the time.

He was used by the powers that be to create a religion. By constantine, by Saul, by Peter, by everyone for power.


One Religion to rule them all, One Religion to find them,
One Religion to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of the middle east, where the Prophets lie.




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I can't understand why, in this type of discussion, many people can't accept the Bible as historically accurate?

Archeologists have found lots of evidence that many of Old and New Testament stories are for the most part factual. Of course, as in any written history, there are bound to be inaccuracies, but how much proof is needed? Does the Bible have to be 100% accurate, in every discipline, to be accepted as a historical document?

Also, if there is little written evidence of Christ in Roman and Egyptian records, consider how little of their records we have left today and that during that time, they probably cared less about some small backwater Jewish cult when it began.

I'd like to see these doubting Thomas people put all written historical documents to the same scrutiny and then think they can have any history left worth believing in. The most accurate historical documents are probably business receipts and inventory lists, I bet none of them mention Christ.


The Gospels that mention Jesus were not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived. Therefore, they are not evidence that he lived. Why don't you put your efforts into finding contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived? Could it be that, in two thousand years, no one, including historians, has found any and you will be unlikely to do so, too?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: sheepslayer247

True also, but when a religious organization i.e the Catholic Church has around 1.2 Billion members then it becomes a massive organized religious problem. A danger to the world.


The only religious people I feel are a danger to the world are those extreme fundamentalists and those that inject religion in to politics. Other than that, I'm not concerned.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Now, I am no biblical scholar, but it is my understanding that there is plenty of evidence that is accepted by historians that a man named Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans.

Extra-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Jospehus validated some of the things written in the NT, and I believe the Egyptians even wrote about Jesus.

Now whether or not he was the son of god is irrellevant.


You are mistaken. There is zero contemporaneous documentation (and that's the only kind that counts). Tacitus and Josephus were not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not have witnessed him living. Tacitus simply repeated stories and Josephus never wrote about Jesus. In 400 AD, the church inserted a forgery into his works that mentions Jesus. It was so poorly written that almost no one takes it seriously. It even included language not in use at the time Josephus lived.


SO...who was alive and wrote about personally seeing this building "inserting" said forgery into Josephus' works? You can't have it both ways...Or, are you just using the inclusion of how it was written as your evidence? And, that...Well, that's just ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: TzarChasm

It has lasted for 2000 years. Obviously, He did know better than anyone else how to make it last. Again, if Jesus had actually written his words down himself, we would still be having this conversation. People would just be claiming that He never wrote anything down, and that it was an imposter who created him, the same way they are doing now.


i dont remember reading the book of jesus, only 8th generation third party recollections. not really the same thing.

but you are right. instead of a bible, jesus should have kickstarted his personal utopia the moment he resurrected. serves him right for ditching.
edit on 6-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well why would what I wrote mean the Bible isn't necessary?


It's stranger still thinking further to realise he obviously knew he didn't have too.

I don't get that at all? It's much easier to surmise that he knew he didn't have to
record his words himself, because someone would. Low and behold we do have
the Bible and it is necessary so I can know what he said. Lemon peasy.


seeing as how he isnt here to tell you himself? *cough cough ahem hint hint poke poke*

also, if you want a job done right, do it yourself. maybe if he had we wouldnt be having this conversation because id be talking to him instead. and actually getting somewhere. it seems to me that there must be a book of excuses somewhere designated for explaining why everything was done the most difficult and obscure self-defeating inefficient way possible because god can do anything so why make it easy. its only our souls in the balance but hey he made a few hundred gazillion so whats a few broken spares?
edit on 6-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Toadmund

www.historyofinformation.com...


"Some might argue that, without writing, the same beliefs could not have prevailed over such a long period of time, but in reality, oral traditions are far more faithfully passed on than the written word. A written account can be open to multiple interpretations, distortions, and transformations, depending on the time and situation, economic imperatives, or the whims of political or religious leaders. Orally transmitted traditions, in contrast, must be rigorously and accurately passed on in order to survive in all their subtlety, and in the smallest of details. Furthermore, the written word, thought to be the surer and safer means of communication, is not only less reliable but also more permeable to outside aggression than are the more secret codes of an oral system.


Oral tradition has always been known to be the better way of communicating a message with less room for distortion. I am pretty confident that is why many cultures preferred the honesty of oral tradition rather than written.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Now, I am no biblical scholar, but it is my understanding that there is plenty of evidence that is accepted by historians that a man named Jesus did exist, and was crucified by the Romans.

Extra-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Jospehus validated some of the things written in the NT, and I believe the Egyptians even wrote about Jesus.

Now whether or not he was the son of god is irrellevant.


