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: 24
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

lol! Wrong again.

windword and I happen to have some similar experiences and understandings. I don't 'follow her around', for crying out loud!!



You have let your own bias on the subject shine with so many stars you should be prohibited from commenting on the subject.

You want to silence me? LOL!!!!!!!



You LITERALLY suggested Christians should be eradicated (yet again) in a thread that has NOTHING to do with Christianity in the first place.

Show me where I said that.

Jesus you people are impossible.

A good lap dog????

Careful, I bite.

edit on 4/14/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/14/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


Because unlike you, I'm interested in history.


THEN STUDY IT.


(post by DeadSeraph removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

So since Egypt and Rome had documentation of their gods and vast resources to show worship to them you find it crazy that we have little evidence to prove the existence of a poor carpenter from a poor town in a subjugated province?


What in the world are you talking about?

Quote something I said and I'll do my best to respond.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra


Fine with me, I guess I hit a sour note and you decided to attack me when I respected you and just responded to your posts (I didn't intend to offend you).

YOU attacked ME, pal. You disrespected my profession and dissed my links as nonsense. And yes, I DID say it was fundamentalist Christians that are the problem.

You certainly meant to offend me. You didn't 'respect' me - you said my sources were lame, and that I 'couldn't be serious.'



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Don't even start claiming you have been attacked personally, when that is all you have in this argument. LITERALLY all you have. You hate Christians, therefore your opinion MUST be better than anyone who agrees with the notion of a historical Jesus, regardless of whether or not they are even Christians!




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


At bare minimum, you'd be invited to universities to discuss your "theories".

Does it count that I was invited to speak at a national conference for the Prevention of Child Abuse Association? That was in 2006.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Does that have anything to do with the OP? No?

Then I'd go so far as to say no, it doesn't have JACK SQUAT TO DO WITH IT.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


You hate Christians, therefore your opinion MUST be better than anyone who agrees with the notion of a historical Jesus, regardless of whether or not they are even Christians!

No, I don't "hate" Christians.
Strike three. You're out.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

then why were you posting in this thread and in others about how Christians shouldn't be allowed to raise their children with Christian beliefs because it is "child abuse"?

What the hell does any of it have to do with the OP? NOTHING. That's what.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: windword

Because unlike you, I'm interested in history.


"Tis an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted." Bishop Eusebius (260-339 AD)

Really? I think you're here to silence those who threaten the Christian status quo of mindless blind faith to Bible stories and rhetoric.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: windword

Because unlike you, I'm interested in history.


"Tis an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted." Bishop Eusebius (260-339 AD)

Really? I think you're here to silence those who threaten the Christian status quo of mindless blind faith to Bible stories and rhetoric.


You and your sidekick have been exposed, time and time again.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well, I guess by logic, then you and OP are in cahoots and are ignorantly tag teaming in a campaign of insults against your detractors. Because the OP's premise has long since been debunked and now there's nothing to do but vilify what you can't argue.




edit on 14-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

you're the one with a star already

edit on 14-4-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well, I guess by logic, then you and OP are in cahoots and are ignorantly tag teaming in a campaign of insults against your detractors. Because the OP's premise has long since been debunked and now there's nothing to do but vilify what you can't argue.





Anyways, at the end of the day, you should be capable of dismantling my arguments. You haven't been capable of doing so over multiple threads, so there is no reason to believe you will actually address them sufficiently in this one, either.

More of the same. Shifting goal posts, cherry picking issues, and avoiding the tough questions, as if you know something 98% of historians don't.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

You haven't rebutted my answer to your arguments, although most have been successfully refuted in this thread. In the end, the result is the same, there is NO proof, zero, zilch, nada, of the historicity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

"Christus/Chrestus, everything is a forgery".

Your arguments are pretty simple.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

It's unfortunate that you Christians have the self confessed liars, Eusebius and his son Jerome. Eusebius, loudly justified his forgeries and interpolations. His son Jerome wrote letters to fellows explaining why it was better to alter sacred texts, removing the errant logic of Origin, for example, "so that others may not be led astray", in a campaign to save Origin from his inevitable excommunication. The only writings that we have of Origin and Tacitus, and many other critical texts, are those that were translated by Eusebius or Jerome, and hence, deemed acceptable by the Holy Roman Church.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You are a liar. Discard all of tacitus then.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
What's the oldest extant manuscript of Tacitus?

(I ask again, softly.)

ANSWER: 11th Century



All of the late Italian manuscripts - some 31 at the last count - are copies of a single mediaeval manuscript, also in the Laurentian library, where it is number 68.2. It is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean', to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Bound with it are the major works of Apuleius, written slightly later than the Tacitus but at the same place.

This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD).


Source
edit on 14Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:56:37 -050015p022015466 by Gryphon66 because: QUote




top topics



 
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join