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.

 

Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




He claimed to be an apostle but he wasn't. Funny enough, he says he isn't worthy of being an apostle yet he continually calls himself one in his epistles.


He was an apostle, but when he thinks of his past actions in persecuting Christians as a Pharisee he doesn't feel worthy of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Just simple humility, you're taking what he said a bit out of it's intended context.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




I thought he was one of the 12 disiples?!?


No, his conversion came after Pentecost.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Still a bit hypocritical though don't you think? That's like someone saying they aren't worthy of being called the best yet they still refer to themselves over and over again as the best. Sounds more like feigned humility to me.

The only person to claim Paul was an apostle was Paul himself. Even his conversion story can't get it straight, it's written in 3 different ways all by the same author.

Did the people traveling with Paul see nothing but hear a voice, not hear anything but see a light, or did they all fall down or were they standing up? Paul's conversion gives 3 different accounts of the same event. Not very trustworthy if you ask me.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The early church fathers do nothing to prove the existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Bible.


I didn't say they did, you made that comment when I said this:




Except for the disciples who were martyred for their testimony. And except for His half-brothers James and Judas who weren't believers until after the resurrection.


It's VERY compelling evidence, as is the hostile-source attestation from the Talmuds, (even if you want to throw some out, go for it), and you are trying to disregard it. And it's your common retort: "We can't prove that"... well then dammit, we can't prove a SINGLE thing from ANY historical figure of antiquity before the 20th century and the invention of video cameras and recording devices. If we can't believe the historical record, then what do we have?

Purely arbitrary human history. I mean there are atheist historians who doesn't even deny the historical person Jesus of Nazareth existed, they reject all the metaphysical claims, but not the historical man that died on a cross in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.


None of that is contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. We can prove that many individuals existed prior to the 20th century because of contemporaneous documentation. No atheist or believer historian has produced an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. What they may believe about his existence is entirely irrelevant. Beliefs are not evidence of anything except belief.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Tangerine
There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus actually lived.

A strong majority of scholars today accept that a person named Jesus actually lived. This is based on lots of varying accounts from different sources.


But is it historical evidence that has led them to that conclusion or is it tradition and the fact they were most likely raised to believe it? If there isn't 1 single account outside of corrupted , edited texts a century after the fact verifying his existence. Then how could any historian ever say for sure?

Every source is biased in some way, so you have to get past that notion and instead understand the biases involved. Josephus is a strong, outside Christianity, source. He is a well respected historical record for many things Roman. He has been studied against other historical issues and records and found somewhat glorifying but generally accurate. His account of Jesus is about as close to the time period and outside of religious influence as you'll find in this investigation...so far of course.

If you want inside Christianity sources I suggest you go inside the Dead Sea Scrolls. Less managed information. The letters of Paul are also good, less managed, understanding of the early Church. After that you really have to reach out for little scraps of info.


What is so difficult to understand about the fact that Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living? Second-hand accounts and repeated stories are not contemporaneous documentation of existence.

What is so difficult to understand about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written long after everyone who could possibly have witnessed Jesus living were dead?

What is so difficult to understand about the fact that Paul never even claimed to have witnessed Jesus living?

Are these concepts that distinguish belief from fact really so difficult to grasp that they're beyond the understanding of the average person? By the way, that's a serious question as are the ones that preceded it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Clearing things up, you claimed the apostles martyrdom (martyred for their testimony) as proof of the existence of Jesus. When I said that there's no evidence of their martyrdom nor reason for their deaths, as the numerous uprisings all over the Jewish community are well documented by Josephus and resulted in the death of multitudes of Jews.

The early church fathers claim of the apostles martyrdom is suspect too, as there is tons of proof that THEY are the ones who were adding to and editing the scriptures to meet with the criticism of rivaling "Christian" cults as well as pagan cults. Their talents for exaggeration and lust for tales of Christian martyrdom, torture and bloodshed are unmatched!