You are mistaken. There is zero contemporaneous documentation (and that's the only kind that counts). Tacitus and Josephus were not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not have witnessed him living. Tacitus simply repeated stories and Josephus never wrote about Jesus. In 400 AD, the church inserted a forgery into his works that mentions Jesus. It was so poorly written that almost no one takes it seriously. It even included language not in use at the time Josephus lived.


SO...who was alive and wrote about personally seeing this building "inserting" said forgery into Josephus' works? You can't have it both ways...Or, are you just using the inclusion of how it was written as your evidence? And, that...Well, that's just ridiculous.



Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Spider879

Most written work from the Roman Empire would be in the Vatican Archives...
You can guarantee any pertaining to Jesus Of Nazareth would be there...

So unless this guy had access to the V.A I'm guessing he has no clue about anything and is being a no-it-all!!!


If the Vatican had any contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived, you can bet they would have released it long ago. The fact that they inserted a forgery into the works of Josephus in 400 AD in attempt to prove that Jesus lived strongly suggests that they don't have an iota of real evidence. You're making the argument that Martians must exist because someone has a collection of books hidden in their basement and the proof must be in there--despite the fact that no one has ever seen it. Plenty of scholars have been given access to Vatican records.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
I am genuinely curious why some people have such a deep seeded need to deny the man even existed. It's not like you have to believe in God to believe that Jesus walked the earth, or that the new testament is based on a real group of people (Jesus included) that actually existed.

Some people like to believe what is true, and get tired of the idiocy of those who will believe almost anything even if the evidence does not exist.

Faith? No, We want to KNOW.


Think critically for a moment.

We do, and for some it was a long mental road to get to that.

Read your bible.
edit on 6-10-2014 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I can't understand why, in this type of discussion, many people can't accept the Bible as historically accurate?

Archeologists have found lots of evidence that many of Old and New Testament stories are for the most part factual. Of course, as in any written history, there are bound to be inaccuracies, but how much proof is needed? Does the Bible have to be 100% accurate, in every discipline, to be accepted as a historical document?

Also, if there is little written evidence of Christ in Roman and Egyptian records, consider how little of their records we have left today and that during that time, they probably cared less about some small backwater Jewish cult when it began.

I'd like to see these doubting Thomas people put all written historical documents to the same scrutiny and then think they can have any history left worth believing in. The most accurate historical documents are probably business receipts and inventory lists, I bet none of them mention Christ.


The Gospels that mention Jesus were not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived. Therefore, they are not evidence that he lived. Why don't you put your efforts into finding contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived? Could it be that, in two thousand years, no one, including historians, has found any and you will be unlikely to do so, too?


What I enjoy about this argument is how patently absurd it is when it's held up to other examples of ancient history. The earliest known writings on Alexander the Great were written nearly 300 years after his death, yet they are considered historically accurate, and the gospels (or non-biblical accounts of Jesus) are not considered credible because the earliest writings were written a mere 30 years after Christ's crucifixion. It really is a shifting of the goal posts.

The new testament and the extra biblical material on early Christianity and Jesus is truly unrivaled and remarkable, yet it's critics still find ways to deny what even non-christian scholars find obvious: Jesus was a real historical figure.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

If that is true, then why is there a consensus among researchers and historians of many different specialties that Jesus did exist?

I'm just a nobody, but these people that are trained to decide what is accurate or myth agree on his existence.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Historical accuracy does not prove that a story is authentic. that is like saying if the North Pole exists then there must be a Santa Claus.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I can't understand why, in this type of discussion, many people can't accept the Bible as historically accurate?

Archeologists have found lots of evidence that many of Old and New Testament stories are for the most part factual. Of course, as in any written history, there are bound to be inaccuracies, but how much proof is needed? Does the Bible have to be 100% accurate, in every discipline, to be accepted as a historical document?

Also, if there is little written evidence of Christ in Roman and Egyptian records, consider how little of their records we have left today and that during that time, they probably cared less about some small backwater Jewish cult when it began.

I'd like to see these doubting Thomas people put all written historical documents to the same scrutiny and then think they can have any history left worth believing in. The most accurate historical documents are probably business receipts and inventory lists, I bet none of them mention Christ.


The Gospels that mention Jesus were not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived. Therefore, they are not evidence that he lived. Why don't you put your efforts into finding contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived? Could it be that, in two thousand years, no one, including historians, has found any and you will be unlikely to do so, too?


What I enjoy about this argument is how patently absurd it is when it's held up to other examples of ancient history. The earliest known writings on Alexander the Great were written nearly 300 years after his death, yet they are considered historically accurate, and the gospels (or non-biblical accounts of Jesus) are not considered credible because the earliest writings were written a mere 30 years after Christ's crucifixion. It really is a shifting of the goal posts.

The new testament and the extra biblical material on early Christianity and Jesus is truly unrivaled and remarkable, yet it's critics still find ways to deny what even non-christian scholars find obvious: Jesus was a real historical figure.


