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

a reply to: Entreri06

Maybe you shouldn't hold atheists in such high regard. They're becoming increasingly more arrogant and blind in their beliefs as the religious folks.

these days I get preached at by atheists as well

Too ALL the naysayers.

Trying to revise history from 2000 years ago is an exercise in futility, have fun with that.
It's revised only in your mind because of "Confirmation Bias"
The distrust of known historians of the day is singular.

Can't trust the Bible, around for centuries.
Can't trust a Jewish Historian with published works around for centuries.
Can't trust a Roman Historian with published works around for centuries.

But you can trust something that was put on the internet within the last decade that goes against all published history books. Some insane ramblings on blogs.
Yup no bias there, none whatsoever.
This thread exemplifies "Cognitive Confirmation Bias" -People tend to ignore information which does not fit with their beliefs while they weigh agreeable information more heavily.
And people that say oh they never met Jesus so they can't write history on him, would be the equivalent of someone saying I can't write a history book on Ronald Reagan, because I never met him, and he is dead now.

Actually saying Jesus Christ NEVER existed is so asinine it's trolling history.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Too ALL the naysayers.

Trying to revise history from 2000 years ago is an exercise in futility, have fun with that.
It's revised only in your mind because of "Confirmation Bias"
The distrust of known historians of the day is singular.

Can't trust the Bible, around for centuries.
Can't trust a Jewish Historian with published works around for centuries.
Can't trust a Roman Historian with published works around for centuries.

But you can trust something that was put on the internet within the last decade that goes against all published history books. Some insane ramblings on blogs.
Yup no bias there, none whatsoever.
This thread exemplifies "Cognitive Confirmation Bias" -People tend to ignore information which does not fit with their beliefs while they weigh agreeable information more heavily.
And people that say oh they never met Jesus so they can't write history on him, would be the equivalent of someone saying I can't write a history book on Ronald Reagan, because I never met him, and he is dead now.

Actually saying Jesus Christ NEVER existed is so asinine it's trolling history.

I don't think the question is whether he did or did not exist. In the grander scheme of things, it really doesn't matter either way.

The question, at least from the people that I have spoken to on the matter (I am an ordained minister; did it online during a Simpson's episode where Homer did the same thing), the question is proof of the divinity of Jesus as the "Christos" (because someone needs to bone up on their Greek (www.thefreedictionary.com...)).

It doesn't matter if he did exist. Did the tenants of Christianity actually occur? To date, I have seen no written, archeological, or factual evidence to substantiate that claim.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Too ALL the naysayers.

Trying to revise history from 2000 years ago is an exercise in futility, have fun with that.
It's revised only in your mind because of "Confirmation Bias"
The distrust of known historians of the day is singular.

Can't trust the Bible, around for centuries.
Can't trust a Jewish Historian with published works around for centuries.
Can't trust a Roman Historian with published works around for centuries.

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.
Buddhism has been around for 2500 years.
Hinduism is one of the oldest still-practiced belief systems on Earth.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

What, exactly, does the age of anything have to do with truthfulness and accuracy? Hypocrite.

Of course Jesus existed. Of course the Biblical account is real. Three eye witnesses to his existence wrote it down for us, and one person, Luke, from the accounts of other eye-witnesses he gathered.

In any court of law in any land four eye-witnesses are enough to establish truth.

People don't want truth.

[snipped]

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Too ALL the naysayers.

Trying to revise history from 2000 years ago is an exercise in futility, have fun with that.
It's revised only in your mind because of "Confirmation Bias"
The distrust of known historians of the day is singular.

Can't trust the Bible, around for centuries.
Can't trust a Jewish Historian with published works around for centuries.
Can't trust a Roman Historian with published works around for centuries.

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.
Buddhism has been around for 2500 years.
Hinduism is one of the oldest still-practiced belief systems on Earth.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

What, exactly, does the age of anything have to do with truthfulness and accuracy? Hypocrite.

This is false.

The earliest religions stem from Babylon. Anyone that has any deep knowledge of occultism knows that all religions stem from Babylon, even Hinduism.

Hinduism, is definitely not the oldest religion on earth. Although it is steeply influenced by lies from Babylon.

[snipped]

Just as Satan was behind the cruel and dastardly murder of first-century Christians. And just like the Romans in general hated Christ and his followers, it is no different today.

a reply to: whooknows

Hey! Welcome to ATS. It always helps to read the thread before you reply..........or not!

a reply to: whooknows

Three eye witnesses to his existence wrote it down for us, and one person, Luke, from the accounts of other eye-witnesses he gathered.

You actually think those gospels were written down by who they were named after?

I bet you can't provide a credible source that states that.

Honestly, you are welcome to any opinion you want, but when it comes to facts you need a bit more than opinion.

People don't want truth.

That may be a very ironic statement.

originally posted by: Answer

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.

If people were trying to claim Mohammed didn't exist, it'd be just as ridiculous (from what I know) and I imagine many of the same members would be defending his historicity as well.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

The primary purpose of most religious writings (in my experience) has nothing to do with trying to explain things science deals with adequately now. Indeed, they mostly deal with things that science cannot touch.

a reply to: whooknows

And while it is sometimes done by humans, it is not wrong to assume that there is a demonic element in all of the attacks on those who understand truth and speak it.

Yup. We're all demons, except for Blue_Jay.

And don't come to AboveTopSecret to find people who want it. I've found them to be a bunch of bullies. Mostly pagan witches, and atheists. If you have an opinion that goes against them, they will cyber-stock you and bully you until you want to stop posting on this website.

In three days, you've found this?

originally posted by: whooknows

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Too ALL the naysayers.

Trying to revise history from 2000 years ago is an exercise in futility, have fun with that.
It's revised only in your mind because of "Confirmation Bias"
The distrust of known historians of the day is singular.