The martyrdom argument in no way proves the existence of Jesus just like all those soldiers dying in Iraq because of a belief that there were WMDs is proof that the WMDs existed.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Do you deny that Eusebius is responsible for the Josephus forgery?


I think you have a flawed understanding of what historians use as criteria for determining historical accuracy. This is from an atheist historian:


Link


Your "historian" is an atheist blogger (LMAO) posting on a Christian website (ROFLMAO) who presents not an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived (ROFLMAOAGAIN)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The entire passages of Josephus citing anything to do with Christ, the Messiah or Jesus, if he be called a man, is ALL in question. There are Christian apologists that attempt to justify certain passages, but there is no consensus of any truth to any of it.

And Tacitus does nothing to prove the existence of Jesus the Nazarene, Jesus Christ, or Jesus the son of Joseph.



I understand you question it. I understand you doubt the authenticity. The OP asked for "reliable historical accounts" and that's what we have....whether you want to call them reliable or not is up to you.

That being said, why do you say Tacitus does nothing? Was it not written.... "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" Annals 15 -44....? That sure sounds like the same Jesus Christ that I've heard about....

But regardless....it all boils down to one little passage....found in the 16th chapter of Matthew.....Jesus, whether man, myth, or god, asked this question....

"Who do you say that I am?"

A2D



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

No, it boils down to whether he ever existed and there is absolutely no contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he did. It's unfortunate for Christians that a foundational claim of their religion is based on the wholly unsubtantiated claim that Jesus actually lived.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I’m back, and it looks like I have a lot of catching up to do.

About your link:

Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good.


I don’t doubt that Tim O'Neill enjoys, and is good at, irritating both sides! He misrepresents and under represents both sides, while presenting intellectually dishonest half, or less, truths, and glossing over complex issues in quick quips. Then, leaving holes in his argument that are large enough for the SS Enterprise to coast through, he declares victory!

I could go through both Part 1, and Part 2, which is even more trite and tired apologetic rhetoric than Part 1, but I won’t. If there’s something in his article you would specifically like to address, cite it and we can discuss why he’s wrong, wrong, wrong.

Better yet, do a thread on his article and why “Mysticism” has no logical or historical legs to stand on. I’d certainly participate.

edit on 29-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Well as you know I am certainly not his greatest fan, so I have no need or desire to defend his writing...


What??!! Hehe. No, I know how you feel about Paul and Pauline Christianity.


He may have made up the stuff he said he learned from Christ, and it is quite likely considering he didn't use a lick of info from the gospels... but places, people he met... or placed he visited were not written as a work of fiction

The man said be men the brother of the lord... and peter... that's pretty solid evidence of his existence


I just have a real hard time believing the source of the stories in the first place, Luke. So many problems in his texts, and we don't even know WHO actually wrote those books, as scholars are in fair agreement it wasn't Paul's "Luke".

I understand that it works for you. It is ironic that the impostor, spy and infiltrator would be the deciding proof of the physical existence of Jesus, for you.



I understand not believing he did miracles... but its pretty clear he was a real man... flesh and blood


It's not just the miracles that he's credited with during his life. It's the circumstances surrounding his birth and death too. None of it can be reconciled historically. His birth seems to coincide with Caesar's comet, an historical auspice of deification, and his death with the destruction Pompeii, with the earthquakes and darkening sky, graves opening, etc. This a span of around 120 years!

With the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find Jesus' teachings echoed in the past and his "Christship" seems to be associated with "The Teacher of Righteousness", who would have died right around Caesar's birth.

It's complicated, for sure. It's a tedious topic.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

No, it boils down to whether he ever existed and there is absolutely no contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he did. It's unfortunate for Christians that a foundational claim of their religion is based on the wholly unsubtantiated claim that Jesus actually lived.


There is a reason Jesus historians get all crazy excited every time someone thinks they've found concrete proof of Jesus.

Because they know there isn't any to date.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It's actually not complicated at all. There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus ever lived. Nothing is complicated about it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree



That being said, why do you say Tacitus does nothing?


Not every Chrestus is Jesus.

