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: 34
56
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I was under the impression that they regarded them as lacking in evidence of existence, not disproven.

Same as jesus, yet...

By the way, you introduced the concept of "proof", not I. So you are arguing with yourself there somewhat lol.



Wait, wait wait wait. You don't think that history can arrive at truth? Obviously historians aren't omniscient, but you're saying "history just can't come to some conclusions." Then what's the point?

The point is to look at the reliability of the source and weigh the story, find cross references if possible etc. Then give a probability. For the relevant passage, the source is known to be extremely unreliable (the book is full of magic and obvious falsehoods, reads like mythology), there is no other mention of such dramatic events recorded by anyone else and the probability for it is also exceedingly low in any genuine historical context (it's a fairy tale).


Glad to know you're the arbiter of genuine academia

Not so much arbitrating as explaining a concept that is usually taken for granted (under heading "common sense"). Also explaining why "all Ph.D's" are not apologists and why no genuine scholars accept magic. Why I would need to do this, I don't know, it should be common sense (yet we are talking about religion I suppose).


Why? Isn't the historian's job to arrive at truth? Shouldn't the historian follow the evidence wherever it leads?

That somewhat being the whole point (that you seem to be missing)...Not to start with a belief and look to verify it, or accepting magical anecdotes.


Why do you need to show that *all* relevant scientific observations are false to entertain miracles?

You don't really. You could display a miracle. Say move Mt. Everest from it's present location via faith. Walk on water under controlled conditions, heal sick and lame via faith etc. Repeat the miracles in the bible, they would surely overturn our entire understanding of science and would have the same effect. Look forward to that one.


Miracles can't really exist *without* science, because a miracle is something that shouldn't happen according to scientific laws. Remove the scientific laws, and breaking them suddenly is no biggie.

Lol. Yeah no problem at all, excuse for a moment...(ha ha ha ha ha ha ha), sorry, all good now.

You are making some very good points on ahistoricists behalf. We should recruit you. Not only happy with the notion that apologists should masquerade as academics/historians (as you say, don't all Ph.D's?), you want to include the magic! lol

Don't discount magic...it exists...there is no distinction between probable fact and obvious fantasy...people can walk on water...it says so in a book...anecdotes galore...



edit on 23-4-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword


Not true. There not one single Roman historian of the time period that mentions Jesus of Nazareth.


There is not a single Roman historian of the time period that mentions Pontius Pilate's birth and upbringing. What we have is from later in his life when he became procurator, and most of what we have of that time period was written after his death. Is that proof he didn't exist?

And again with the "no Roman contemporaneous historian wrote about him"?... No contemporaneous historian wrote about many other historical figures until after their deaths, such as Alexander the Great. The surviving texts that we have of him were written 200-300+ years after his death. Is that proof he didn't exist?



originally posted by: windword
You tell me.


Galation1:11
Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.

..........

15 But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.


The gospel that Paul preached was NOT of HUMAN ORIGIN and he did NOT receive from any human being or any "apostles" that were before him.

Everything that Paul preached and taught came from the voice of an ethereal being, playing in his head, according to him!



That was written after his crucifixion. It is not proof Jesus did not exist... During the time that Jesus was alive he also said "his kingdom is not of this Earth". Does that mean he didn't exist?... No...


edit on 23-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
...
There's not a single contemporary source and all that is offered as response are rationalizations, what ifs and hypotheticals. Not any actual hard evidence though.

...


How about you show us a single contemporary source for Alexander the Great? If you can't then it must mean he didn't exist?

As for evidence that proves Jesus Christ lived?... You are obviously alongside some other people simply dismissing what you don't want to accept...



In his Annals, Tacitus tells of a fire that swept through Rome in the 60s, for which some were blaming Nero himself...

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
...

www.mesacc.edu...

You want to call the above, and other mentions of Jesus as circumstantial based on what? The "belief" from mythicists?...



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Yes, which historical Jesus. Really. Can you give us one personal fact about the man Jesus?

