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: 28
94
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ShakeNBake

ALL those citation have already been discussed and summarily DEBUNKED in this thread!

I find it to be an absurd argument that the Christian Jesus character is defended because he must have been the ONLY person that was put to death for mischief associated with claims to being a "CHRIST", under a Roman Prefect that ruled for how many decades! Even the Bible has Jesus warning of all the others, past, present and future, claiming to "Christs". I'm fairly certain "Christs" were a common phenomena in those days.

Additionally, Josephus cannot be used to verify an historical Jesus Christ, one way or the other, for various reasons, including pious forgery.

Christians, believe what you want. Have all the faith you want, but please, please, please stop telling us this supernatural man/god was real historic person. It's just embarrassing!




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Lol, I am not going to read 26 pages worth of debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and how silly it might seem to someone it should be respected. Just as I respect your belief that Jesus never existed. I do have a question for you, what are your beliefs?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You do have the choice to listen to them or not.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ShakeNBake


Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and how silly it might seem to someone it should be respected. Just as I respect your belief that Jesus never existed.


The key word is "belief." Jesus Christ "requires" belief. When there is fact, such as is claimed by the historicity of Jesus Christ proponates, there is no need for belief, or faith.

The very need for belief and faith indicates that something is unprovable. So why do Christians keep claiming that there is proof for an historical man/god?

By the way, historically, the lack of belief in Jesus has NOT been respected. It's a new thing, and a very hard pill for most Christians to choke down, the fact that "Jesus Christ" may not have really existed, and that there are those who are willing to debate the obvious.



I do have a question for you, what are your beliefs?


I believe that I exist. I believe that everything that Christianity teaches, teaches that "I Am" the historic "Christ". I Am the "LOGOS" just as much as you are, or any other divine spark that seeps through the veil to be acknowledged, is.

For the LOGOS to be a reality, which is what Christianity is based on, it doesn't require Jesus Christ, or any other person to have lived as flesh on earth. The fact that we all do, exist as flesh, is the only historicity of the "real Jesus Christ" that there is.


edit on 16-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You seem like the kind of person that likes to research/read, so I'll make some interesting suggestions. Don't worry, they are not long reads. Look up the cases of Ed and Lorraine Warren (The Conjuring is based on a real life case). They are investigators of the supernatural. And if you are really up for it, find some legit real life exorcists/demon hunters and ask to be in the same room of a person that is possessed/haunted house and review your beliefs then. Because there is an evil force that exists in this world whether you believe it or not, which means that there also exists a God.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ShakeNBake




Because there is an evil force that exists in this world whether you believe it or not, which means that there also exists a God.



I don't believe in imperial good or evil. Are there forces that exist that don't promote "ideal circumstances" from my point of view? Sure.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShakeNBake
a reply to: windword

You seem like the kind of person that likes to research/read, so I'll make some interesting suggestions. Don't worry, they are not long reads. Look up the cases of Ed and Lorraine Warren (The Conjuring is based on a real life case). They are investigators of the supernatural. And if you are really up for it, find some legit real life exorcists/demon hunters and ask to be in the same room of a person that is possessed/haunted house and review your beliefs then. Because there is an evil force that exists in this world whether you believe it or not, which means that there also exists a God.


The fact that those things and many many more strange things can occur in no way have anything to do with your rendering of Creation or anything else.

In fact, one would think that someone called Jesus, a Man God, would have blown the doors off of all that kind of stuff, but no, nothing like that occurred, in fact nothing really changed at all.

I postulate that someone with such powers, would actually change the world, and it would not go back to what it was right after he leaves, and we would not be sitting here wasting our time listening to preachers, and having the world ruled by the same scum that always has.

Such ridiculously limited thought patterns are seen when looking at the world through these SMALL LENSES, it is no wonder they are used to promote the power struggle forever, with no conclusion, no winner.

Instead, I find myself able to do things that Christians fear totally, like questioning, asking, and dominating evil presences.

