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: 37
94
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Just want to say I did a little more research on this and I'm going back to my original position which was the majority of scholars do believe Jesus Christ was a historical figure. Where there is much disagreement is when it comes down to the theological claims made about him. e.g. virgin birth, the Son of God, the miracles, the resurrection, etc.
edit on 28-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer




Just want to say I did a little more research on this and I'm going back to my original position which was the majority of scholars do believe Jesus Christ was a historical figure.


With all due respect, and I do respect your posts, what are you saying here?

Are you saying that, based on your research, your position is, "most scholars believe Jesus Christ was a historic figure?" Or, is you position that you believe that Jesus Christ existed because most scholars say so?


Where there is much disagreement is when it comes down to the theological claims made about him. e.g. virgin birth, the Son of God, the miracles, the resurrection, etc.


LOL! Thanks Captain Obvious! But that's NOT the crux of disagreement in this thread. The arguments in this thread are based on what is factual and known to be true, I thought. Obviously, I disagree with "most scholars and with the "apoloigetics" that they present as evidence.

I still contend, Belief that Jesus Christ was real is a matter of faith, not fact.





edit on 28-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Just want to say I did a little more research on this and I'm going back to my original position which was the majority of scholars do believe Jesus Christ was a historical figure. Where there is much disagreement is when it comes down to the theological claims made about him. e.g. virgin birth, the Son of God, the miracles, the resurrection, etc.


I suppose this is the part where the vying enemy forces intervened and altered history to reflect what most aided their own campaign of power and dominion.

All of it was hijacked so how shall we remove the bits of truth from the concocted fabricated story?

It is all theoretical guesswork without much in the way of 'proof'. The enemy is very crafty having many followers throughout the ages, they can make history look any way they want.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see someone actually follow a thread through so many pages, and actually view both sides of the argument. It's inspiring that even though you have changed your perspective multiple times, you are able to:

1) Change your mind based on the evidence

2) View both sides of the argument objectively

3) Admit that you might have been in error as your research continued.

It is nice to see some intellectual honesty around here for a change.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see someone actually follow a thread through so many pages, and actually view both sides of the argument. It's inspiring that even though you have changed your perspective multiple times, you are able to:

1) Change your mind based on the evidence

2) View both sides of the argument objectively

3) Admit that you might have been in error as your research continued.

It is nice to see some intellectual honesty around here for a change.


Great that you and how ever many others are all standing back and seeing the same 'refreshness' . Everything you said is spot on and that is a true sign of one whom has left aside his ego for the purity and struggle of the truth........'what ever that is'. Well I guess its what we all will find out..........and are finding out.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   
is this 'scholar' jewish?
that would explain why he works so hard to dispell jesus.

another case of 'do as i say not as i do'

i do not disrespect anyone's beliefs.
anyone who goes to great lengths to do so, is a bigot.
writing a book and 'research' is a bigot.

no need to read his crap.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

The name 'Jesus' is Late Latin (circa 3rd to 7th centuries) and so it was not used / known at all, in the time period being investigated.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maigret
a reply to: Spider879

The name 'Jesus' is Late Latin (circa 3rd to 7th centuries) and so it was not used / known at all, in the time period being investigated.






posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Are you saying that, based on your research, your position is, "most scholars believe Jesus Christ was a historic figure?" Or, is you position that you believe that Jesus Christ existed because most scholars say so?

Honestly, a little bit of both. During the course of this thread (at least from where I started paying attention) I did some "armchair scholar" googlin' to get a better, but still general, idea of both sides. I did not buy or read any full length books on the subject or dig into any peer reviewed papers. I do trust that the learned scholars that have studied the subject are in a better position than myself to come to an informed conclusion. While I do agree some of the evidence (and sometimes lack thereof) is worth scrutinizing, and may even be fabricated, I didn't feel right about jumping to conclusions based on my own feelings or opinions. If a quick search on the internet yields little in the form of concrete proof, but does reflect there is almost universal agreement in a historical Jesus, I'm faced with two conclusions. Either A) There is a massive conspiracy to cover up a conspiracy about the fabrication of Jesus Christ. Or B) Most scholars, theist and secular, have pretty good reasons for concluding there was a historical Jesus. Now, perhaps the answer is A. If that's the case, kudos to the conspirators because they've fooled most the scholars for 2000 years. I'm not really comfortable with A, though I won't outright say it's an impossibility, I do feel it unlikely. I think option B has merit. I suppose now you'll want some evidence and I'm not sure I can give you any that won't be dismissed as forgery. Rightfully or un-rightfully so would ultimately come down to a matter of opinion I think. I know the Bible doesn't prove the Bible either, of course! But I don't think it's all made up, entirely. Some of the places talked about in the Bible, were or are real places. Just like some of the people are known, or believed to be historical figures. Such as John the Baptist. In fact the two things about Jesus scholars agree most on is that he was baptized by John and crucified by Pilate. I'm inclined to trust what the majority of scholars believe. It seems silly to say they are all wrong on this issue. Though they very well could be. In the end, all I can honestly say is that I don't know if there was a historical Jesus or not. And I'm not losing any sleep over it either. A great subject I will keep researching, and more in depth if I find the time.