YEC have no evidence. Faith and logical fallacies aren't evidence. In fact, it is completely contradicted by such. Yet evolution has so much in it's favour, with no other alternative possibility available as an explanation, it would be quite ignorant not to accept it.

A few spurious references, missed by all early Christians who scoured such documents looking for exactly such references, that are not contemporary anyway (Tacitus about 80yrs after?) and have no possibility of being other than "hearsay" (even if they are not forgeries), isn't convincing. Less so when you take into account the concept of "pious forgeries" .

You seem to be quite willing to go on ad hominem rants, that really have no place in such discussion, when people don't agree with you. Does it really matter that much?

Debate the topic.




edit on 23-4-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

We are not discussing YEC, or evolution... Stop trying to derail the thread.

First of all, you seem completely oblivious in the knowledge of who these "other Jesus were".

The name Yeshu Ben Pantera came from the later slander that the Romans, and orthodox Jews were using to claim that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier called Pantera. Ben means "son of". That fact, that they were trying to slander Jesus' parentage is in fact proof that he did exist, but it is not proof of his parentage. Such slander by pagan Romans and orthodox Jews were attempts to deny Jesus' divinity.

One of you also claim that there was a "Jesus Ananias" and he could also be Christ. That isn't true either.


Jesus ben Ananias ("the son of Ananias") [rendered as the "son of Ananus" in the Whiston translation[1]] was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans, who tortured him. The procurator Albinus took him to be a madman and released him. He continued his prophecy for more than seven years until he was killed by a stone from a catapult during the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the war. His name is rendered ישוע בן חנניה (Yeshua ben Hananiah) in modern Hebrew histories.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Ananias died from a ballista, and not by being crucified. Not to mention that his trial was presided by another Roman procurator and not by Pontius Pilate. Not to mention that he didn't have a multitude of followers and Christianity was not founded because of him either.

What the above examples show is that "mythicists" would use any claim to try to verify their "belief".




edit on 24-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19270734]
We are not discussing YEC, or evolution... Stop trying to derail the thread.

Tell that to the person who brought it up (thus deserving a brief response).


The name Yeshu Ben Pantera came from the later slander that the Romans, and orthodox Jews were using to claim that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier called Pantera. Ben means "son of". That fact, that they were trying to slander Jesus' parentage is in fact proof that he did exist, but it is not proof of his parentage. Such slander by pagan Romans and orthodox Jews were attempts to deny Jesus' divinity.


No human is, has, or ever will have such "divinity". Especially Jesus, as that would imply he actually existed, which is doubtful. You're missing the point of such stories.

They were also written anywhere from best part of a couple of centuries later, to the middle ages. Therefore irrelevant. Though if you're accepting hearsay, as you seem insistent on doing, why not these? You're not doing very well here.


One of you also claim that there was a "Jesus Ananias" and he could also be Christ. That isn't true either.


It would be good to get this straight, as it is the point at which all scholarly historicity debate begins. A view held by all genuine (non fringe) historians. There was no biblical Jesus. There could have been one (or many) ordinary people, utterly lacking divinity or magical abilities, who could have formed the seed of a later wildly exaggerated story.

That is the only possible scholarly view from which to even begin the debate.



Jesus ben Ananias ("the son of Ananias") [rendered as the "son of Ananus" in the Whiston translation[1]] was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans, who tortured him. The procurator Albinus took him to be a madman and released him. He continued his prophecy for more than seven years until he was killed by a stone from a catapult during the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the war. His name is rendered ישוע בן חנניה (Yeshua ben Hananiah) in modern Hebrew histories.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Ananias died from a ballista, and not being crucified. Not to mention that he didn't have a multitude of followers and Christianity was founded because of him either.


Who cares. Start a thread denying whoever you like. In the meantime, stop derailing your own thread with irrelevancies and show us something that isn't hearsay for Jesus existence.



edit on 24-4-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


That was written after his crucifixion. It is not proof Jesus did not exist... During the time that Jesus was alive he also said "his kingdom is not of this Earth". Does that mean he didn't exist?....No....