Exactly. If we only considered sources that had first hand experiences, most of our history would be tossed out.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I can't understand why, in this type of discussion, many people can't accept the Bible as historically accurate?

Archeologists have found lots of evidence that many of Old and New Testament stories are for the most part factual. Of course, as in any written history, there are bound to be inaccuracies, but how much proof is needed? Does the Bible have to be 100% accurate, in every discipline, to be accepted as a historical document?

Also, if there is little written evidence of Christ in Roman and Egyptian records, consider how little of their records we have left today and that during that time, they probably cared less about some small backwater Jewish cult when it began.

I'd like to see these doubting Thomas people put all written historical documents to the same scrutiny and then think they can have any history left worth believing in. The most accurate historical documents are probably business receipts and inventory lists, I bet none of them mention Christ.


The Gospels that mention Jesus were not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived. Therefore, they are not evidence that he lived. Why don't you put your efforts into finding contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived? Could it be that, in two thousand years, no one, including historians, has found any and you will be unlikely to do so, too?


What I enjoy about this argument is how patently absurd it is when it's held up to other examples of ancient history. The earliest known writings on Alexander the Great were written nearly 300 years after his death, yet they are considered historically accurate, and the gospels (or non-biblical accounts of Jesus) are not considered credible because the earliest writings were written a mere 30 years after Christ's crucifixion. It really is a shifting of the goal posts.

The new testament and the extra biblical material on early Christianity and Jesus is truly unrivaled and remarkable, yet it's critics still find ways to deny what even non-christian scholars find obvious: Jesus was a real historical figure.


Exactly. If we only considered sources that had first hand experiences, most of our history would be tossed out.


if the pope told you obama was an extraterrestrial would you believe him? its not the origin of the evidence but its content that is dubious.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Josephus' works in which he profusely goes on and on about the divinity of Jesus is a known forgery. The ensuing mention of Jesus, the Christ is also a known interpolation. Josephus was NOT a follower of Jesus Christ, as his forgeries would seem to indicate.

Josephus refers to many Jesus' throughout his works, like "Jesus the son of Gamaliel, the successor of Jesus the son of Damneus" "Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec", "Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Ananias" just to name a few, but NEVER does Josephus refer to Jesus ben Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth or the Nazarene.



I addressed that in my original post. Portions of that passage are thought to have been altered. The syriac and arabic translations, do not have those alterations, yet still mention Jesus, and his execution by order of Pilate.

Further, the 2nd passage also mentions Jesus brother, and even references him as "the aforementioned christ". Yet you are going to play semantics and claim he wasn't referring to the biblical Jesus because he mentions other men named Jesus elsewhere? Do you think you might be stretching logic just a tad?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: Toadmund

www.historyofinformation.com...



Oral tradition has always been known to be the better way of communicating a message with less room for distortion. I am pretty confident that is why many cultures preferred the honesty of oral tradition rather than written.

Chinese telephone calling... can anyone decipher this call?
So then, a few decades later they decided to write it down?

'Lets see now, how did that story go, someone put the body in the wrong tomb, no, the tomb was empty because he rose and ascended into heaven.'
Yeah, that's it!




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
Seriously , I've never understood the motive of science vs religion
If a book or person explains/shows how to be kind and understanding then why knock it?
See the forest, not the tree..
both science and religion have noble foundations


This is why...The human condition is why... Throughout all of known history there has been one constant. People love them paradigms.

When the Church was in authority, they did not want to give any credence to science when it didn't agree with their paradigm. Now that science is in authority, they are still butt hurt about the past and now THEY don't want to give credence to anything that doesn't fit into THEIR paradigms.

The human condition is such that it is difficult for a group of people to not fight tooth and nail against anything outside of their paradigm. It doesn't matter how much logical support there is for it, they will fight it, ignore it, chastise it, and attack it to force others to agree to their paradigm.

It just happens that whoever the current authority is has more control over which paradigms are more widely accepted, but a new authority always inevitably takes power and the cycle repeats.

The only historically accurate fact is that the current paradigm is inaccurate. Most ignore that fact though or attempt to use it to bolster their own paradigm rather than look at things as they actually are likely to be and see things for the belief that they truly are.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Obama being an alien is silly and can be easily proven not to be true. Bad comparison.

I don't see what is dubious about the existence of Jesus. That's not a silly notion whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.


www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Most scholars agree that the, so called, testimony of Josephus can NOT prove, one way or the other, the existence of an historical Jesus. When there is proof of forgery, I guess its up to individual to choose to continue to accept fragments of said forgery, of one's choosing, here and there, to be true. I, on the other hand, choose to throw out all of it, based on the fact it's not at all trustworthy testimony.




edit on 6-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join