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: 32
94
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

Well the difference between Abe and Jesus is that we have Abe's writings to debunk the wild ideas that Americans have about him. We could easily go do the research to educate ourselves on the real man that was Abraham Lincoln, as you appear to have already done. We CAN'T do that for Jesus. All we have is the bible, which for all appearances, appears to just be one giant cult of personality. With nothing to compare the claims to, all we are left to do is say that the man Jesus did the things in the bible. And if that is the case, he couldn't have existed.




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask




Look...MOST historians think Jesus (the one mentioned in the bible) existed.


Who was this Jesus? Where was he born? When was he born? Who was his father? Where was he raised? Was he married? What did he do for a living?

If you tell me that the Bible tells an historically accurate story to answer these questions then I'm going to call you, and Lee Stroble and William Lane Craig intellectually dishonest liars. Archaeologists insist that Bethlehem wasn't inhabited during the 1st century, Nazareth wasn't a city, as the Bible says, there was no census and there was no "Slaughter of the Innocents".

So, who was this Jesus of which so called insist existed?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
If only hybrids were considered...

The magic like activities becomes nothing more then an attribute of their personal abilities.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Mr Mask




Look...MOST historians think Jesus (the one mentioned in the bible) existed.


Who was this Jesus? Where was he born? When was he born? Who was his father? Where was he raised? Was he married? What did he do for a living?

If you tell me that the Bible tells an historically accurate story to answer these questions then I'm going to call you, and Lee Stroble and William Lane Craig intellectually dishonest liars.



Ok you...I really hope you know that each time I have stated clearly that "magical Jesus" is very impossible by the laws of physics and all probability.

I also want to remind you that you keep dragging me directly back to being some theist.

Lane Craig!!!? Really? How are you attaching anything I am saying about "history" to a theologian's religious views based on his independent faith?

You seriously need to get control of your faith hating. Cus I am not a man of faith.

You ask above if I am saying magical Jesus is real. Sir, I have plainly replyed to you half a dozen times and each time I stated clearly "No...Most likely, historically no magic was involved".

You can't separate fictional tales about magic from real historical research...that's not helping this debate.

MM
edit on 24-10-2014 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Mr Mask

Well the difference between Abe and Jesus is that we have Abe's writings to debunk the wild ideas that Americans have about him.


And luckily we have the fundamental laws of physics to debunk much of what is said about Jesus.

MM



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

That and the knowledge of how the brain develops memories, ideas, and opinions; which all go a long way to also disproving the Jesus account.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

So, who was this Jesus of which so called insist existed?



Why don't you google historical Jesus and get educated on who he "most likely" was. You keep asking the same question over and over like its possible to get the man's driver license and read his FB posts for all his life.

Really man...this subject is basic academics. As basic as one can get really. It takes very little intelligence or energy to learn the details of what is known. You will do just fine.

MM



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Mr Mask

That and the knowledge of how the brain develops memories, ideas, and opinions; which all go a long way to also disproving the Jesus account.


Disproving Jesus being able to bend or break the laws of physics at will? Ya...you can say that.

But do you really need psychology and neuroscience to come to a proper conclusion on that? Nah.

MM



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

Again, more deflection.



Honestly...I can have any Jesus I want. And I can sense it upsets you greatly that most educated people think Jesus was "most likely real".


Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig were among the "scholars" that were cited in the most recent source citing "most scholars" say that there is proof for the biblical Jesus, scholars whose superior knowledge you have repeatedly told me that I should acquiesce to.

Truly educated people will tell you that believing in a historical Jesus Christ is a matter of faith, not fact.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

I was more referring to how stories and tales are embellished with retellings (and even with one's own memory) over time. How confirmation biases can make you see things that aren't there. That people with agendas tend to lie and distort the truth for the people they are leading. Basically things that even if the claims in the bible WEREN'T supernatural, could go a long way to disproving them as well.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig were among the "scholars" that were cited in the most recent source citing "most scholars" say that there is proof for the biblical Jessus.



Oh that's silly hahahaha. Neither are historians. Why would you listen to either of those people when looking for historic data? Oh man you REALLY REALLY REALLLLLY (overly really) are makiing it clear that this is all about you hating Churches and religions not "history and research".

When you think of "most historians" you picture two quacks who are neither respected or historians at all.

Christian Apologetics are NOT "history". Ok bro? In fact, NOBODY working as a historian gives a flying damn what those two say about anything...never mind Jesus.

Get off your "I hate Christians" wagon...leave them alone...and get back to "history". History has nothing to do with your anti-church anger.

Seriously...its getting really hard to type to you because you keep going back to magical claims and books of quackery while ignoring "history".

MM



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Truly educated people like Joseph Atwill, you mean? The businessman with no relevant credentials that is selling books about how the Romans invented Jesus?

There are what... 2 or 3 "truly educated" people in academia that are mythicists? The rest are in support of a historical Jesus. Even Bart Ehrman, who is 1) Educated, 2) a Non-Christian and 3) one of the most vocal New Testament critics around, acknowledges that mythicists haven't got a leg to stand on.