Hey! You asked the question "How in the world would a sane person claim that "Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person?"

There's lots of documentation of early Christian sects that believed in a celestial "Christ" but rejected its earthly incarnation. Wars were fought and millions of people died over it.

You just keep asking the same questions and presenting the same old tired arguments. It's exhausting. You need to go back and read your own thread. All the answers to your questions are here. Take 'em or leave 'em.


edit on 24-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: StalkerSolent




The point is to look at the reliability of the source and weigh the story, find cross references if possible etc. Then give a probability. For the relevant passage, the source is known to be extremely unreliable (the book is full of magic and obvious falsehoods, reads like mythology), there is no other mention of such dramatic events recorded by anyone else and the probability for it is also exceedingly low in any genuine historical context (it's a fairy tale).


You're just throwing out stuff because magic occurs. Why? Because you've never seen it? I've never seen a solar eclipse, and it sounds like a mythical apocalyptic event, so should I throw it out? No? Because it can be measured and predicted? OK. So would I have been right to reject it back when all we had to go on was witness testimony?



Not so much arbitrating as explaining a concept that is usually taken for granted (under heading "common sense"). Also explaining why "all Ph.D's" are not apologists and why no genuine scholars accept magic. Why I would need to do this, I don't know, it should be common sense (yet we are talking about religion I suppose).


Common sense isn't a good standard to rely on, because different people have different ideas about it. You should know this.



That somewhat being the whole point (that you seem to be missing)...Not to start with a belief and look to verify it, or accepting magical anecdotes.


Why should we reject the magical anecdotes and accept the other ones?



You don't really. You could display a miracle. Say move Mt. Everest from it's present location via faith. Walk on water under controlled conditions, heal sick and lame via faith etc. Repeat the miracles in the bible, they would surely overturn our entire understanding of science and would have the same effect. Look forward to that one.


What you're saying amounts to "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist, and we shouldn't consider its existence."



Lol. Yeah no problem at all, excuse for a moment...(ha ha ha ha ha ha ha), sorry, all good now.

You are making some very good points on ahistoricists behalf. We should recruit you. Not only happy with the notion that apologists should masquerade as academics/historians (as you say, don't all Ph.D's?), you want to include the magic! lol

Don't discount magic...it exists...there is no distinction between probable fact and obvious fantasy...people can walk on water...it says so in a book...anecdotes galore...


I've got a puzzler for you. If human's minds are so frail as to be able to hallucinate the numerous examples of "magic," "obvious fantasy," whatever you want to call it that have been recorded throughout history...why should we believe science? It is, after all, built upon human perception, and if the majority of humans are so stupid as to be fooled into believing in a spiritual reality, we're probably also stupid enough to either let science become the next religion (higher realms of wisdom accessible only by an elite, qualified few, a new scientific priesthood.) Alternatively, maybe it's all bunk and the world really is random and unpredictable, and our frail minds have been deceived into creating a mask of orderliness for our own sanity.

Either humans are reliable observers who occasionally screw up and are prone to forgetfulness and suggestible, or we're completely screwballs through and through. If we're the former, than there's enough "magical" things that have happened with good witness testimony that we should at least keep a mind open to things that appear to violate natural laws as we understand them. If we're the latter, than we should probably throw out science and "retreat to the safety of a new dark age" to rip off of Lovecraft.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




You're just throwing out stuff because magic occurs. Why? Because you've never seen it? I've never seen a solar eclipse, and it sounds like a mythical apocalyptic event, so should I throw it out? No? Because it can be measured and predicted? OK. So would I have been right to reject it back when all we had to go on was witness testimony?


Are you saying that we should believe that there was a solar eclipse the day Jesus supposedly died? Or, are you saying something supernatural might have happened to cause the Sun to go black? Are you asking us to take the tale as reality based on biblical testamony?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Are you saying that we should believe that there was a solar eclipse the day Jesus supposedly died? Or, are you saying something supernatural might have happened to cause the Sun to go black? Are you asking us to take the tale as reality based on biblical testamony?


