It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:03 PM

originally posted by: randyvs
There is a more than credible argument in favor of
a risen Christ using only the facts that 95% of critics
concede Windword. Blah hahhhahah! Or whatever.


posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:08 PM
a reply to: noeltrotsky


You can say that all you want and be just as much wrong.
But nice retort.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:23 PM

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: windword

It's 95. And I said concede.

No.1 The disciples were convinced they saw the risen Christ.

How do you explain that? What caused them to believe after doubting?

Randy not to harp but you really should read the article from the OP it is freaking mindblowing.

But once again, the verses came from a creative scribe long after the Gospel of Mark was written. In fact, the earliest versions of Mark stop at 16:8. It’s an awkward ending, with three women who have gone to the tomb where Jesus was laid after the Crucifixion encountering a man who tells them to let the disciples know that the resurrected Jesus will see them in Galilee. The women flee the tomb, and “neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.’’

In early copies of the original Greek writings, that’s it. The 12 verses that follow in modern Bibles—Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene and the Disciples and then ascending to Heaven—are not there. A significant moment that would be hard to forget, one would think.

Basicly any english bible that you may have read is so flawed by that I mean mistranslated or containing complete forgeries that it is guaranteed that if you are following it as the word of god then you can't possibly be following the true word of god.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:26 PM

originally posted by: Entreri06

What (if any) are the reliable historical accounts of Jesus, from either during his life or within the couple decades after?

Newsweek put out an article highlighting the contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the bible. So I was just wondering what Verifiable sources from that time we actually have.

Thanks all

Well sure. With the early biblical accounts discredited the bible is a sitting duck then. Thats if you believe this stupid premise.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:28 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

You probably are not anymore qualified to make that comment than a brick. Certainly you must admit at best a regurgitation.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:33 PM

originally posted by: BeenieWeenie
1 Thessalonians, is a book from the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The first letter to the Thessalonians was probably the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52,[1] making it the first written book in the New Testament.

This is wrong and uninformed, undereducated and stupid.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:36 PM
a reply to: Logarock

I am just as qualified as you to make any comment I wish. In fact if you haven't read the article I mention then that would make me far more qualified than you so give it a rest.

Simple truth is if someone anyone who truly cares about following the teachings of the bible they should want to follow the true teachings and not what has been proven to be mans forgeries and interpretations of what they currently have in their personal bible.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:46 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

No your not. Not everyone you talk to on here is spewing junk they heard on their grandmas knee and never looked into it yourself. Having done so myself I know what a quack look like around here.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:49 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Come on now Pach, you must at least admit it
sounds even less than some of the atheist rants
around here? Respectfully of course.

But anyway, was Paul not a scholar? And was he

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:09 PM
a reply to: randyvs

I assume you read that entire article. I admit it took me a while to read it all but I was distracted but what do you say to the parts of Paul that were forged based on the original earlier texts that were in Greek that they were supposed to be translated from? Entire passages were not in the originals. Or how the council of Nicea brought what were basically warring factions of Christianity together and made them agree to a version of the bible under threat of banishment or slaughter? That happened 50 years later on as well. How about how Constantine declared Sunday as a day of rest in honor of the sun god previous to that it was Saturday also back then the birth of the sun god was celebrated on December 25 in Rome which we all know what day that is now.

That isn't even the half of it. So when you ask about Paul are you asking about what modern english Bibles claim about Paul or are you referring to what Paul has actually said historically because the two are not the same.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:12 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Or how the council of Nicea brought what were basically warring factions of Christianity together and made them agree to a version of the bible under threat of banishment or slaughter?

What are you talking about? Nicaea had nothing to do with the cannon of scripture, Nicaea was convened to address the Arian heresy and settle on a date for Easter.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:27 PM
a reply to: NOTurTypical

It would be much better if you had read the article but I will post a portion of it dealing with The Council of Nicea as well as the meeting that occurred 50 years later.

Constantine convened a meeting in the lakeside town of Nicaea. Invitations were sent around the world to bishops and leaders of various sects, although not all of them. The group included the educated and the illiterate, zealots and hermits. Constantine arrived wearing jewels and gold on his scarlet robe and pearls on his crown, eager to discuss the true essence of a poor carpenter who had died 300 years before.

