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: 37
56
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The Tablet of ISIS, or “Bembine Tablet” was recovered in 1527 after the sacking of Rome. It now resides in the Museum of Antiquities at Turin and is a bronze tablet measuring 50 by 30 inches. It was probably used as an altar, and it is said that it was present in the subterranean vault under the Great Pyramid when Plato received his Initiation there.

Tradition teaches that the goddess ISIS was instructed by Hermes or Thoth, the god of magick, writing and words. By magick power ISIS promulgated writing and learning, caused men to love women, was the protectress of sailors and all vessels that sail the seas. She provided law and justice and instructed mankind in the sacred mysteries. In ISIS, truth is made perfect and beautiful. The inscription from her temple at Sais reads: “I am Isis, I am all that is, that has been, and that will be, and no mortal has ever yet withdrawn my veil.” www.ordoastri.org...



Plato had received from Socrates the great impetus, the active male principle of his life, his faith in justice and truth. He owed the science and substance of his ideas to his initiation into the Mysteries. His genius consists in the new form -- at once poetic and dialectic -- which he knew how to give them. He did not take this initiation from Eleusis only. He sought it in all the accessible sources of the ancient world. After Socrates' death, Plato began to travel. He studied with several philosophers of Asia Minor. From there he went to Egypt to establish a relationship with its priests, going through the initiation of Isis.
uncletaz.com...




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: windword

No... i am trying to prove that the story of Jesus being Horus, or even Mary being Isis is false. It is based in false claims...


I never said that Jesus/Horus or Isis/Mary were one in the same beings. I'm saying that they're all mythical. They're not real historic people.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Uh uh...and you give links to "magick books"?

Another of the links you gave takes references from books by authors such as Manly Palmer Hall.


Bust of Manly P. Hall
Born March 18, 1901
Canada
Died August 29, 1990 (aged 89)
Los Angeles, California
Occupation Philosopher, writer
Language English
Citizenship United States
Period 1923–1990
Subject Philosophy
Notable works The Secret Teachings of All Ages
The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry
Spouse Fay Bernice Lee (m. April 28, 1930 – February 22, 1941, her death)
Marie Schweikert Bauer Hall, born June 24, 1904 (m. December 5, 1950 – August 29, 1990, his death; she died April 21, 2005)

Manly Palmer Hall (March 18, 1901 – August 29, 1990) was a Canadian-born author and mystic. He is best known for his 1928 work The Secret Teachings of All Ages.

en.wikipedia.org...

A mystic, and other "mystics and magick books and websites" are not reliable sources.


edit on 25-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

I never said that Jesus/Horus or Isis/Mary were one in the same beings. I'm saying that they're all mythical. They're not real historic people.


*facepalm*... Okaaaay...

First of all the historicity of Jesus and his mother Mary are not disputed by most real scholars and Jesus and his mother Mary are known as historical figures. Even most atheist scholars do not deny they were historical figures... Only you, among other mythicists want to claim that the texts from pagan Roman historians, among other non-Christian sources which described Jesus as a historical figure are false... To prove this claim you, and some others keep presenting evidence which is false, or are misinterpreted by mystics and mythicists. Plato wasn't a historian, he was a philosopher, and in his poems of Isis he gives his "own interpretation of the mythology" of Isis.


edit on 25-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




If you actually bother to read that link you gave from sacred-texts you would have read.


...
Plutarch affirms that many ancient authors believed this goddess to be the daughter of Hermes; others held the opinion that she was the child of Prometheus. Both of these demigods were noted for their divine wisdom. It is not improbable that her kinship to them is merely allegorical. Plutarch translates the name Isis to mean wisdom. Godfrey Higgins, in his Anacalypsis, derives the name of Isis from the Hebrew ישע, Iso, and the Greek ζωω, to save. Some authorities, however, for example, Richard Payne Knight (as stated in his Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology), believe the word to be of Northern extraction, possibly Scandinavian or Gothic. In these languages the name is pronounced Isa, meaning ice, or water in its most passive, crystallized, negative state.
...

www.sacred-texts.com...


Again. You're missing the point. Hermes and Prometheus are Greek, not Egyptian dieties. Plutarch didn't believe any of it. His essay is what we call Comparative Mythology Plutarch merely explains the evolution of myth through time and culture, to date. Plutarch was giving a "modern" explanation of comparative mythology/religion to his friend Clea.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




A mystic, and other "mystics and magick books and websites" are not reliable sources.


You don't know what you're talking about. What do you think the Bible is? At least "The Secret Teaching of All Ages" is merely an Encyclopedia and not a proselytizing pious forgery.



Perhaps one of the greatest works of occult reference ever composed, Manly P. Hall’s The Secret Teachings of All Ages is a true masterpiece. Were it to be published for the first time nowadays, the subtitle would of course be included on the cover — “An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic, and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy.”

This tome covers all these topics and many more. This is the book that sits on my desk as a reference to be opened first, whenever a question arises or a quote is required. Hall has truly recorded exactly what his title indicates. How this epic tome came to be is a story in itself.
www.manlyphall.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

i am the one not knowing what I am talking about?... I am not the one giving links from mystics and mythicists as proof and want to deny historical writings...
edit on 25-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct error.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You needed proof the age of the Tablet of Isis. It's age is established through the testimony of Plato, whose works on the matter are quoted by Manly P Hall, and is not questioned by scholars. It's also verified by Plutarch in the 1st century.

Plato attested that Isis was considered "The Great Virgin". circa 400 BCE, when he was initiated into the Isis Cult.

Besides the other evidence I've presented for the perpetual virginity of Isis, that's evidence that Isis' virgin status was not concocted later by would be mythicist created specifically to deny the Virgin Mary.



edit on 25-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
The common element between Mary and Isis is that they are both make believe.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
So far we have one poster who launches into ad hominem tirades whenever someone disagrees with him/her, another who feels that "magic" is viable historically (lol) and another who refuses to critically debunk anything (such as just a few of the objections to Tacitus, below). Instead, clinging to an "ad populum" fallacy.

Contemporary historical references to jesus = 0.

The possibility of historical references to anything else, mentioning jesus (non extant) = 0

2nd Century hearsay = