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: 27
56
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh no... so sad


All the evidence goes in favor of the OP?

BUT WAIT? We have alternate narratives that have been shot down and personal feelings about religion!?



Okay, you've piqued my interest.

Not in your silly attempts to bait me back into the argument ... but your graphic.

What is that supposed to be/convey?




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

feels.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The OP states: "Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is."

Jesus Christ is a person who, supposedly, ROSE FROM THE DEAD!


Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christós" (i.e. Jesus, the anointed; or "Jesus, the Messiah" by his followers) after his death and believed resurrection
en.wikipedia.org...


There is NO proof, outside of biblical testimony that Jesus Christ existed.

If the OP would have asked, "Is there evidence for Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Christ", your claims might be a tiny bit more reasonable. But as it is, this thread is an exercise in futility and a flight of insanity.

Let me ask you this. Suppose it was proven 100% that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified. So, then what?





LMFAO

mmk.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

feels.


I think you're into the communion wine brother.


Later.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

HAHAHAHA I ain't catholic bro.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


Well, in this case it would be more akin to Abe Lincoln writing that in early America, there was a tale of a boy who never told a lie and who cut down a cherry tree ... and having someone 1000 years later saying "Look, he's talking about George Washington!"


Considering that GW didn't do either of those things makes that analogy extra poignant. I like it.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Dfairlite


How about some scientific studies, rather than a few blog posts, your vague implication that "you know", and some stories written by members of this site.

These are not just "a few blog posts" - they include treatises by professional psychologists, doctors of education, and sociologists. I myself have an advanced degree in psycho-social workings and human behavior, and decades of experience working with families/children and studying these things! Why is that not good enough for you? Can you trump my experience and education? What makes someone an expert, in your opinion?



These are treatises, not studies. treatises prove nothing, they simply make a systematic argument (sometimes peppered with a few studies to back up the facts). Adam Smith wrote treatises where he proposed many aspects of what we view as the free market system. He did not prove that it worked or that it was right, he theorized and reasoned. Marx also wrote treatises but to the opposite end. He did not prove that his system worked, he theorized and reasoned.

So you'll have to excuse me if I disregard your treatises in favor of studies which either prove you wrong or right.

I'm not concerned with what a single expert says, you or anyone else, because there are just as many experts that will disagree. Studies will prove who is correct and who is incorrect (or more likely, that neither is fully correct). I'm not trying to trump your experience or education in this field, I'm trying to get you to admit that what you state as fact is really just an opinion. If it's not then please provide the evidence.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your argument has changed many times over the course of the thread. Excuse me for wanting clarification. But I can see you have given up so, good day to you.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


Well, in this case it would be more akin to Abe Lincoln writing that in early America, there was a tale of a boy who never told a lie and who cut down a cherry tree ... and having someone 1000 years later saying "Look, he's talking about George Washington!"


Considering that GW didn't do either of those things makes that analogy extra poignant. I like it.


See what I did there?

No ... all kidding aside. we are approximately the same distance in time from Washington as the first Gospel writers were from an actual Jesus.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your argument has changed many times over the course of the thread. Excuse me for wanting clarification. But I can see you have given up so, good day to you.



Nope, my argument is precisely the same now as it always was in this discussion.

There are two sources with three possible references to an actual Jesus that can be considered even slightly contemporaneous:

1 in Tacitus (with its own textual issues)
2 in Josephus (1 of which is generally thought to be altered if nor forged)

This provides weak evidence for "a" Jesus that was an itinerant preacher/teacher that was crucified and who had followers who still honored his teaching after his death.

That "Jesus" is nothing like the Son of God and user of magic and miracles that is the mythical Founder of the Christian religion.

The only connection between the two is a matter of belief and/or imagination.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you for finally clarifying.

From my understanding, the intention of this thread is to say: yes, there was a christ, who started christianity, and was crucified by pontius pilate.

Yet you're arguing against "magic" christ. and in favor of multiple christ's. The first is specifically what this thread was trying to avoid. The second is not supported. You may call the evidence weak, that's fine. I'm not going to say it's a home run, but I don't see how josephus and tacitus are at all referencing multiple "christ figures" as you are claiming.

But it's all perspective, right. Four people can watch the same event and give four different accounts on how it happened. Same goes for reading these historical statements.

ETA: You'll get no argument from me that there were indeed multiple people claiming to be the messiah. I just don't see the correlation between these writings and that fact.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


Well, in this case it would be more akin to Abe Lincoln writing that in early America, there was a tale of a boy who never told a lie and who cut down a cherry tree ... and having someone 1000 years later saying "Look, he's talking about George Washington!"


Considering that GW didn't do either of those things makes that analogy extra poignant. I like it.


See what I did there?

No ... all kidding aside. we are approximately the same distance in time from Washington as the first Gospel writers were from an actual Jesus.


Three of the four gospels were wetting before 60ad john's gospel was written around 90 AD.

So we are not about the same distance from Washington as the gospel writers were from Jesus. And all gospel writers knew Jesus personally.


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



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nope. All of the gospels were written by anonymous individuals who were not eye witnesses and were not the written by their prospective namesakes. Luke didn't write Luke, Matthew didn't write Matthew, Mark didn't write Mark etc. The earliest fragments that we have are dated centuries after the supposed facts.

The gospels contradict each and are factually unreliable.




