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.

 

9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

page: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

It IS taught in schools. Go to college or university and study ancient history, classics, or any relevant field. There is a reason why scholars generally agree that the new testament is based on a real person, and it's not just because of what is written in the new testament.

What we were taught at school about religion was extremely narrow. Advanced studies in this respect are indeed for further education.

Let me tell you a story from class...

We were asked to draw a picture of something, anything, which would have a religious connotation. I drew a kite because it had a cross, it represented freedom and also reached the heavens. I received no feedback whatsoever. That is what I remember most about religious studies at school.
 
edit on 6-3-2015 by VigiliaProcuratio because:  




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

It IS taught in schools. Go to college or university and study ancient history, classics, or any relevant field. There is a reason why scholars generally agree that the new testament is based on a real person, and it's not just because of what is written in the new testament.


Not a single scholar has found contemporaneous documentation proving that jesus actually lived. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

It IS taught in schools. Go to college or university and study ancient history, classics, or any relevant field. There is a reason why scholars generally agree that the new testament is based on a real person, and it's not just because of what is written in the new testament.


Not a single scholar has found contemporaneous documentation proving that jesus actually lived. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.


You don't seem to grasp the arguments, so why bother using the weakest of them all? The notion that there are no contemporaneous documents from within the exact timeframe of Jesus life is an extremely weak argument considering there are documents written about him dating to within 20 years of his crucifixion. There is actually more documentation and commentary surrounding Jesus then there is for any other figure of his time. By your standards, we should assume that socrates never existed either, since all we have for evidence of his existence is the documentation provided by his students (after he died, much like Jesus).

You need to grasp the concept of historical credibility, and what ancient historians use as criteria to define that principle. Then, you need to apply that concept to Jesus, or discard every single individual in history that does not meet said criteria. It really is a simple concept. It's unfortunate you are unable to comprehend it.

ETA: I will not hold your hand through this process. The information is freely available to you. Christ Mythicists are the young earth creationists of the new atheist movement. If you'd like to argue from a ridiculous position, be my guest. You bare the burden of proof, as such.
edit on 6-3-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

Not a single scholar has found contemporaneous documentation proving that jesus actually lived. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Come on mate, this Google query tells its own story. Repeating this same thing over and over again is very poor form so please contribute in a meaningful manner.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

It IS taught in schools. Go to college or university and study ancient history, classics, or any relevant field. There is a reason why scholars generally agree that the new testament is based on a real person, and it's not just because of what is written in the new testament.


Not a single scholar has found contemporaneous documentation proving that jesus actually lived. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.


What's the definition of insanity? Doing, or in this case saying, the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome...

Your "argument" that not a "single scholar" has found evidence proving Jesus' existence is just pure rubbish...

One day you'll find out how wrong you are and realize the effort you've put forth in order to try and deny his existence has been futile. But, lucky for you, Jesus is all about love and forgiveness. Even the ignorant and non-believers make it into heaven...Of course, after they are shown what the alternative is...


edit on 6-3-2015 by lovebeck because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
Not a single scholar has found contemporaneous documentation proving that jesus actually lived. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.



originally posted by: lovebeck
What's the definition of insanity? Doing, or in this case saying, the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome...

Your "argument" that not a "single scholar" has found evidence proving Jesus' existence is just pure rubbish...

One day you'll find out how wrong you are


One day you might find what honest debate is. This isn't the way to achieve it.

The delusionals with letters after their names (aka religious "scholars") will accept just about anything (some more than others) as evidence that jesus existed. I doubt anyone would deny that. That's because they start with the unshakeable belief/religious delusion, then look for whatever might support the fairy story. The very opposite of what real scholars do. Not much good believing in the whole mythical box and dice (usually a product of an early brainwashing) if there was no jesus to begin with, is it? Commensurately, standards are exceptionally low. The honest ones will at least admit this area of "history" would be a non starter if they didn't submit it to such low standards.

Though this isn't what you replied to. Read it again. Unless you know of contemporary historical documentation proving jesus existed, that was quite a...




edit on 6-3-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

For someone who seems to think they are so intelligent, I would hope you'd be interested in backing up your claims?




The delusionals with letters after their names (aka religious "scholars") will accept just about anything as evidence that jesus existed.