What I find most enjoyable about this merry go round we seem to be on, is that you yourself have your own theory about a historical jesus, yet here you are attempting to muddy the waters, obfuscate the key issues, and argue ad nauseum in favor of something you aren't even sure about.

Your entire stance is predicated on the notion that you don't believe Jesus was the miracle working Son of God. That isn't the real issue, is it?

ETA: Just curious, do you not consider William Lane Craig a scholar? You might not share his views, or think he is biased because he is a Christian Apologist, but the man has 2 doctorates.
edit on 24-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Mr Mask

I was more referring to how stories and tales are embellished with retellings (and even with one's own memory) over time. How confirmation biases can make you see things that aren't there. That people with agendas tend to lie and distort the truth for the people they are leading. Basically things that even if the claims in the bible WEREN'T supernatural, could go a long way to disproving them as well.


Absolutely. Surely that can be (and most likely is) involved in the long tale of Jesus.

Of course.

MM



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

Your entire stance is predicated on the issue that you don't believe Jesus was the miracle working Son of God. That isn't the real issue, is it?


Exactly...like any mainstream Historian is arguing for a "historical Jesus" that performed magic and came back to life.

I mean comon.

I respect people's right to faith and I try not to bash them for believing in things the laws of physics say is impossible. But why keep bashing religion and the fantastic accounts of "Magic Jesus" when this is about wether or not biblical Jesus was based on a real man who preached, gathered a cult, was arrested and ultimately crucified.


A historic Jesus does not open doors to a magical Jesus as far as history goes.

MM



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Why are people so obsessed with disproving the existence of Jesus? Why would the Romans write about a poor prophet far from the capital? The Roman Empire was almost at its peak during that time, do you think they cared about every little thing especially a poor carpenter performing miracles that have nothing to do with the Roman faith?

No one heard about Jesus UNTIL his follower wrote down the accounts of what they witnessed. To most people he was just another man executed by the Romans and hated by his OWN PEOPLE. Why would the Jews against him want to write about him? The article above says the historian only looked at a 60 or so year period I'm sure it took a while for the Christian faith to grow.

last point, Jesus preached for really really short period of time the window for someone writing about him was very small. also, the only people really able to write were the people with money, Jesus mostly associated with the poor
edit on 24-10-2014 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2014 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




What I find most enjoyable about this merry go round we seem to be on, is that you yourself have your own theory about a historical jesus, yet here you are attempting to muddy the waters, obfuscate the key issues, and argue ad nauseum in favor of something you yourself aren't even sure about.


Yes, it's true that I have my own theory about who a person that may fit some of the description of biblical Jesus could have been. But, whatever, whether I'm right or wrong in my personal theory, the biblical character of Jesus Christ and all his mystical, magical properties, is not a true historical figure. And without the magic, we don't have much to go on.


Most probably, Jesus of the Bible was an almalgination of a number of religious leaders and zealots, mixed with some political and mythical characters, to create the mythical man/god of the Bible.



edit on 24-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

There is also one more possibility to consider (actually not really, there are an infinite amount of those, but I'm sure you get my point). That the Jesus account is based on multiple people. Though I do have a bit of trouble believing that it was intentional (most likely a story or two that should have been attributed to someone else was attributed to Jesus).

To be honest, I see Jesus as just a small time cult leader with his twelve apostles being his followers. I have trouble believing that the man was peaceful and wise though. Cult followers tend to gloss over the bad traits of their leaders and attribute divine attributes to them. They do this through their charisma and ability to listen and empathize with everyone no matter the problem (these things start to sound familiar?).

Heck here is a Cracked article about someone being in a cult from the beginning of its inception and the description of its leader sounds eerily close to how someone would describe Jesus through glossed over eyes. If the only people who remember and describe the man (despite him being an insane criminal) are the people who follow him, naturally all the bad things will disappear and he will eventually start to look benevolent.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI




Why are people so obsessed with disproving the existence of Jesus? Why would the Romans write about a poor prophet far from the Capital? The Roman Empire was almost at its peak during that time, do you think they cared about every little thing especially a poor carpenter performing miracles that have nothing to do with the Roman faith?


That's the problem. We don't have any contemporary Roman records of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Son of Joseph or Jesus Christ.

What we do have is Josephus' record of 6000 Jewish men being crucified on crosses outside the wall of Jerusalem during the Siege of Jerusalem.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But see everything you claim is complete speculation and bias... You are obviously not Christian and claim that Jesus is the opposite of what is written about him. If the cult/Romans/illuminati whatever wanted a to make up a religion don't you think the message would be different?

I'm just stating that i think most people who research the possibility of Jesus being a fake person is usually going to find their bias somehow someway.

I feel like its really easy for an atheist to find the answer they seek just as easily at a deeply religious person



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI




I'm just stating that i think most people who research the possibility of Jesus being a fake person is usually going to find their bias somehow someway.


When Bart Ehrman, a Christian, first enter Bible college to earn a degree in divinity, he had n agenda or bias of debunking Christianity. His "scholarly research led him to the proof of pious forgeries, mistranslations, interpolations and contradictions.

I was a Christian who, also, found out that I had been lied to. No bias confirmation was involved.



edit on 24-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join