To walk into a church and shutdown the pastor because he is preaching nonsense is an interesting thing, makes one realize that these people really have NO IDEA what is going on in this world, or any other realm, and they are making sure that no one else can ever figure it out either.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShakeNBake
a reply to: windword

Lol, I am not going to read 26 pages worth of debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and how silly it might seem to someone it should be respected. Just as I respect your belief that Jesus never existed. I do have a question for you, what are your beliefs?


Doesn't matter anyways. What windword considers "debunked" and what the rest of the world considers "debunked" are two different things.

Windword has been schooled repeatedly on this subject, multiple times, in multiple threads here. He/She simply refuses to acknowledge the facts when they are presented. For instance, windword claims Nazareth was nothing more than a funerary ground in the 1st century. He/She has made this claim countless times as if it is fact, without ever providing a shred of modern evidence to support the claim.

Anyone with google can see that this claim is not true, and that nazareth has been excavated. It was a small village in the 1st century, and modern archaeological finds support this fact.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Geez, all ya gotta do is ask!

Nazareth –The Town that Theology Built

And, yes, I've been schooled. I've been studying this stuff for over 4 decades!



edit on 17-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Oh look, a link on the internet from jesusneverexisted.com... That must make it true.

archive.archaeology.org...



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I was hiking around my sunbaked land a few years ago, grew my beard out and had long hair. It just amazed me how often I’d be approached by Christians and told I looked like jesus! Because obviously we all know from Sunday school that jesus had long blonde hair, blue eyes a bronzed tan and killer set of abs, lol. I just loved to see how they slowly backed off with that blank look on there face when I said, “well actually, if jesus ever existed he would have looked far more like Osama Bin Laden”.

It actually goes back to the psychology of why the fictional character jesus was created by the roman elites in the first place. It was about creating a higher power that was in the image of the perfect common man, rather than the all-powerful perfect elite, as god was at the time. The purpose was to create an image the people could relate to, who stood with the masses for the common good over the evil elite. Kind of like the superman of the first century.

But now in an era where the masses are turning to the ideology of equality over power, jesus really is the only kind of logic Christians have to hold on to. Their holy book is infested with rape, slavery, misogyny, revenge and jealousy, but according to christians that’s all perfectly justified because “jesus was a pacifist and was all about peace and equality” (man).

Forget about the fact that god had no understanding of the most basic aspects of human psychology and made the huge mistake of even writing the old testament in the first place. He must have been like “goddamn, how about a little respect here! These people are just following the rules and not recognizing my incredible awesomeness whatsoever, what’s with that? Oh well, out with the old and in with the new, I’ll just cross my fingers and hope it works out this time round.” Who would have thought, an all mighty god that can’t even make his mind up and would be lucky to have an IQ of over 100.

Then there’s the Virgin Mary, as if we are supposed to believe she wasn’t being laid at the very least on the first night they were married? Unless of course the person who raised jesus was a closet homosexual, but how would that fit in with Christian philosophy? lol,

It actually makes a lot of sense though, ‘if’ jesus was based on a real person. Some bloke who’s not sexually attracted to women would have been still expected to marry a woman in those days, then when the wife goes looking for a bit of action from one of his mates all whatever and ends up pregnant, she’d only have two choices. End up on the streets (or stoned to death) or convince her husband that it’s a miracle from god. I’m sure this scenario was actually quite common back then by married Christian ladies who liked to get up to a little mischief.

Who would have thought? The only way to explain jesus birth of how it’s described in the bible, is that he had a homosexual father and fornicating mother.

edit on 18-10-2014 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

From your link



Next to Nazareth’s Church of the Annunciation, above, archaeologists uncovered a small house near the possible location of Jesus’s childhood home.


