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: 16
94
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




maybe if he had we wouldnt be having this conversation because id be talking to him instead


Well, I doubt if you'd get any further seeing how the conversation would be
dominated by your critizisms of how everything should be done your way.
Which BTW, is ignorant enough for me to understand him allowing people
like you an avenue to believe any ignorant crap you choose. One hundred
percent understandable.

" Blessed are those who have seen me and believe. But how much more
blessed are those who've not seen me and still believe."


edit on Rpm100614v23201400000028 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm




maybe if he had we wouldnt be having this conversation because id be talking to him instead


Well, I doubt if you'd get any further seeing how the conversation would be
dominated by your critizisms of how everything should be done your way.
Which BTW, is ignorant enough for me to understand him allowing people
like you an avenue to believe any ignorant crap you choose. One hundred
percent understandable.

" Blessed are those who have seen me and believe. But how much more
blessed are those who not seen me and still believe".



when your kid needs his diaper changed, do you go to the store for milk and see a movie before watering the plants? theres a million ways to waste time and get nothing done. theres a lot less ways to get something done and do it right the first time. it seems like certain deities have a hard time grasping that concept. according to you anyway.

so you believe without seeing eh? hey pal its your lucky day because i have this bridge i want to sell you...
edit on 6-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
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.





Until very recently and, in some circles, even today, it was a career destroyer to point out that there was no evidence that Jesus actually lived. Those who have pointed that out often covered their butts by saying they still BELIEVED that he existed. May I remind you that there was a time when it was the consensus that if people traveled faster than 40 miles an hour they would disintegrate? There was also a time when there was a consensus that the earth was covered with a dome and the sun revolved around the earth?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I spoke to Him personally and audibly not all that long ago, He was sitting to my left.

Just as it was written-

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. John5

Eternal and immortal? yep-

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens Hebrews7
edit on 6-10-2014 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Tangerine

Also wanted to add that there is a part of the historical method that does allow for things such as oral traditions to be considered historically accurate, if it meets certain guidelines.

So the idea that only contemporaneous documentation is good enough would be contrary to the process' used by real historians.


Are you arguing that all those oral traditions about Zeus and Isis and Gilgamish and Grendl are historical evidence that they lived?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
It would be my luck that if "Jesus" or "God" existed and they started talking to me... they would have a stutter.


p-p-p-p-pp-p-p-p-p--pp- ray... you need to g-g-g-gg-g-g-g--go to ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-church. Re-p-p-p-p-pp-p-p-p-p ent your evil ways.

I'd shoot myself.


If you can accept the fact that there was a person like Jesus, you must also accept the fact that they probably talked like Pee Wee Herman.
edit on R292014-10-06T17:29:11-05:00k2910Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R292014-10-06T17:29:39-05:00k2910Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarkJS
Two points:
-The whole calendar system revolves One Person - Jesus. So every day that you live is in reference to Jesus' existence. You can't get more proof of a Jesus than that.



Tuesday is named for the Norse god Tyr, Wednesday for Woden (Odin), Thursday for Thor, and Friday for Frey. Is that proof that those gods existed? Using your illogic, it must be.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




when your kid needs his diaper changed, do you go to the store for milk


Well you are like some child that has soiled himself, I can
agree to that much.

edit on Rpm100614v352014u03 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
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.


Huh? How does this apply to anything I've said? I suspect you're confusing my posts with someone else's.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
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.





Until very recently and, in some circles, even today, it was a career destroyer to point out that there was no evidence that Jesus actually lived. Those who have pointed that out often covered their butts by saying they still BELIEVED that he existed. May I remind you that there was a time when it was the consensus that if people traveled faster than 40 miles an hour they would disintegrate? There was also a time when there was a consensus that the earth was covered with a dome and the sun revolved around the earth?


That isn't actually true. The consensus within non-christian academic circles for quite a number of years was actually much closer to your position, especially at the beginning of the 20th century. It wasn't actually until the 1990's that secular academics began shifting their opinions in favor of a historical Jesus, largely due to newer archaeological finds.

As I mentioned previously, Most biblical critics didn't even believe Pilate existed, as there didn't seem to be any sound archaeological evidence to support it (outside of written material). That changed in 1961 with the discovery of the pilate stone, and signaled a shift in how secular academia began to view the argument for Jesus historicity.

It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Rustami


"I spoke to Him personally and audibly not all that long ago"


Characteristic Schizophrenia symptoms:


Hallucinations - Hallucinations can take a number of different forms - they can be:
Visual (seeing things that are not there or that other people cannot see),
Auditory (hearing voices that other people can't hear,


You need help my friend..your obviously not mentally well.

schizophrenia.com...


edit on R412014-10-06T17:41:32-05:00k4110Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You can argue this subject until the cows come home.No one has ever proved Jesus never existed or that He was 100% telling the truth,it is faith based and and called an opinion.
Both an opinion to claim He never existed and both an opinion that He did exist.It is an opinion to claim He is telling the truth and is the Messiah and only truth and it is an opinion or faith that He is not.

No one can prove it either way so it has to be FAITH based.
edit on 6-10-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
Personally, I consider it quite a stretch to compare any form of Catholicism to Christianity.

Christians do not typically worship a display of Christ's dead body hanging from the cross!

We do recognize an empty cross though...Because, "He is Risen"!


