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: 25
56
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Its been 2000 years since Tactius was alive and maybe we should be thankful that your hated Christians found a need to document his writings, otherwise some of the history of the early Roman Empire would be lost. or are these stories also forgeries to help push Roman propaganda in the 15th century?

Lots of Roman writings were lost and never found or were nearly completely destroyed and in some cases forged. Just because you speculate and exhibit "expertise" to your speculation on the subject does not make it a fact. The very tone of your postings shows that you think that you're right when you, just like others, can't really prove one way or another weather or not the Jesus Christians worship actually existed. You can keep claiming you've solved the puzzle but really you have nothing and continue to have nothing but speculation and your own personal opinions.




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI




the Jesus Christians worship actually existed.


The one who was born of a virgin under the auspice of a rogue star? The one who raised Lazareth from the dead, walked on water, fed 5000 people with a small basket of fish and bread? The one whose death caused earthquakes and ghosts to walk around the city, who also rose from the dead and then floated off into the sky? That Jesus actually existed?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Its been 2000 years since Tactius was alive and maybe we should be thankful that your hated Christians found a need to document his writings, otherwise some of the history of the early Roman Empire would be lost. or are these stories also forgeries to help push Roman propaganda in the 15th century?

Lots of Roman writings were lost and never found or were nearly completely destroyed and in some cases forged. Just because you speculate and exhibit "expertise" to your speculation on the subject does not make it a fact. The very tone of your postings shows that you think that you're right when you, just like others, can't really prove one way or another weather or not the Jesus Christians worship actually existed. You can keep claiming you've solved the puzzle but really you have nothing and continue to have nothing but speculation and your own personal opinions.


Good grief. I don't hate Christians. Hate is a very personal emotion.

I gave the date of the earliest extant MS of Tacitus. The rest of your first paragraph is all you.

Why are you being so snide? Did I claim "expertise" somewhere? Quote me.

What "speculation on the subject" are you referring to that I've claimed to be a "fact." Quote me.

Where did I claim I've "solved the puzzle"? Quote me.

You're reading my "tone" now to read my mind and mouth words for me? Kewl.

What else am I thinking and meaning that I haven't claimed or said? Concentrate.



You can just have a whole conversation on your own when you can make up both sides to your liking, can't you?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

This is what I find very annoying about the "did Jesus exist" discussion. Believers push forward shaky evidence that could at BEST be evidence of a person named Jesus existing then try to use that evidence to substitute the claim that the mythical Jesus lived. It is a double dose of dishonesty. We can't even say for sure that a man named Jesus existed that was cult leader and ended up persecuted by the state, let alone that a demi-god named Jesus existed that came to save us from our inborn sins.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Man you get stars instantly

Take the religion out it. I'm speaking of man that was born and had followers in Judea



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You could have just as easily have told him to stop building a strawman.

Judging by the last two pages most of what is being as presented by those claiming a historical Jesus has been ad-homs and logical fallacies.

Seems the thread has run it's course and has degraded to the point they usually do with the old fall back of "you hate Christians" meme.

Little to no logic or evidence, but a lot of emotion.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Is Tacitus a forgery?4

The modern editions of Tacitus that I have seen do not refer to the allegations of forgery that have been made at various times. The following account is summarised from Mendell4, who gives the same data at more length. If anyone has more data or more recent bibliographic references on this, so that this story can be put to bed, I would be grateful to receive it...

According to Mendell, since 1775 there have been at least 6 attempts to discredit the works of Tacitus as either forgeries or fiction:


According to Mendell, none of these writers have won general acceptance of their estimates of Tacitus, the extreme positions have been abandoned, and the general integrity of Tacitus vindicated. However as with all history, the personal element of selection and interpretation means that scholars do not necessarily accept Tacitus' view as the final and just interpretation of first-century Roman history....

It would seem that the arguments for forgery have failed to find acceptance."

taken from your source
although, I anticipate your rebuttal being that anything about Christianity was a forgery
edit on 14-4-2015 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Are you guys that obsessed with stars? LOL

Take the religion out of what? Jesus? Gladly.

1 reference in Tacitius
2 references in Josephus (one generally discredited)
Presence of "Christians" in Judea and Rome.