Again, You don't seem to understand what is actually going on. "religious scholars" aren't the only ones who advocate for the existence of a historical Jesus. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand? It's also somewhat comical (and ironic) given the fact you cited a strawman argument, when you yourself just constructed one.


edit on 6-3-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

For someone who seems to think they are so intelligent, I would hope you'd be interested in backing up your claims?

Yeah..right.

Biblical historians are just overwhelmingly atheists. Keep forgetting that. I did put list of a "top 100" scholars in this area once. I might see if I can find it again. Overwhelmingly trained in religious institutions, devout believers, often double as preachers...

This is an area of "pseudo academia" that needs a good injection of objectivity.



Again, You don't seem to understand what is actually going on. "religious scholars" aren't the only ones who advocate for the existence of a historical Jesus. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand? It's also somewhat comical (and ironic) given the fact you cited a strawman argument, when you yourself just constructed one.

Whatever.

I won't go into your own fallacy here, but..... not one of them has ever offered a scintilla of contemporary evidence. When they I won't argue at all, as I will then have reason to believe. I know people find evidence to believe jesus existed. The evidence is very weak. There is no "proof". Nor did the poster rebut the actual point made (rather changed it to one they felt they could rebutt). To point this out is not a strawman, but have it as you wish.


edit on 6-3-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

For someone who seems to think they are so intelligent, I would hope you'd be interested in backing up your claims?




The delusionals with letters after their names (aka religious "scholars") will accept just about anything as evidence that jesus existed.


Again, You don't seem to understand what is actually going on. "religious scholars" aren't the only ones who advocate for the existence of a historical Jesus. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand? It's also somewhat comical (and ironic) given the fact you cited a strawman argument, when you yourself just constructed one.


Yeah..right.

Biblical historians are just overwhelmingly atheists. Keep forgetting that.


Are you going to address anything I actually said, or would you like to continue to make yourself out to be more of a hypocrite than you already have?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

For someone who seems to think they are so intelligent, I would hope you'd be interested in backing up your claims?




The delusionals with letters after their names (aka religious "scholars") will accept just about anything as evidence that jesus existed.


Again, You don't seem to understand what is actually going on. "religious scholars" aren't the only ones who advocate for the existence of a historical Jesus. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand? It's also somewhat comical (and ironic) given the fact you cited a strawman argument, when you yourself just constructed one.


Yeah..right.

Biblical historians are just overwhelmingly atheists. Keep forgetting that.


Are you going to address anything I actually said, or would you like to continue to make yourself out to be more of a hypocrite than you already have?



So we can put argumentum ad hominem on your list too?

What, just drop everything, dead seraph demands it? The way you completely overlook the false claims of proof that Jesus existed is somewhat telling (the one that I responded to). I'll give you what you ask. Not straight away.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio


English does not use a neuter

Eh?

Your statement, she is wrong.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


Also which plays do you refer to?

I, too, await the answer with interest. There is one, however, so it's really more a test of googling skills than anything else.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


Also which plays do you refer to?

I, too, await the answer with interest. There is one, however, so it's really more a test of googling skills than anything else.

Then google for it instead, so you won't be in suspense? Or is it unsatisfactory if it is on google? There are more than one.

Already given some pages ago.


edit on 6-3-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


First-hand contemporaneous documentation is the only thing that proves that someone actually lived.

There really isn't anything — not even a photograph — that can prove whether someone existed or not. There is always a residue of doubt. It is true that the evidence for Socrates is somewhat better than the evidence for Jesus, but it is quite possible to call into question the existence of either.

You know this already; a theory can never be proved, it can only be falsified. Philosophy of Science 101.

What historians do is work through internal evidence in documents that may help authenticate them as sources; compare them with other sources to see if one corroborates the other; track both sources down to see if they were drawn from a common earlier source, which destroys their corroboratory value; try to verify the authenticity of the common source to see if it might be trustworthy after all; and so on and on until we can say, with a reasonable amount of assurance, 'this is what happened.' But we can never be entirely sure.