No.
I'm just saying that the solar eclipse is a real phenomenon. Yet it has mythic overtones (serpent swallowing the sun and such) and sounds supernatural to *me.* If I was born back before we could predict and measure a solar eclipse, I would reject the entire idea of a solar eclipse as magic and hearsay if I was using Cogito's standards.

In other words, we shouldn't discount things just because they sound weird to us.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


In other words, we shouldn't discount things just because they sound weird to us.


nor should we accept them simply because they are convenient.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Why should we reject the magical anecdotes and accept the other ones?
I'm not sure that we should, if we are talking about different passages from the same source. If we find a different source that lacks passages about magic, it may be more believable and possibly more accurate unless there are other reasons to doubt its accuracy such as bias of the author for example.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Why should we reject the magical anecdotes and accept the other ones?
I'm not sure that we should, if we are talking about different passages from the same source. If we find a different source that lacks passages about magic, it may be more believable and possibly more accurate unless there are other reasons to doubt its accuracy such as bias of the author for example.


I'd tend to agree.
I'd caution that all sources are biased, though



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yeah, okay but, we KNOW that there couldn't have been a solar eclipse the day that Jesus supposedly died. So, if we're supposed to take the story as truth, then it has to magic, right?

I don't think is narrow minded to reject magic. It makes far more sense to see it as fable. Occam's razor!

It feels like you're asking historians NOT to discount MAGIC as historical testimonial evidence.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Yeah, okay but, we KNOW that there couldn't have been a solar eclipse the day that Jesus supposedly died. So, if we're supposed to take the story as truth, then it has to magic, right?


I'm not referring to Jesus' death at all




I don't think is narrow minded to reject magic. It makes far more sense to see it as fable. Occam's razor!


Sure. But Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is often the best one. Sometimes it is simpler to say "Gee, maybe those people witnessed magic" rather than "gee, maybe those people were all hallucination the same thing."



It feels like you're asking historians NOT to discount MAGIC as historical testimonial evidence.


I think historians should be cautious about discounting historical testimonial evidence simply because magic is involved.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




I'm not referring to Jesus' death at all


It doesn't matter. The Bible says it happened.


Sure. But Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is often the best one. Sometimes it is simpler to say "Gee, maybe those people witnessed magic" rather than "gee, maybe those people were all hallucination the same thing."


Is that what we should think about the testimony of the darkness the day that Jesus died?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent





It doesn't matter. The Bible says it happened.


So? You're missing my point.
My point is theoretical, and isn't linked at all to the accounts in the Bible.
Just because something sounds weird, doesn't mean it is untrue. Just because something sounds magical, doesn't mean it is real. Just because something doesn't match up with our preferred worldview, doesn't mean we shouldn't have an open mind.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




Just because something sounds weird, doesn't mean it is untrue. Just because something sounds magical, doesn't mean it is real. Just because something doesn't match up with our preferred worldview, doesn't mean we shouldn't have an open mind.


Is that how you think historians should view the textual testimony of Jesus' miracles in the Bible when considering whether or not Jesus Christ was a real person or a myth? They should say 'Could be, who knows?" when they read about such events?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
originally posted by: windword



Is that how you think historians should view the textual testimony of Jesus' miracles in the Bible when considering whether or not Jesus Christ was a real person or a myth? They should say 'Could be, who knows?" when they read about such events?


I think that our favorite razor strongly suggests that Jesus was a real person. As to whether or not he committed miracles, I think that historians should be open to the possibility.

I'm not special pleading, either. For instance, I've got an open mind as to Rasputin's alleged powers. Not the Disney/comic book ones, of course, but he was supposed to be able to heal the Tsar's son of his illness. I'm curious, though not convinced either way.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


whether or not he committed miracles

He 'committed' miracles?

LOL. Thanks for that.




top topics



 
56
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join