That's the "Jesus" evidence. Based on that, as I've said six or seven times now, there likely was "a" Jesus who was a teacher or preacher, who was crucified, and who had followers faithful after his death.

That evidence does not prove that man was the mythical figure at the center of the Christian religion.

What more do you want?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

You CAN'T separate the man from the myth, in my opinion. Either Jesus was who the Bible says he was, or he wasn't.


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



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

If I could prove that we wouldn't have atheists DUH!



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Oh, you weren't done ...

Can you quote where I stated that any MS of Tacitus was "a forgery"?

Can you quote where I've said anything that you're claiming I've said?

The answers are no and no.

Enjoy your argument with yourself.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I'm not obsessed with stars nor do I care if anyone gives you stars.... I'm just making an observation



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I respectfully decline from replying to anymore of your posts, have a nice day



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: windword

This is what I find very annoying about the "did Jesus exist" discussion. Believers push forward shaky evidence that could at BEST be evidence of a person named Jesus existing then try to use that evidence to substitute the claim that the mythical Jesus lived. It is a double dose of dishonesty. We can't even say for sure that a man named Jesus existed that was cult leader and ended up persecuted by the state, let alone that a demi-god named Jesus existed that came to save us from our inborn sins.


What is really disturbing to me is the outright DECEIT that goes on display. I put no stock in any religion but I do believe in ethics. Just watch how vile they get when you refute an argument. It's not just ... frustration or passionate support of an idea ... it's ... something else.

And not all Christians do it. Weird.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: windword

If I could prove that we wouldn't have atheists DUH!


Not true. There will always be disbelievers. It is just a function of free will.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was mostly kidding



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trust me I know. I got my fill of it recently when I was debating the Shroud of Turin. I showed that the Shroud is a forgery but people would get NASTY with me about the evidence brought forward. I'm confused on this because proving the Shroud is a forgery doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, so why defend it so vehemently? Just accept the evidence and move on. It's really worrisome how far some take their beliefs.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trust me I know. I got my fill of it recently when I was debating the Shroud of Turin. I showed that the Shroud is a forgery but people would get NASTY with me about the evidence brought forward. I'm confused on this because proving the Shroud is a forgery doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, so why defend it so vehemently? Just accept the evidence and move on. It's really worrisome how far some take their beliefs.


I asked the question multiple times in this thread: why does evidence of a Jesus in the 1st century matter.

That man, whoever he was or wasn't, was not the god-man of the New Testament. Why should belief in a religion suddenly require facts? There are no facts for 99% of what the Bible claims about magic and miracles ... so why does it matter?

I think we may be, in some cases, digging down to their own doubts, and they're really arguing with themselves.

I dunno. Makes me sad though.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

As a fan of history, this is also irritating to me. How can you validly inject a source from a time not of when the person lived as a valid source? That would be like Abraham Lincoln writing about George Washington and then a historian centuries later trying to use those writings to prove that GW existed. Abe wasn't born when George lived and would have to take the existing sources as valid to confirm the writings were true. As a future historian, analyzing Abe's writings on GW don't offer a valid source unless further sources from the time of GW were uncovered to help substantiate the claims made by Abe.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.'



No, I didn't and get over it. I called you out on your claim that you are some kind of authority on the topic. Next time, maybe don't come off as some kind of pretentious know-it-all touting your "education and experience" saying that you are right and everyone else wrong just because YOU think you know more:



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


Your links just did not support that Christianity "damages children." I never said they were lame, just that they don't support your argument.

You also NEVER said the word "fundamental" in any of your posts to me until I pointed a major flaw in your argument. If you had, it would have been an entirely different discussion with me.


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.


Where do you mention Fundamental Christianity? You don't. Maybe in the future you should clarify that there is a difference between mainstream Christianity and fundamentalist Christians when making your point. So, don't act all offended and insulted because I disagreed actually proved your argument wrong.

Saying this, I only responded because you can't even appreciate that I went out of my way and said I didn't mean to offend you. I found your accusations offensive, so if you are offended by my post so be it. You can have the last word, it doesn't bother me. Take care!

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




top topics



 
56
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join