Christ was not Jesus' last name. It wasn't bestowed on him till after his "resurrection".


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"
en.wikipedia.org...


Christ is a title that was bestowed on many and taken by even more. Even the Bible has Jesus claiming that there were numerous people claiming to be Christ.


Matthew 24:23
At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.


Those who use Tacitus to support the historical Jesus take a lot for granted.

The small group of core Christians within the populations of Peter and Paul's congregation didn't grow to the proportions of the "Christian" problems that Tacitus and others discussed. There just weren't that many of them around to cause that much trouble.

Also, the followers of Peter and Paul's form of Christianity weren't the only cult that were called Christians. Serapis was known as "Chrestus". The disciples of Serapis were called "Bishops of Christ" by Emporor Hadrain, a contemporary to Tacitus. So there's lots of room for honest confusion as to who the trouble makers really were.

Early Christian actually resisted the title "Christian" because it was already being used by Pagans. They were called Nazarenes, mostly.


If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...



edit on 29-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

That is also fact that covers the majority of all people that ever took a breath.
We live in a world of accepted theories that we call fact by way of general agreement and in order to prove a theory as fact one only needs to have facts backing up the theory. i call bs on the whole system


ode to the long con
edit on 29-12-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living? Second-hand accounts and repeated stories are not contemporaneous documentation of existence.
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written long after everyone who could possibly have witnessed Jesus living were dead?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that Paul never even claimed to have witnessed Jesus living?
Are these concepts that distinguish belief from fact really so difficult to grasp that they're beyond the understanding of the average person? By the way, that's a serious question as are the ones that preceded it.


You clearly have done ZERO research on ancient places or people. I simply relaying to you the current prevailing scholarly thought on the subject. It is based on a ton of little bits of evidence I'm not going into from many different sources. Cling to your belief that without an eye witness account you refuse to belief someone existed if it makes you feel smarter than people who research this subject for a living. I don't care what you believe as you haven't added to the thread whatsoever except demand one type of evidence you've decided must be present.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




The martyrdom argument in no way proves the existence of Jesus just like all those soldiers dying in Iraq because of a belief that there were WMDs is proof that the WMDs existed.


False analogy. It you wanted to make it comparable to what I said you would have to have a group of soldiers who recovered or saw mass stockpiles of WMD in Iraq then they were executed for not recanting that they saw the WMD.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Still a bit hypocritical though don't you think? That's like someone saying they aren't worthy of being called the best yet they still refer to themselves over and over again as the best. Sounds more like feigned humility to me.


Not exactly, because apostle isn't a skilled trade or learned profession. It's a gift or anointing of the Holy Spirit. He felt he wasn't worthy because of his past persecutions, but he still accepted his anointing and worked enthusiastically and did it with love for Christ. Nothing more than remorse for what he had done as a Pharisee, and that's understandable.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Do you deny that Eusebius is responsible for the Josephus forgery?


I think you have a flawed understanding of what historians use as criteria for determining historical accuracy. This is from an atheist historian:


Link


Your "historian" is an atheist blogger (LMAO) posting on a Christian website (ROFLMAO) who presents not an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived (ROFLMAOAGAIN)



A historian who writes a blog is still a historian, no? Please explain the motive for an Atheist to fabricate the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. And we aren't even talking about a claim of divinity or accuracy of the metaphysical claims, just the existence of the guy that died in Jerusalem on a cross 2000 years ago.

And btw, he was just a simple example.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

He claims to still be a Pharisee after his supposed conversion.


Acts 23
5 Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.

6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees . I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”


Not only does he call the Pharisees and Sadducees (the group Jesus called a brood of vipers) his brothers, he calls the high priest his ruler by quoting that certain scripture. Paul was apologizing to the high priest who presided over his trial for insulting him.

He claims "I am" a Pharisee, not was but AM. What did Jesus tell us of the Pharisees and Sadducees?


Matthew 16
6 "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."


Paul fits the bill for antichrist in my opinion. All signs point toward it.
edit on 12/29/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join