Things that are today accepted without much thought were adopted or reinforced at Nicaea. For example, the Old Testament was clear in declaring that God rested on the seventh day, making it the Sabbath. The seventh day of the week is Saturday, the day of Jewish worship and rest. (Jesus himself invoked the holiness of the Jewish Sabbath.) The word Sunday does not appear in the Bible, either as the Sabbath or anything else. But four years before Nicaea, Constantine declared Sunday as a day of rest in honor of the sun god.

At Nicaea, rules were adopted regarding the proper positions for prayer on Sundays—standing, not kneeling; nothing was said of the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday. Many theologians and Christian historians believe that it was at this moment, to satisfy Constantine and his commitment to his empire’s many sun worshippers, that the Holy Sabbath was moved by one day, contradicting the clear words of what ultimately became the Bible. And while the Bible mentioned nothing about the day of Jesus’s birth, the birth of the sun god was celebrated on December 25 in Rome; Christian historians of the 12th century wrote that it was the pagan holiday that led to the designation of that date for Christmas.

The majority of the time at Nicaea was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the son of God, as Arius proclaimed, or God himself, as the church hierarchy maintained. The followers of Arius marshaled evidence from the letters of Paul and other Christian writings. In the Gospel of Mark, speaking of the Second Coming, Jesus said, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he wrote that “there is but one God, the Father…and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ.” In his letter to Timothy, Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s writings are consistent in his reference to God as one being and Jesus as his son. Same with the Gospel of Matthew, where Peter tells Jesus that he is the “Son of the living God” and Jesus responds that “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’’ Jesus even called out to God as his “Father” as he was dying on the cross.

But Constantine sided with those who believed Jesus was both God and man, so a statement of belief, called the Nicene Creed, was composed to proclaim that. Those who refused to sign the statement were banished. Others were slaughtered. After they had returned home and were far from Rome, some who signed the document later sent letters to Constantine saying they had only done so out of fear for their lives.

About 50 years later, in A.D. 381, the Romans held another meeting, this time in Constantinople. There, a new agreement was reached—Jesus wasn’t two, he was now three—Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Nicene Creed was rewritten, and those who refused to sign the statement were banished, and another wholesale slaughter began, this time of those who rejected the Trinity, a concept that is nowhere in the original Greek manuscripts and is often contradicted by it.

To this day, congregants in Christian churches at Sunday services worldwide recite the Nicene Creed, which serves as affirmation of their belief in the Trinity. It is doubtful many of them know the words they utter are not from the Bible, and were the cause of so much bloodshed. (Some modern Christians attempt to use the Gospel of John to justify the Trinity—even though it doesn’t explicitly mention it—but they are relying on bad translations of the Greek and sentences inserted by scribes.)

To understand how what we call the Bible was made, you must see how the beliefs that became part of Christian orthodoxy were pushed into it by the Holy Roman Empire. By the fifth century, the political and theological councils voted on which of the many Gospels in circulation were to make up the New Testament. With the power of Rome behind them, the practitioners of this proclaimed orthodoxy wiped out other sects and tried to destroy every copy of their Gospels and other writings.

And recall that they were already working from a fundamentally flawed document. Errors and revisions by copyists had been written in by the fifth century, and several books of the New Testament, including some attributed to Paul, are now considered forgeries perpetrated by famous figures in Christianity to bolster their theological arguments. It is small wonder, then, that there are so many contradictions in the New Testament. Some of those contradictions are trivial, but some create huge problems for evangelicals insisting they are living by the word of God.

Did you know this about the Christian denominations killing each other leading up to the Council?

Christians are believed to have massacred more followers of Jesus than any other group or nation.

Those who believed in the Trinity butchered Christians who didn’t. Groups who believed Jesus was two entities—God and man—killed those who thought Jesus was merely flesh and blood. Some felt certain God inspired Old Testament Scriptures, others were convinced they were the product of a different, evil God. Some believed the Crucifixion brought salvation to humankind, others insisted it didn’t, and still others believed Jesus wasn’t crucified.

Indeed, for hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, groups adopted radically conflicting writings about the details of his life and the meaning of his ministry, and murdered those who disagreed. For many centuries, Christianity was first a battle of books and then a battle of blood. The reason, in large part, was that there were no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian, so most sects had their own gospels.

Look I just find all of this interesting but I would think Christians would more so than I.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 07:40 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

That's a pretty skewed revision of history...