I thought this brief article brought up a few valid points. What do you think?

Debunking the "Jesus Myth" Myth

Ok 6AM time to sleep.
edit on 28-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Thanks for your refreshingly respectful answer.




I thought this brief article brought up a few valid points. What do you think?

Debunking the "Jesus Myth" Myth


UGH! That made my eyes bleed.

In my opinion, the article is an intellectually dishonest appeal to authority, that betrays the author's bias right from the get go. Not once does he refer to the existence of an historic person named "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus the son of Joseph", but he immediately jumps at the title Jesus Christ, a title that "most Christian scholars" agree, that Jesus the Nazarene most certainly would not wear, if he existed, as it was widely attached to pagans and charlatans.


We have found this man to be a troublemaker who is constantly stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the cult known as the Nazarenes.
ACTS 24:5


(So while early "Christians" weren't called Christians, but Nazarene or Followers of the Way, it makes one wonder, who were the "Christians" that Saul of Tarsus was persecuting? )

It is a well known fact that, what we now call "early Christians" were people who actually resisted the title "Christian" and called themselves Nazarene, or Followers of the Way. So why would anyone think that Jesus the Nazarene accepted it? "Christ" is a title that was, most certainly bestowed on Jesus after his death. So, while there may have been a man named Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the son of Joseph, the author of the article "Debunking the “Jesus Myth” Myth" did nothing to prove that person's existence.

In actuality, Jesus doesn't fit the "Messiah" that the Jews were expecting. Interesting fact, Josephus, in his writings claimed that Vespasian fulfilled the prophecy for the coming Messiah, even though there are claims that he referred to Jesus as "the Christ". Another reason, in my opinion, not to trust the Josephus argument and dismiss the passages as just another pious forgery by well intentioned zealot Christians.


As far as John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate being the 2 things that ALL historians agree to be true????????

Those are the only two people, that Jesus supposedly met, that WERE actually historically real people. The facts of their historic existence hardly does anything to prove that Jesus, himself also existed. The real problem for Christians is, without John the Baptist's acknowledgement that Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Messiah, the whole myth falls apart. Prophecy requires that Elijah is the "voice in the wilderness" announcing the Messiah has arrived. The biblical narrative has John the Baptist filling that role. Without John the Baptist, you CAN'T have a Jesus Christ! In the biblical narrative, Jesus claims that John the Baptist IS Elijah, tying the prophecy neatly together. Then, conveniently, we have Jesus standing with Moses and Elijah after his supposed resurrection. reinforcing the prophecy of Elijah.

So, the Bible itself, claiming that Jesus met the historical character of John the Baptist and of Pontius Pilate really does nothing to prove that the story and its narrative isn't historical fiction, carefully tooled to fit Jewish prophecy. We see a lot of that in the New Testament.


It's a fascinating topic, in my opinion, and I have studied it for decades. The "Myth" surrounding the subject of "Jesus Christ" can't be dismissed as bunk with the simple wave of the hand, and pretty rhetoric. There is clearly a composite of Jewish, Egyptian, Greek, Eastern and Pagan philosophy and theology woven into the tapestry of the New Testament narrative, as well as an attempt at defining this new "Christian Universal Religion".

As I have stated many times before, nobody explains the mythicism surrounding the Christian mysteries better than Plutarch does in his letter to Clea.