And Catholics think any other form of Christianity that came after them are cults that they have to tolerate,and lets not kid ourselves the breakaway denominations still have" pagan" icon as their symbols




This includes Islamic architecture as well

All are phalic symbols for Osiris's missing male member folks can recognize it or ignore it but it's there.


Or they simply offer great vantage points for those that use them and you like to imagine everything is a penis...?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine



There is ZERO evidence.


Not so. There is evidence out there to be found. Is it possible that you refuse to believe anything that may suggest he existed?



Much of what we call history is false/made up.


Since you're such a stickler for evidence, I'm sure you have some evidence to back up that claim.....right?



Until very recently and, in some circles, even today, it was a career destroyer to point out that there was no evidence that Jesus actually lived. Those who have pointed that out often covered their butts by saying they still BELIEVED that he existed. May I remind you that there was a time when it was the consensus that if people traveled faster than 40 miles an hour they would disintegrate? There was also a time when there was a consensus that the earth was covered with a dome and the sun revolved around the earth?


I'm sure that is the case in "some circles", but that's definitely not the case in the academic/research field.



Are you arguing that all those oral traditions about Zeus and Isis and Gilgamish and Grendl are historical evidence that they lived?


Did I say anything even close to that?

You asserted that only contemporaneous evidence is good enough, and I simply refuted that notion by showing that even within the research/historical method there are other ways of discerning whether or not something is historically accurate.....even including oral traditions.

I have to ask: Does the existence of a historical Jesus bother you? Is there a reason why you are going to such silly extremes to prove a point contrary to academic consensus?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.


Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.


Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.


Well, Paul's writings were written very shortly after Jesus crucifixion, and he met 2 of Jesus apostles personally (including Jesus brother, James, who is also mentioned by Josephus). Paul's writings also reference material in the New Testament (which itself is full of eyewitness accounts).

But I guess we must discard those eyewitness accounts as unreliable, despite the fact some of the information they contain has been corroborated by non-biblical historians and modern archaeological finds?

As has been pointed out adnauseum both in this thread and elsewhere, if the new testament account itself is unreliable to you, then you shouldn't expect any other contemporary accounts from that time period when very few of them exist on far more important figures than Jesus (from a roman perspective). It stands to reason that Romans wouldn't have written about Jesus since He was dealt with as far as they were concerned, and didn't re-emerge as a problem until the rise of Christianity within the Roman empire (which is preciesly where we find extra biblical accounts of him within the historical record).

Further to this, we have other documents authored by ancient historians that are considered historically reliable despite the fact they were written 300 years or more after the events they record (like the material written about Alexander the Great, for instance).

If you feel like it, read this opinion piece by Bart Ehrman: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ehrman is a very vocal New Testament critic, and not a Christian.
edit on 6-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I think this debate is pointless, really. Tangerine is asking for irrefutable evidence, yet claims that much of history is made up to begin with.

There's no possible way to have a constructive debate using circular logic.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Tangerine



There is ZERO evidence.


Not so. There is evidence out there to be found. Is it possible that you refuse to believe anything that may suggest he existed?



Much of what we call history is false/made up.


Since you're such a stickler for evidence, I'm sure you have some evidence to back up that claim.....right?



Until very recently and, in some circles, even today, it was a career destroyer to point out that there was no evidence that Jesus actually lived. Those who have pointed that out often covered their butts by saying they still BELIEVED that he existed. May I remind you that there was a time when it was the consensus that if people traveled faster than 40 miles an hour they would disintegrate? There was also a time when there was a consensus that the earth was covered with a dome and the sun revolved around the earth?


I'm sure that is the case in "some circles", but that's definitely not the case in the academic/research field.



Are you arguing that all those oral traditions about Zeus and Isis and Gilgamish and Grendl are historical evidence that they lived?


Did I say anything even close to that?

You asserted that only contemporaneous evidence is good enough, and I simply refuted that notion by showing that even within the research/historical method there are other ways of discerning whether or not something is historically accurate.....even including oral traditions.

I have to ask: Does the existence of a historical Jesus bother you? Is there a reason why you are going to such silly extremes to prove a point contrary to academic consensus?


There is evidence out there to be found? How do you know that? Scholars have searched for it for two thousand years and have come up with zip. However, should they find it, I want you to be sure to let me know.

You're naive about academic/research fields. Almost all of the people working in those fields are employed by universities/colleges where politics within departments abounds. As in just about every field, the old dogs have the power and anyone who dares to challenge their theories risks advancement. Even hard evidence discovered by scientists often takes a generation or more to replace older accepted theorums. Those in power do not easily surrender their status.

Is there any reason ten-year-old girls are so desperate to cling to the belief that Harry Potter is a real boy? They're emotionally attached to the idea like you're attached to the idea of Jesus. I'm simply advocating separating the intellect from emotions.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm not emotionally tied to the thought of Jesus......I'm not a Christian. I've done a bunch of reading from many sources and I can reasonably agree that Jesus most likely existed.

To say that there is no evidence means that you have not looked. Also, your're statement that much of our history is wrong shows that even if you were presented with solid evidence....you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.

I'm still waiting for your evidence to prove that statement to be correct.

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that much of history is false, the academics made stuff up to keep their job and that absolutely no evidence exists.


Let's see some evidence to back that up. Otherwise, you're just talking out your backside, making stuff up and refuse to look at this topic rationally.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
can any of the good researchers scrutinize this?

researcher claims to find eyewitness account of miracle in vaticN archives



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join