Council of Nicaea; Fact VS Myth

Nicaea Myths

Nicaea History and Myths

So you have it backwards, Arius was challenging the centuries old traditions of the Christian doctrine and had gathered quite a following in Egypt, the council was called to finally address the issue as a church body. It wasn't that a new Christology was fabricated, it's that the same Christology was affirmed.

And P.S. you need to source your quotes, that's considered plagiarism here at ATS. Friendly F.Y.I.

edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:03 PM
a reply to: NOTurTypical

First it isn't plagiarism and I don't know why I need to source the quotes from the article in the OP is that a new thing now? In that last few posts I have been talking about the article in the OP. Maybe you missed that. I always felt it was common courtesy to read articles if the are sourced in OPs I know this one is a long one but still as I said it is interesting.

Anyway after going through your links that are all heavily biased to reinforce common beliefs it looks to me as they use the bible to prove the bible more than anything so that is to circular for me.

So as I said I think it would be much better if you read the article which is sourced at the beginning of the thread in the OP. I will borrow this from that article because I agree with the message. If you feel like taking the time to read then conversation about the finer points may be worthwhile.

This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity. Instead, Christians seeking greater understanding of their religion should view it as an attempt to save the Bible from the ignorance, hatred and bias that has been heaped upon it. If Christians truly want to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion, they have to know it. Too many of them seem to read John Grisham novels with greater care than they apply to the book they consider to be the most important document in the world.

But the history, complexities and actual words of the Bible can’t be ignored just to line it up with what people want to believe, based simply on what friends and family and ministers tell them. Nowhere in the Gospels or Acts of Epistles or Apocalypses does the New Testament say it is the inerrant word of God. It couldn’t—the people who authored each section had no idea they were composing the Christian Bible, and they were long dead before what they wrote was voted by members of political and theological committees to be the New Testament.

The Bible is a very human book. It was written, assembled, copied and translated by people. That explains the flaws, the contradictions, and the theological disagreements in its pages. Once that is understood, it is possible to find out which parts of the Bible were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, which are the bad translations, and what one book says in comparison to another, and then try to discern the message for yourself.

And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament. Jesus said, Don’t judge. He condemned those who pointed out the faults of others while ignoring their own. And he proclaimed, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”

That’s a good place to start.

I bolded a part there that is pretty important IMO.
edit on 28-12-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:11 PM
a reply to: Entreri06

It's a serious question many people have asked....

" About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. " - Jewish Antiquities,, Flavius Josephus(secular historian)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."Annals 15 -44, Tacitus(secular historian)

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place..." Origen Against Celsus

"Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv, Suetonius).
(Suetonius noted that Christ was a roman insurgent who stirred seditions)

Then of course you have the gospel writers and other eyewitness testimony that would pass the scrutiny of a court of law, but would not suffice for ATS. Granted, this is just a relatively brief reply from me but I'd be willing to go into further details should more questions arise.


posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:16 PM
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Arius was following the gospels man... He stuck by his convictions under threat of death

Athanasius was the heretic in that debate In my humble opinion... he won the debate because he had more troops on the field... And others likely caved under duress...

read the letters brother... Arius was right...

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:21 PM
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

It's impossible for an eclipse to happen during a new moon, which is when the Passover falls. There couldn't have been an eclipse the day that Jesus supposedly died. Besides, those accounts are more than 100 years after the event in question.

Also, the Josephus citation is a well known forgery.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:24 PM
And before anyone starts the semantics of "contemporary" accounts....Let's not forget any of the other historical documents...
and let's remember that the most important factors in determining the reliability of a historical document are A)the number of manuscript copies in existence and B) the time between when it was first written and the oldest existing copy

As an example Livy(History of Rome) was written approx. 59BC and our earliest copy is a partial dated to 350AD giving it a time spam of nearly 400 years..

In comparison, the New Testament can be given a very conservative date of being authored around 100AD, and our earliest copy having been dated to around 125AD, giving it a time span of a measly 25 years...

If Livy's lone surviving work passes the scrutiny of reliability standards, the New Testament (with over 24,000 existing fragments) should also.


posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:26 PM
a reply to: Akragon

According to your link it looks like he was assassinated.

Also according to that there was some conflict as to what would be accepted as the new testament at Nicea.

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:29 PM
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

We don't have any New Testament fragments that date to the 1st century.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in