LINK

The truth is out there.
Thanks for reading
Peace out

edit on 28-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

B.C means before Christ. He wouldn't of loved in any B.C. He lived 33 years. Also, Jesus is the Greek translation.
That's not His birth name. It is not His Hebrew name! There is plenty of proof the man we call Jesus lived here on earth.
The early church suffered a lot and they wouldn't of done all they did and died in the way they did had Jesus been a fantasy! The letters, the gospel accounts, these are all historical writings written not years and years after Jesus. They lived in an oral culture also, and so it wasn't like the 'telephone game'. The so called 'scholars' that question his existence are lying, history revisionists that rely on dummies to believe them.
edit on 28-10-2014 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: soaringhawk
a reply to: Spider879

B.C means before Christ. He wouldn't of loved in any B.C. He lived 33 years. Also, Jesus is the Greek translation.
That's not His birth name. It is not His Hebrew name! There is plenty of proof the man we call Jesus lived here on earth.
The early church suffered a lot and they wouldn't of done all they did and died in the way they did had Jesus been a fantasy! The letters, the gospel accounts, these are all historical writings written not years and years after Jesus. They lived in an oral culture also, and so it wasn't like the 'telephone game'. The so called 'scholars' that question his existence are lying, history revisionists that rely on dummies to believe them.

There might of been a "Jesus" with a small "j" and then there is the "Jesus" with the big "J" the one who came from a virgin birth,walked on water,reanimate corpse etc .. for me that reads like something out of a Hercules story,if non people of the "BOOK" read his story in any other religious text they would write it off as pagan rubbish.
edit on 28-10-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I think there is some over enthusiasm when it comes to debunking 'Jesus as myth' theory which is an odd thing to say given I believe in a historical Jesus.

What I'm getting at is this idea that scholars 'laugh' the theory out of town or that we should treat Jesus mythers the same way we treat moon landing hoaxers is just way off mark. Take the article posted by WakeUpBeer for example:

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

Debunking the "Jesus Myth" Myth



The article uses 'acts' to back up some of what it says. The truth of the matter is that 'acts' is a set of later writings. The truth of the matter is that the major letters of Paul, the ones definitely written by a single author, tell us very little about Jesus as a historical person even when it would be appropriate to do so. As far as the Christian martyr explanation goes, the cult of the Bacchanalia were executed and weren't based on a historical figure; people literally died for nothing. They were based on Bacchus the Roman God of wine, freedom, and ecstasy. By the Christian's own writings, they only came for Jesus initially. Given the swift execution and persecution of other cults, it neither seems likely that Christians were a particular threat to the empire or persecuted with the same zeal as other more dangerous sects and cults. Some of the sources we have for Romans commenting on Christianity paint them out as gullible fools rather than some dangerous sect in need of purging.

Further to this, it wasn't uncommon for various sects to write about false debates between their chosen figures of worship. The Mandeans and other groups would write discussions between characters like Pontius Pilate, Jesus, and John the Baptist which clearly never happened. They are neither consistent with the Gospels or with history. We discard them outright. It isn't anything new either. It may seem odd now but it wasn't uncommon for ancient people to assume characters such as Zeus had some historical basis and write about them as real. The idea that there would be an out pouring of Jewish writings debating the existence of a historical character is no more reasonable than the idea that there should be well produced documentaries debunking the lies of various celebrities etc ... Generally speaking the movement has to get some real traction before anyone bothers to use the most expensive medium of the times to critique it.

We also have evidence of quite elaborate cults and beliefs appearing within our own life times manufactured from events that lasted considerably less than three years. We have serial killers making claims which have become part of urban legend and even accepted fact by many. We have events such as Roswell where a seemingly small occurrence has become huge. We have examples of cults which have exploded within just a few years. The formation of Dianetics in scientology was produced in 1952, by 1957 it had produced multiple brick and mortar churches. Hubbard didn't exactly turn water into wine during this time. Actually if anyone investigated Hubbard's behaviours they might never have followed him. There are also characters such as Pythagoras that sit in similar spaces to Jesus where historians debate the character's historicity. Was Pythagoras a real figure or simply a cult creation?

So while I don't agree with it, I can see the case. Further from that, I can see the constant pattern of denial. It used to be historicity advocates would say 'no educated person would say', then it was 'no serious scholar would say', now they're down to insisting that the scholar must hold a teaching position at a university. It's just appeal to authority based elitism. If anything it further convinces myth advocates that they are correct.

