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.

 

Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

page: 14
56
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Do you actually have "evidence" to corroborate this latest claim you are making?



Many scholars believe that the passage about Jesus and the fire of Rome in 64EC is a forgery that doesn’t provide real historical background:
- Voltaire, 1700s. ( The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography by Momigliano and Di Donanto, Univ California Press 1992 page 127)
- John Wilson Ross, Tacitus and Bracciolini: The Annals Forged In The XVth Century . Originally published London: Diprose and Bateman, 1878
- Polydore Hochart 1890, De L'Authenticité Des Annales Et Des Histoires de Tacite republished by Bibliobazar
- Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling, The New Testament: An Introduction (Second ed., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), p. 407
- Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1996)
And many more (Harris, 1985 – Holding, 2000 – Sanders, 1993 etc etc I can make you a complete list of scholars that have analysed the historical figure of Jesus on non biblical sources, it would take time though ).

But, let’s assume for a moment that we can believe The Annals of Tacitus as real evidence for the historical Jesus. His Book 5 describes Judea at the time of Jesus (more specifically chapters 8 to 10) and he makes no mention of Jesus, his famous crucifixion, miracles, resurrection. Nothing at all. No mention of Jesus and/or Christians. Why? His books were all written at least a century after the death of Jesus, so why omit him where it would have made more sense? (when he became known to the people).

Regarding Pilate, this is from a Biblical website:

The appointed ruler of each Roman province was a Legate, responsible directly to either the Senate or the Emperor. The Legate appointed various officials to run the various local areas. One of these officials was the Prefect. Another was the procurator, a lesser official, whose original task was to collect taxes and oversee the finances of the area in question. The four rulers of Judea, all serving under the supervision of the Legate in Syria, Quirinius ( in Luke 2:2 one of them) served for periods of approximately ten years. Later in the century, the title Prefect, which is what Pilate called himself, became confused with Procurator. Later histories used the title Procurator for Pilate, even though this wasn’t exactly correct. That title of Procurator has stuck to Pilate ever since that time.
biblicalreproductions.com...

Evidence: en.wikipedia.org...


Tacitus called Pilate a Procurator because his writings regarding Jesus were not contemporary, but hearsay (if we are to believe that passage was his work and not a later forgery).

The first real evidence we have that mentions Jesus is a papyrus fragment from the gospel of John, dated between 125 to 200 CE, a long time after the death of Jesus. en.wikipedia.org...

The fact remains: none of the historians, religious and/or cultural writers that were alive at same time as Jesus, never mentioned Jesus, not Jews, not Romans, not Pagans, nobody.





posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: gottaknow



There is no direct contemporaneous evidence that such a singular man existed. There were, instead many jesus-like preachers who became the conglomeration of the figure used today. This article points out the many different facets that just don't fit together: www.patheos.com...


That's a fun article!


Why does Seneca the Younger record all kinds of unusual natural phenomena in the seven books of his Quaestiones Naturales, including eclipses and earthquakes, but not mention the Star of Bethlehem, the pair of Judean earthquakes that were strong enough to split stones, or the hours of supernatural darkness that covered “all the land” – an event he would have witnessed firsthand?

Read more: www.patheos.com...


Here's your Star Of Bethlehem


Caesar's Comet (numerical designation C/-43 K1) – also known as Comet Caesar and the Great Comet of 44 BC – was perhaps the most famous comet of antiquity. The seven-day visitation was taken by Romans as a sign of the deification of the recently dead dictator, Julius Caesar (100–44 BC).
Caesar's Comet was one of only five comets known to have had a negative absolute magnitude and was possibly the brightest daylight comet in recorded history. It was not periodic and may have disintegrated.





The Comet became a powerful symbol in the political propaganda that launched the career of Caesar's great-nephew (and adoptive son) Augustus. The Temple of Divus Iulius (Temple of the Deified Julius) was built (42 BC) and dedicated (29 BC) by Augustus for purposes of fostering a "cult of the comet". (It was also known as the "Temple of the Comet Star".[5]) At the back of the temple a huge image of Caesar was erected and, according to Ovid, a flaming comet was affixed to its forehead:
To make that soul a star that burns forever
Above the Forum and the gates of Rome






In Ovid's poem, The Metamorphis, he describes the moment that J.C. was "taken up to the stars" and became a "God".


Then Jupiter, the Father, spoke..."Take up Caesar’s spirit from his murdered corpse, and change it into a star, so that the deified Julius may always look down from his high temple on our Capitol and forum." He had barely finished, when gentle Venus stood in the midst of the Senate, seen by no one, and took up the newly freed spirit of her Caesar from his body, and preventing it from vanishing into the air, carried it towards the glorious stars. As she carried it, she felt it glow and take fire, and loosed it from her breast: it climbed higher than the moon, and drawing behind it a fiery tail, shone as a star.


As for the day of the death of Jesus; the earthquakes, the sun and sky turning dark, tombs opening and dead walking about.......

The Destruction of Pompeii, 79 AD



Ashes were already falling, not as yet very thickly. I looked round: a dense black cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a flood.'Let us leave the road while we can still see,'I said,'or we shall be knocked down and trampled underfoot in the dark by the crowd behind.'We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not the dark of a moonless or cloudy night, but as if the lamp had been put out in a closed room.