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



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nope. All of the gospels were written by anonymous individuals who were not eye witnesses and were not the written by their prospective namesakes. Luke didn't write Luke, Matthew didn't write Matthew, Mark didn't write Mark etc. The earliest fragments that we have are dated centuries after the supposed facts.

The gospels contradict each and are factually unreliable.





That makes no sense. So let's see, he says we don't have the originals but then claims that it is certain that they didn't sign their names to the gospels? How does he know this if we don't have the originals? Then, to assert that it was to gain credibility why would they ascribe credit to people who were not eye witnesses? I mean, we can't be certain they were written by the alleged authors, but we also can't be certain that they weren't. What a waste of 5 minutes.

ETA:
What kind of inconsistencies do we have? Are they like the inconsistencies we see in eye witness accounts of events?
edit on 15-4-2015 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I didn't "finally clarify" anything.

I stated those exact or nearly those exact words at least four previous times in the discussion.

Which was why I simply replied "read the thread" earlier.

The man Jesus (Yesua, Yesu, Iesu, Isa) that "actually lived" in 1st century Judea was pointedly NOT the founder of Christianity that thousands believe in.

That is my statement, that has always been my statement, and that is, within the boundaries of semantics, the fact.

I don't care that you believe the thread had a different intent than I do, or that you don't feel there is "support" for anything I've said. The fact that there were multiple examples of "messiahs and god-men" running around the First Century is simply indisputable. I have never claimed that Josephus and Tacitus referenced multiple messiahs per se, but then, thankfully, they aren't our only witnesses of the period. THEY ARE, however, THE ONLY sources that have any chance of being considered contemporaneous with Jesus that could be said IN ANY WAY to reference his reality.

The fact of the find at Nag Hammadi (and of course, hopefully the next major cache) of actual documents demonstrates clearly that there were WILD differences in what the "Christians" believed about their Jesus Christ figure. The situation was even more extreme a few centuries later, at which point it seems to me the most OBVIOUS truth that it was the Roman Government/Church (interchange those terms as you wish) that CREATED orthodox Christianity, with a basic example of that fact being Constantine's (as Pontifex Maximus) Council of Nicea.

What is the "credo" chanted and repeated in many Christian churches every Sunday to this day? That would be the NICEAN Creed. What calendar was established as the official calendar of the church? The Roman solar calendar rather than the Semitic lunar versions. What FUNDAMENTAL question was solved at Nicea?

The "divinity" of Jesus Christ. For all intents and purposes, the orthodox figure that we know today as "Jesus Christ" was literally created at Nicea, by the Roman Emperor AND Pontifex Maximus Constantine.

What is the title of the man who is the leader of a majority of the worlds Christians today? Pontifex Maximus.

That is not a coincidence.
edit on 6Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:23:35 -050015p062015466 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You can say anything you want to about Bart Ehrman and I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but he is certainly not just "some guy" on Youtube but is rather a well-known ACADEMIC New Testament scholar that has published multiple books on the subject.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




That makes no sense. So let's see, he says we don't have the originals but then claims that it is certain that they didn't sign their names to the gospels? How does he know this if we don't have the originals?


What is so hard to understand?

We have old manuscripts that are not named Matthew, Luke, etc and it wasn't until 180 years after the earliest ones that they started appearing with those names.

None of the gospels claim within them to have been written by those people.




I mean, we can't be certain they were written by the alleged authors, but we also can't be certain that they weren't.


We can be certain that those names didn't appear on them till much later and we can be certain that nowhere in the gospels do they claim to have been written by who they are named after.




What a waste of 5 minutes.


Some people can hear something once and grasp it I guess you are not one of those people.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


Well, in this case it would be more akin to Abe Lincoln writing that in early America, there was a tale of a boy who never told a lie and who cut down a cherry tree ... and having someone 1000 years later saying "Look, he's talking about George Washington!"


Considering that GW didn't do either of those things makes that analogy extra poignant. I like it.


See what I did there?

No ... all kidding aside. we are approximately the same distance in time from Washington as the first Gospel writers were from an actual Jesus.


Exactly! And look how many people believe the lie that GW chopped down that cherry tree and never told a lie. This despite readily available sources that tell you the truth right at your fingertips, and people STILL go on believing the lie. Considering that information wasn't nearly as readily available back in Jesus' time, I am loath to trust a source centuries or even decades removed from Jesus' life.

Heck I'd have trouble trusting any source that didn't directly write about Jesus right after meeting him. Your brain is a funny thing and has a tendency to remember things wrong. So the longer you take to record the past, the higher the chances are that the recording will be skewed.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
earliest fragments that we have are dated centuries after the supposed facts.


Your information is out of date.
The most recent fragment of the Gospel of Luke discovered has been dated to the year 90.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aye. For that matter, look around you today. We are living through history and there are thousands of people writing about "what's going on" around us every day.

How many of the writings of those people do you believe reflects the reality that you have seen with your own eyes?

Very few, on my page.

There are people alive, today, who knew L. Ron Hubbard personally, who now believe that instead of a science-fiction writer that found a way to make a lot of money, he is instead a great sage of humanity that single-handedly rewrote the book on psychology, was a famous naval captain, could read minds, etc. etc.

Even a contemporaneous, honest "witness" is still fallible and open to being wrong.
edit on 8Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:52:57 -050015p082015466 by Gryphon66 because: NOted



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join