On a side note, I do believe the other side focuses faaaaaaar too much on 'magical' Jesus. Contrary to windword's suggestion that we can't divorce magical Jesus from 'real' Jesus, I believe 'knowing' Jesus and 'mythical' Jesus are two very separate claims. Personally I believe there is likely a historical Jesus but I don't believe anyone knows who that was.

Sorry for the long post, I just feel both sides of this particular debate give undue disrespect to each other's cases.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Predictably, you failed to address even ONE of the questions the author of that piece poses to mythicists, and instead focus on muddying the waters by trying to draw a distinction between "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Jesus Christ", when we all know they are one in the same. You also know that Christ is a translation of the term "Messiah".

You should know (but don't seem to), that Jesus also refers to himself as the Messiah in the NT.



So why would anyone think that Jesus the Nazarene accepted it? "Christ" is a title that was, most certainly bestowed on Jesus after his death.


Jesus native tongue would have been Aramaic, so no, he would not have used the word "Christ". If he doesn't want to be associated as the messiah, why is the New Testament full of quotes from Jesus himself claiming to be just that?

Then you go on to YET AGAIN focus on "magical jesus" and try to deflect the debate away from historical jesus. This debate is about whether or not Jesus existed as a historical figure, not whether or not he performed miracles or was resurrected.

Your arguments are weak (as usual).



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christós" (i.e. Jesus, the anointed; or "Jesus, the Messiah" by his followers) after his death and believed resurrection.

Before, Jesus was usually referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus son of Joseph". In the epistles of Paul the Apostle, the earliest texts of the New Testament, Paul most often referred to Jesus as "Christ Jesus", or "Christ". Christ was originally a title, yet later became part of the name "Jesus Christ", though it is still also used as a title, in the reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning "The Messiah Jesus". en.wikipedia.org...






edit on 28-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph



I am amused! You won't find a name that didn't exist... logic.

You see, God told me the name of His Son is not Jesus, so I KNOW Jesus is a myth and never existed!

This also makes 'Jesus' the Antichrist, because this mythical character stands in place of the true Messiah, and Satan misleads people into worshipping this character as God, and thus causes their religious desolation, this being an abomination to God.

The words of the Son in the New Testament do not make any sense in the Christian context, except those few that are distorted. This is why people can't 'read' the Bible and have to rely on ministers of religion, who couldn't make any sense of it on their own either. This is the simple reason for the large number of different denominations.

People throughout the Old Testament regularly heard from God, yet since the sacrifice of 'Jesus' [sic] there is complete silence.

This is because the sacrificial blood of a mythical character CANNOTcleanse you of your sins, provide salvation, or put you into personal contact with our Creator; but if you get the true source of the Blood, you have these things!!

P.S. The difference between the two is one is a mythical Christian deity and the true Messiah, Yeshua, is 'kosher Jewish' High Priest to our Creator.
edit on 31/10/2014 by Maigret because: Add P.S.

edit on 31/10/2014 by Maigret because: Clarification



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Maigret

Do you understand that the name Jesus is the english transliteration of the aramaic "Yeshua"? Apparently not.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Do you not understand this confusion and false worship is the whole reason why the Holy Spirit of God says through Peter, in Acts 4:12, 'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name, under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved'.

Or John 3:16-18, which begins with 'For God so loved the world... and ends with [he is condemned already] 'because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God'.

If you don't know his name, you don't know him; as is proven by the differences I have shown, between other names attributed to him by men which makes him into something he isn't, and his own name given to him by his Creator Father, which shows what he is!

Also, the name 'Yeshua' means 'the LORD saves' which indicates that it is the Creator of the Universe who provides salvation' and every time we say this name, we proclaim this fact. Whereas the name 'Jesus' has no such inherent meaning except what men mistakenly attribute to it.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Im just curious, and I may be wrong here, but werent the words of Mattew, Mark, Luke, and John written personally by people that knew jesus? Where are their actual writings, and why werent they included in this 'research'?

I mean their stories are supposedly their telling of when they met and followed Jesus. So whats the deal with that?



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: phishfriar47

You are correct. The author cited in the OP discards this fact however (as do all mythicists), because said authors and witnesses were the first Christians, therefore it is assumed their testimony is unreliable.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join