You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.

There were people, too, who added to the real perils by inventing fictitious dangers: some reported that part of Misenum had collapsed or another part was on fire, and though their tales were false they found others to believe them. A gleam of light returned, but we took this to be a warning of the approaching flames rather than daylight. However, the flames remained some distance off; then darkness came on once more and ashes began to fall again, this time in heavy showers. We rose from time to time and shook them off, otherwise we should have been buried and crushed beneath their weight. I could boast that not a groan or cry of fear escaped me in these perils, but I admit that I derived some poor consolation in my mortal lot from the belief that the whole world was dying with me and I with it."


So, based on historical and biblical records, we could safely say that Jesus was born in 44 BC and died in 79AD, making him around 135 when he was crucified!




edit on 12-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword


So, based on historical and biblical records, we could safely say that Jesus was born in 44 BC and died in 79AD, making him around 135 when he was crucified!





LOL You just made my day!




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: gottaknow


My bias against Christianity is based on the fact that I was raised in the belief system that to this day, messes with children's heads and turns this world into a fantasy-based psycho ward.

Hear hear!



I acknowledge the entire bible as a work of ridiculous and horrifying fiction written by political figures/others and nothing more. The facts that the NT were written beyond the supposed time of Jesus' existence only amplifies the blatant and elaborate lies.


I just friended you, whether you like it or not!



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha




The fact remains: none of the historians, religious and/or cultural writers that were alive at same time as Jesus, never mentioned Jesus, not Jews, not Romans, not Pagans, nobody.


Are you forgetting Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul(Saul) ?

Also this sums up this debate.

There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.


And on the Roman historian Tacitus

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source


The reality is if you choose to throw out the references made my Josephus and Tacitus who are both well known 1st century historians, you need to disregard everything they said and wrote, but if you just cherry pick the Jesus references, that is a blatant bias; and it's intellectually shameful and disingenuous.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Are you forgetting Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul(Saul) ?

None of the writers of the Bible OR THE GOSPELS ever met Jesus. It is well established that the 'by lines' are fictitious/pseudonyms. As for Paul, he never met the man, everyone knows that.



Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels
Posted on December 17, 2013 by adversusapologetica
The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels — Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee — are doubted among the large majority of mainstream New Testament scholars.

However, the public is often not familiar with the complex reasons and methodology that scholars use to reach definitive and well-supported consensuses about critical issues, such as assessing the authorial traditions for ancient texts.

To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”


Well, everyone who has looked further than the door of their church, that is.


adversusapologetica.wordpress.com...
edit on 4/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

hatred against mankind


Seems this is the same charge against Christians today. (not Roman Catholics which is a misnomer of them being Chrisitan).

Because of their conscientious objection to homosexuality, premarital sex, modern psychology and its blaming everyone else for ones ills instead of owning up to ones own sin nature, drunkenness, false religions, witchcraft, praying for their governing authority, murder, and the party hearty attitude that prevails todays society, pretty much is interpreted by many as them having a hatred of all mankind.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


(not Roman Catholics which is a misnomer of them being Chrisitan).

sigh.

Catholics are Christians. Always have been.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




religious and/or cultural writers that were alive at same time as Jesus


Indeed all those Apostles that I mentioned were "alive" when Jesus was on the earth.
And to say Jesus apostles never met him is beyond ludicrous and your personal opinion, you think they would leave their established religion be persecuted and die for a fantasy ?

Everybody also knows Paul had a harsh conversion by an intervention by Jesus after he had returned to heaven,
that's why he went from a persecutor of Christians to an Apostle of Christianity in basically one day. He actually talked to Jesus. Producing an instant conversion away from Judaism.

Edit: One blog quote doesn't equal historical fact, just because you want it to.

edit on 12-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
So, a few posts here argue it's a fact that, during the alleged same lifetime of the Christian Jesus, many people named "Jesus" existed claiming to be messiahs. Following this argument, I'd say there is a higher probability that the Christian Jesus they are arguing against did actually exist. Also, considering the writings from Tacitus that the OP posted, a specific Jesus/Christ being crucified was being mentioned that stood out, not multiple. Aside from that they are arguing if it’s the same name when it’s pretty obvious who it’s talking about. So you say it's a forgery then, keep moving the goal posts.

There are 100s of millions people from that time period where there is nothing to show they exist, at least there is something here. Look at it in context, in the 1st century there weren't real-time blog updates, newspapers or anything like that. The only thing that might have stood out to any historian was that he was crucified, not his regular life, simply because it was of no interest and he was just a preacher like many others that were around. They are called historians for a reason – they write about history, not current events. So, to demand a contemporaneous writing of a historian is actually rather ludicrous because there obviously won’t be any.

Contemporaneously, one could argue the gospels which won’t satisfy the negativists anyway. Look at it this way - a lot was passed from word of mouth, possible written down, but it's not like they ran out to publish anything. Most disciples were probably illiterate, but it is possible that some teachings could have been written and decades could pass before any writings were even found. Even after his death, some could have written in retrospect, embellishing events – but that does not mean his never existed. That’s just kind of how I see it back then.