Can't trust the Bible, around for centuries.
Can't trust a Jewish Historian with published works around for centuries.
Can't trust a Roman Historian with published works around for centuries.

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.
Buddhism has been around for 2500 years.
Hinduism is one of the oldest still-practiced belief systems on Earth.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

What, exactly, does the age of anything have to do with truthfulness and accuracy? Hypocrite.

This is false.

The earliest religions stem from Babylon. Anyone that has any deep knowledge of occultism knows that all religions stem from Babylon, even Hinduism.

Hinduism, is definitely not the oldest religion on earth. Although it is steeply influenced by lies from Babylon.

BlueJay, the only reason you were attacked in this instance, is because of your truth telling. Any sort of truth on this website is usually attacked. And while it is sometimes done by humans, it is not wrong to assume that there is a demonic element in all of the attacks on those who understand truth and speak it.

Just as Satan was behind the cruel and dastardly murder of first-century Christians. And just like the Romans in general hated Christ and his followers, it is no different today.

I said Hinduism is "one of the oldest still-practiced religions." Your reading comprehension is atrocious. If you really want to argue about who was actually first, the Babylonians were influenced by the Sumerians.

You were so anxious to post your nonsense that you didn't bother understanding what was typed.

We all attack Christians on this site because they tell the truth. That's it, you got us... it's all a big conspiracy to stamp out the "truth" of Christianity.

Your face is false.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Answer

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.

If people were trying to claim Mohammed didn't exist, it'd be just as ridiculous (from what I know) and I imagine many of the same members would be defending his historicity as well.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

The primary purpose of most religious writings (in my experience) has nothing to do with trying to explain things science deals with adequately now. Indeed, they mostly deal with things that science cannot touch.

The point of my statement was that something being "centuries old" does not make it true.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: whooknows

And don't come to AboveTopSecret to find people who want it. I've found them to be a bunch of bullies. Mostly pagan witches, and atheists. If you have an opinion that goes against them, they will cyber-stock you and bully you until you want to stop posting on this website.

In three days, you've found this?

If he has spent the last 3 days accusing people of demonic influence, bullying, pagan witchcraft, and then somehow lumping atheists in with that crowd... I'm sure there are several folks who wish he'd stop posting on this website.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Answer

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.

If people were trying to claim Mohammed didn't exist, it'd be just as ridiculous (from what I know) and I imagine many of the same members would be defending his historicity as well.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

The primary purpose of most religious writings (in my experience) has nothing to do with trying to explain things science deals with adequately now. Indeed, they mostly deal with things that science cannot touch.

The point of my statement was that something being "centuries old" does not make it true.

But it doesn't make it false, either, which I believe was the original poster's point

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yup. We're all demons, except for Blue_Jay.

Funny, NOT

If you only knew the true power of the dark side, and it's ability to influence people with ideologies that is leading people away from truths

That's why I like ATS, because many non-religious people can see it and feel it, they just don't know how to quantify it, yet. But they are free thinkers, and there is an idealogical war for them to take a side at some point.

"whooknows" perhaps hasn't been here long enough to understand what a lightning rod of attraction these types of threads are for those people of a certain perspective.

What a load of horse$%@t........The best biblical scholars out there have pretty effectively discredited the historicity of Christ/Yesua/Joshua, etc......... I recommend you read the weighty tome, "The Christ Conspiracy", by Acharya S. Takes some digesting but absolutely full of the best researched information on the subject. By the end of the book, I think you will have come to your senses.........

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So in order from humanity to progress you have to destroy Christianity? Does the message of Jesus really hold back humans? The religion maybe... but does the message?

The message of Jesus is mere common sense. So this character so many cling to is irrelevant. We do not need to push ancient fairy tales to know common sense. Besides history teaches us that Christianity has so much blood on it's hand and Semitic religious tripe alike that it is counter productive. So called Christian's will usually always revert to selfishness and service to self. Nothing good can come from such lore ... nothing. When humanity grows up and realises religion and the fiction of Jesus is slavery the better.

If you live in the past you die in the past

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Entreri06

Maybe you shouldn't hold atheists in such high regard. They're becoming increasingly more arrogant and blind in their beliefs as the religious folks.

these days I get preached at by atheists as well

Doubtful....... Religiouso just consider anyone who doubts there religion as evil or demonic.


atheism isn't one of the extremes. It's the center point. Not believing in a magical entities who controls your every action should be the "norm". But whoever came up with religion as a control mechanism was a guenius!!

It's the most brilliant "big brother" ever conceived. You can control the masses without a single video camera. Convience them there's an invisible entity who will torture there soul for all eternity if they don't do exactly what we tell you. Need proof? God specifically hides his existance so you just gotta trust us.... It's called faith!



In well over 2000 years of every human being on the planet trying to prove their flavor of religion is true, what proof or repeatable experiment have they come up with?

Nothing.


Just testimonials passed down and changed over millinia. Testimonials with every testable claim totally debunked. (Flood myth, 7 day creation, exc.)

Yet it's considered normal to be religious....

originally posted by: DarthFazer

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So in order from humanity to progress you have to destroy Christianity? Does the message of Jesus really hold back humans? The religion maybe... but does the message?

The message of Jesus is mere common sense. So this character so many cling to is irrelevant. We do not need to push ancient fairy tales to know common sense. Besides history teaches us that Christianity has so much blood on it's hand and Semitic religious tripe alike that it is counter productive. So called Christian's will usually always revert to selfishness and service to self. Nothing good can come from such lore ... nothing. When humanity grows up and realises religion and the fiction of Jesus is slavery the better.

If you live in the past you die in the past

I don't know if Jesus himself commented on slavery, but the NT does....... In no circumstances is even the NT the pinnacle of morality.