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: 41
94
<< 38  39  40   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You should probably familiarize yourself with what the Council of Nicaea was actually convened for before attempting to use it as an argument for Christ Mythcism. It had nothing to do with "what would be in the bible".




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The Council of Nicaea determined that Jesus was GOD. How much of an argument does one have to put forth to convincve the masses that the Council defined "Christ Mythicism"! Anything that was written that suggested that Jesus was NOT GOD or clashed with their agenda was defined as HERESY. Do you know what they did with heretics and heretical writings?

Did you know that immediately after the Council issued their proclamation some 600 Roman temples were sacked and burned, along with their scrolls and artwork.

So yeah, the Council DID determine what went in and what didn't go into the Bible. It was why the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi HAD to be hidden.


edit on 12-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




The Council of Nicaea determined that Jesus was GOD. How much of an argument does one have to put forth to convincve the masses that the Council defined "Christ Mythicism"!


We both know that Christ mythicism is defined within this thread (and elsewhere) as the attempt of some individuals to assert that Jesus never existed. There you go again, trying to muddy the waters.



Anything that was written that suggested that Jesus was NOT GOD or clashed with their agenda was defined as HERESY. Do you know what they did with heretics and heretical writings?


What does that have to do with the argument for or against a historical Jesus? Yes, the council of Nicaea was convened to clarify the nature of God and the trinity (and Jesus place in it), among other issues. Not to determine what was going to be in the bible.



Did you know that immediately after the Council issued their proclamation some 600 Roman temples were sacked and burned, along with their scrolls and artwork.


and?



So yeah, the Council DID determine what went in and what didn't go into the Bible.


No, it didn't.



It was why the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi HAD to be hidden.


The Dead Sea Scrolls were authored and buried long before Constantine was even born. Not only that, but they have virtually nothing to do with Jesus other than perhaps shedding some interesting light on the beliefs and practices of what would have been a group of his contemporaries. It is likely they were buried to keep them safe from the Romans during the fall of Jerusalem.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously about this issue (not that I do, personally) when you make such historically inaccurate claims?
edit on 12-11-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

NONSENSE! The Council of Nicaea declared that Jesus was not a mere mortal, but a GOD. That is the epitome of "Mythicism"! I didn't create or define the "Jesus Myth", the Catholic Church did.

You best believe that the Bible was continually being added to and subtracted from, well after the Council of Nicaea. Mark chapter 16 is a perfect example of that, as well as refined and forged to say what it needed to say (Romans 13 comes to mind). The piously forged epistles of Paul are another example of the influence of the Council of Nicaea on the Bible.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Mask
NOT ONE single living scholar in the field of history has ever published a single peer reviewed work disputing the existence of Jesus.

The garbage of "Mythicism" is highly ridiculed and unsupported by modern historians.

Since then- Most historians (as in almost all...almost 100%...even the most skeptical liberal historians) have admitted that Jesus was a real person.



Academic consensus does not even waste time looking at Jesus mythicism for it has all been debunked and discredited for decades and decades.


No offense Mask Monster, but maybe you're coming in too strong here?

If Jesus mythicism is a thing no one wastes time looking at ... why are there 'scholarly' articles specifically on "Against Mythicism: A case for the plausibility of a historical Jesus" published 2010 in the Think journal. Why are there articles debating the value of investigating historical Jesus in journals? Why do people like Meier publish work in the last ten years specifically addressing the criteria for the historicity of Jesus and the requirement of that criteria?

Perhaps you can say oh, these are theologians. They are not historians (Meier is though). Except most of Bart Ehrman's work is in theological or new testament study journals; I'm assuming Ehrman is considered reliable in this thread. These same type of journals publish things like 'Quantum Theory and the Resurrection of Jesus' and various other defenses of the historicity of miracles.

Meier compares the historical research on Jesus to Frankenstein's monster, calling Jesus 'barely recognizable as a 'human being'. Meier believes there is a historical Jesus, but I wouldn't say there is any consensus on who that was. I think we're both in agreement about basics on this, but it's worth pointing out that a lot of really bone headed researched gets published and republished over and over again. I think it's also worth pointing out that these 'ridiculed' myth theorists are being cited in academic works. Not just cited but actually debated.

In the same way I'll say that defending the existence of a God doesn't make you completely loony, I'll say that buying into the idea that Jesus isn't a historical figure is not jumping the shark either. It's in the realms of semi reasonable probability on both sides. Don't take this as a fence sitting post ... it's more like ... okay I can take believing in bigfoot, aliens seems reasonable, but if you believe Gandalf is a real wizard I might insist on a background check before going on a date or you know ... meeting. At all.


edit on 12-11-2014 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I've kept up on this subject, here and there in my spare time.

Seems I'm back on the fence with this one!

Maybe after I do some more research I'll explain my position.




top topics
 
94
<< 38  39  40   >>

log in

join