Maybe that's not enough to some people, but it's enough for others. Why go so vehemently hard to against this? People are against Christians/Jesus/religion or whatever - just don't follow a religion or believe anything. Why try to discredit an entire religion or faith system, specifically Christianity? I rarely see the same people go against other religions such as Judaism, Buddhism or Islam. Do you think that millions of people will just stop believing because you feel that you can disprove it? You are being just as delusional as you claim followers are. You can go on in your life believing Jesus never existed and religion is a sham. That’s fine with me, but once you go ahead and mock and insult people for believing a religion, then I think that’s crossing the line. I just say live and let live.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Indeed all those Apostles that I mentioned were "alive" when Jesus was on the earth.
And to say Jesus apostles never met him is beyond ludicrous and your personal opinion, you think they would leave their established religion be persecuted and die for a fantasy ?


they were NOT the writers of the Gospels attributed to them. Historians know this. The general public, not so much.


Read This, written by a 'deconverted' evangelical who now has a PhD in Classics, etc.

Education can cure what ails ya. But if you're too scared, I understand.



edit on 4/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Edit: One blog quote doesn't equal historical fact, just because you want it to.

You are absolutely correct! It doesn't! But, the 'blog post' provides lots and lots of sources, and if you took the time to read the blog, you'd see that the author has a PhD:

I am a Ph.D. graduate student in Classics at the University of California, Irvine. My research interests include ancient biography, Greek and Latin historiography, the New Testament, early Christianity, and the early Roman Empire.

For a further description of my research interests in Classics, see here. I also study philosophy in my graduate work and write on topics such as ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. I completed my M.A. in Classics (emphasis in “Ancient History”) at the University of Arizona with a master’s thesis studying the use of ring composition in Suetonius’ De Vita Caesarum. Apart from my academic background in history and philosophy, I am also an advocate of church-state secularism, metaphysical naturalism, and secular humanism.


Let me know if you're too scared to click the links on the original - I'll add them here for you.
@@



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra


Why go so vehemently hard to against this? People are against Christians/Jesus/religion or whatever - just don't follow a religion or believe anything. Why try to discredit an entire religion or faith system, specifically Christianity?

Because it damages millions of children who deserve to know the truth and are told lies from the cradle.


edit on 4/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: DeadSeraph

When did I deny that Jesus was a real person? I called your comparison to Plato illogical.

I couldn't be any less emotional when it comes to religion.

I didn't realize that having an opinion on people who believe in fairy tales caused me to be "emotional".


You really are missing the point. He explained three times already why he's making the comparison. It has nothing to do with comparisons of clout.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source


I don't know if you've read the thread, or just haven't put "things" that have presented together.

Tacitus writes about "Chrestus" NOT "Christus", that's a proven Christian interpolation. "Chrestus" is a title for "Good" man, or name.

Now, in 36AD, Pilates last year in "office", and the same year that John the Baptist was executed, Pontius Pilate squashed the "Samaritan Rebellion" crucifying hundreds of "Good Samaritans" Chrestus'!


Story: In 36 CE, the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, was confronted with a serious rebellion in Samaria.

For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87]
www.livius.org...


Tacitus can't be used to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NYCUltra


Why go so vehemently hard to against this? People are against Christians/Jesus/religion or whatever - just don't follow a religion or believe anything. Why try to discredit an entire religion or faith system, specifically Christianity?

Because it damages millions of children who deserve to know the truth and are told lies from the cradle.



That's an opinion, raise your kids as atheists. Does this go for all religions, or just Christianity? I just see bitterness. Millions of kids raised as Christians are not as damaged as you perceive.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Wow! Intellectually shameful and disingenuous.. cherry picking... I wonder why my post made you so upset. I guess it's because I have provided lots of evidence that show that most scholars doubt the veracity of Tacitus and Josephus, as it has been shown here dozens of times. I am not trying to change your mind, I am simply showing you that there is no real evidence for the historical figure of Jesus. The gospels were written at least a century after the death of Jesus, which means there were NO witnesses, only hearsay.

Show me the writings about Jesus from people that were alive when he was alive. There are none. And, I repeat, the gospels were not written by those who lived when Jesus was alive.

I am not anti-Christian at all, in fact I grew up a Christian and I spent my childhood and youth in church. I am now an agnostic and this change happened when I read the Bible properly.... but that is for another thread.

edit on 12-4-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra


Millions of kids raised as Christians are not as damaged as you perceive.

Yes, they are.
I made a career out of studying Child development, parenting, and family/social influence.
You are mistaken.

edit on 4/12/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ChesterJohn


(not Roman Catholics which is a misnomer of them being Christian).

sigh.

Catholics are Christians. Always have been.


Just because a group hijacks a Christian persona does not mean it is truly Christian.

compare the practices to what the bible teaches and there are to many things that are not biblical therefore does not make them true Christians. More likely they are a christian cult if we dare put them in that group.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


More likely they are a christian cult if we dare put them in that group.

ALL christian faiths are cults.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join