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.

 

New Series on SCI channel (US): Biblical Conspiracies

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: sdubya


The thing that gets me the most, is not evidence, but the people who claim to be Christian but then act like asshats. Can I say that on ATS?

YEP! You can say that.
And I hope you continue to do so.




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TzarChasm


what about tacitus?

Honestly, I haven't looked into Tacitus (that I recall). But I shall, and I will!

So - what about the allegations of forgery/fraud in Josephus?



josephus was a lawyer, tacitus was a historian. josephus kept records as a hobby, tacitus kept records as a profession. you want to call them liars or idiots, that's your thing. but you gotta prove it if you want me to take that as fact.


Eusebius was a liar and a forger. There are many, in the history of the early Christian church, who were guilty of pious forgeries in the name of "Christ"



tacitus makes a very explicit reference to christus, and there is only one person who would have been referred to as a christ in the context he was writing. "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" this is what he wrote. you are calling him a liar? an idiot? what? despite your objections, tacitus wrote about jesus. unless you can show us another christ whom gave christians their name and suffered horribly at the hands of pontius.


Tacitus never, ever mentions Jesus. To claim that Tacitus' "Christ" is your Jesus is just bias confirmation. Even your Jesus said:


Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


There are plenty of "Christs" out there in the historic annals, to have a reasonable, credible doubt that Tacitus is talking about the biblical Jesus. Especially after all that happened with the Jewish Wars, of which Jesus was not an issue, and the destruction of the Roman destination resort of Pompeii.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Praetorius

I believe the Book of John wasn't written until around 110. The alleged eye-witness accounts weren't and were second-hand reports anyway which is simply rumor. I know many believers want to take second, third, fourth, fifth and so on-hand accounts as evidence but it simply isn't. The fact that there simply are no eye-witness accounts combined with the fact that virtually the same stories with only the name changed were told about much older deities adds up to a made-up character as being the most likely scenario.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Praetorius

To answer your question, to the best of my knowledge there are no originals extant of the books of the Bible. This is all built on a house of straw.

It's not silly to hold Jesus to the same standards as applied to Odin or Paul Bunyan.

The Jewish power structure at the time didn't have nearly the clout of the Flavian caesars. They had enough clout to cause problems for the Flavians and inventing a messiah who supported Roman rule (ie. "Render unto Casear...) would have been very helpful to the Flavians if, in fact, it happened that way. It wasn't uncommon then, as it isn't uncommon now, for those in control to write history to benefit them. Look at how Constantine changed things. Look how the Egyptian pharaoh who insisted that one god be worshipped above all others (the claim that he was a monotheist is another convenient lie) changed things. This stuff happens.

You will note that the truth about the lack of historical evidence about Jesus has consistently been hidden by clergy. Other than clergy, most people get their religious education from religious schools, Sunday schools, televangelists, religious books, the Bible (very, very few people have read the entire Bible) and Bible camp: all sources highly motivated to not reveal the lack of historical evidence. They also get it from family members who were also denied the facts. Very few people who are not religious watch television programming about religion and would go nuts if any program stated the lack of evidence. Sponsors would likely be boycotted. The television industry exists to make money. They're not about to shoot their cash cow in the leg.

Most people still don't know that the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation. But your point was that it didn't remain hidden for long. The truth about the lack of historical evidence proving the existence of Jesus didn't remain hidden, either, but the political climate for much of that time was not favorable to anyone standing up in public and stating it. It's still not favorable. Some scholars and others do state it now but only a miniscule percentage of the population reads scholarly works about any subject. Moreover, the reception one gets for bringing it up isn't too pleasant. People are pretty much sheep. Most are terrified of going against the herd. Surely, the same situation exists in cultures who are predominantly some other religion.

Thank you for the reasoned discussion. It's much appreciated.
My objective really isn't to get people to stop believing but, rather, to get them to the point where they recognize that their beliefs are beliefs not facts. At that point, a dialogue can begin.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

AGREED that this issue is just too delicate to legislate and reach any kind of compassionate choice, particularly where rape and incest, and extreme poverty, are involved. the issue i'm having, however, with the left's position in it is, they have no problem with the one child policy which forced women by government writ, to be sterilized, aborted, and medically altered to have IUDs implanted (often against their wishes).



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

it's worse than you think, since i have reasonable suspicion that the vatican actually started the "enlightenment" since they were losing the bulk of europe to other religions (like protestantism, mysticism, paganism, occultism, masonry, rosicrucianism and so on) when it was discovered, after the text of the bible was finally printed in english and other european languages and disseminated across europe, that most of what they were teaching was not in the bible at all.

this essentially means that modern atheism is suffering from the same maladies as its holy roman predecessor - a handful of the same suspects, are still guiding the conversation, dictating fact and fiction and ordering holocausts, wars, and all the other ills of modern society (and getting away with it by pointing to stuff done 300 years ago and ignoring that they are doing the same exact thing themselves).



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Tangerine

it's worse than you think, since i have reasonable suspicion that the vatican actually started the "enlightenment" since they were losing the bulk of europe to other religions (like protestantism, mysticism, paganism, occultism, masonry, rosicrucianism and so on) when it was discovered, after the text of the bible was finally printed in english and other european languages and disseminated across europe, that most of what they were teaching was not in the bible at all.

this essentially means that modern atheism is suffering from the same maladies as its holy roman predecessor - a handful of the same suspects, are still guiding the conversation, dictating fact and fiction and ordering holocausts, wars, and all the other ills of modern society (and getting away with it by pointing to stuff done 300 years ago and ignoring that they are doing the same exact thing themselves).


Protestantism is not, in itself, a religion. It's a division of Christianity. Mysticism is not a religion. Paganism is a catchall for a number of religions. Occultism isn't a religion. Masonry isn't a religion. Rosicrucianism isn't a religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by modern atheism suffering from the same maladies as its holy roman predecessor (ie. Roman Catholicism). The number of atheists continues to rise.




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join