LOL! Is that all you've got? That's NOT a biased statement! /sarcasm


The world has been blessed by the fact that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists. In an earlier age they may well have "found" sandals neatly inscribed with "property of Jesus Christ". As it is, they diligently extract every last drop of sanctity from some pretty meagre findings. Yet for all their creative interpretations even the Franciscans cannot disguise the fact that the lack of evidence for a pre-Jesus village at the Nazareth site is virtually total.





edit on 18-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph




Next to Nazareth’s Church of the Annunciation, above, archaeologists uncovered a small house near the possible location of Jesus’s childhood home.


LOL! Is that all you've got?



Nope.

Lots more to look at, windword. Once again, your bias is showing.

Lets see... Jesusneverexisted.com (which is so full of holes it's ridiculous, and isn't even up to date), or modern archaeological finds...

Then you LOL because it was a small village? I thought you said it was a graveyard and nobody lived there? Yet the evidence shows there were homes there, and it was a small village...

LOL indeed.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Your citation does nothing to debunk the research presented. The area in which the 4th century city of Nazareth was built was a huge graveyard, that was used by the Judeans.

During the 1st century, there was NO city called Nazareth. There is virtually NO mention of Nazareth in the Old Testament, the Talmud, any of the Roman documents and not in any of Josephus elaborate documentation of the area of Galilee, it's towns, cities and outposts. NONE!


However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.



In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).

A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.

Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.

Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!

With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.

At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.


The fact that there were a few of family farms scattered through in the valley during the 1 century, now know as Nazareth, doesn't change the fact that the area claimed no town or a city, and certainly was not the home of an expensive synagogue and costly scrolls, as the Bible claims.
edit on 18-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Because it wasn't a city... It was a small village.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ShakeNBake

ALL those citation have already been discussed and summarily DEBUNKED in this thread!

I find it to be an absurd argument that the Christian Jesus character is defended because he must have been the ONLY person that was put to death for mischief associated with claims to being a "CHRIST", under a Roman Prefect that ruled for how many decades! Even the Bible has Jesus warning of all the others, past, present and future, claiming to "Christs". I'm fairly certain "Christs" were a common phenomena in those days.





Almost all historians say Jesus existed. Most of them not being religious in the least.

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.

Those who do not are usually one of the following (or all three)-

1) Not very respected.

2) Selling a book.

3) Uneducated fools.

MM
edit on 18-10-2014 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Jesus did exist and if you search you will find those in the first century that do write about him but more importantly I think it is more important for what he was and why he came here.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

Do you have any evidence for that claim which can be scientifically verified? Just because wikipedia says that most historians believe he existed means nothing, it still has to be backed up with solid scientific evidence to have any relevance.

I think the fact that people have been desperately searching for any evidence that jesus actually existed for so many years and have come up with absolutely nothing except for a few writings that have been shown to be a fraud or completely circumstantial, should set alarm bells in the head of any person who's intellectually capable of basic common sense. I mean for a historical figure that was so influential and apparently performed all those miracles, there should be endless verifiable writings dedicated to him, but yet in reality there are none.

Also, it would make perfect sense that historians who claim jesus never existed are not usually respected, since the church would do everything in there power to destroy there career, just like they have done to every other scientist or researcher who's made a claim that went against the teachings of the church throughout history.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I am not a historian. I am not a scholar.

I also don't argue with headline seeking hacks who have no respect in the field trying to sell his Christ hating book to a foaming mouthed hoard of New Atheists.

I am telling you the whole of academic history agrees all evidence shows Jesus was most likely a real person.

You want to argue with basic knowledge that an entire field of academia seems convinced of...be my guest. I rather just learn history.

MM



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

Once you show me the evidence that "an entire field of academia" has solid scientific evidence then I will not be arguing about anything. But I already know that you have nothing to back up this claim, except for a wikipeda page and a few christian websites claimng proven frauds as evidence.

Your free to have all the faith you want, but unless you can supply solid evidence that disputes the claims made in the article in the OP then your claim is nothing more than blind faith. The scientific evidence clearly supports the claim that jesus never existed.




top topics



 
94
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join