My particular area of historical interest and research concerns my own country during the nineteenth century, when it was a highly favoured British colony. That period is just the day before yesterday compared to when Jesus is said to have lived, and it was an era, besides, in which people wrote down just about everything they did. Educated Victorians were compulsive chroniclers, minute-takers, diarists, memorialists, historians, antiquarians, magazine-readers, tract-writers and heaven knows what else. They were also enthusiastically litigious. There is no shortage of source material, but even so you'd be surprised how hard it is to verify even fairly mundane facts. Contemporary accounts differ, the spelling of names often misleads, there are all sorts of lacunae in the records. And these records, unless they happen to be things like census data, police reports and public sanitation records, deal, for the most part, only with the educated classes. The poor barely exist in history. Tradition holds that Jesus was poor.

It is believed that the Cospel of Mark, at least, is based on documents purported to be eyewitness accounts. Few scholars doubt that the documents existed (although they are now lost). How veracious they are is, of course, open to question. Personally, I think it rather churlish to doubt publicly the existence of Jesus. Doing so leaves us no better off than we were before, when we merely doubted his divinity; but it seems to upset Christians even more thant the claim that Jesus was only a man. Of course, if one is bent of offending Christians, there are few better ways than this to go about it.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Then google for it instead

I don't need to, you ill-tempered person. I already know the answer.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Then google for it instead

I don't need to, you ill-tempered person. I already know the answer.

Fair enough.

Seemed a slightly demeaning tone. If I misunderstood, apologies. If not...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you wanna argue that religious scholars will always blindly say Jesus existed the same goes for atheist researchers looking for evidence for his nonexistence.

Why would the Romans write about a carpenter causing trouble in the empire? The Jews who hate him and wanted his death?

The only people who would write about him are his followers, mostly poor.

The followers that claim he existed are the ones who actually followed Jesus and wrote as witnesses. So if we prove that these writers excited can we prove that Jesus existed?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

You may choose to see the hand of God in that. I see the proliferation through the culture of a genuinely beneficial meme at a time when circumstances promoted its emergence and spread. Whether Jesus himself was real or made-up isn't important any more; what's important is the concept of loving your neighbour as yourself, and building a new ethics and morality built upon that. Maybe Jesus did exist and even invented the model himself; more likely it was built up by many tongues and pens over a long period of time after his death. Speaking as an atheist who is interested in religion, I don't think it matters. The main thing is, it works, and some of us don't even need the whole Jesus narrative any more. We accept the ethic and understand why it is better. It doesn't bother me that you believe; I think it's okay for people to believe. Probably better for most people in the long run, really, so long as they don't then start burning each others' temples and smashing their idols.


Where would you get the impression that it works? It isn't working. I doubt it has ever worked. Whether people feel it helps personally, it doesn't when whole populations are taken into account. No doubt it originated from a subjugated people and in many ways understandable for the time. Though it is very arguable as to who has benefitted from it (and its promotion) since. It has a history written in utter misery and the destruction of indigenous culture. The notion that belief in an imaginary god/man is necessary to for ethics and morality is rejected by the facts themselves. The more religious a nation is, the more troubled it is. The more secular and less religious, the healthier it is. This is exactly what the figures (unsurprisingly) show. We still have world leaders (or at least one) from a highly religious 21st century 1st world "democracy" using religious drivel as part of their motivation for mobilising forces.

It has the underlying theme along with "love one another" of a so called "supreme being" who loves us endlessly, requiring a blood sacrifice for "sins" that are inherited. With a repugnant story of someone getting himself nailed to a cross so that god can forgive us. Vicarious redemption if we believe blindly. This is simply the ideology of a brain washing cult.

There is a lot more to it than "be nice".

People can believe whatever they like, the freedom itself to do that, should be respected. As to the belief itself, it deserves no respect, it's chronic dependance on a delusion. In the long run, I doubt that is ever useful. It would be more useful to work towards ridding the societal problems that underly such myths, rather than reinforcing them IMO.

Can you show how this study would be in error in it's conclusions? Or whether there is one with more comprehensive, more reliable data that would falsify it?

www.epjournal.net...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Seemed a slightly demeaning tone.

The question, though, is who (if anybody) is being demeaned?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

I gospels were NOT written by eye witnesses, nor were their authors claiming to be eye witnesses. In fact, the books of the Gospels were not even written by their namesakes, nor do they claim to be.







 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join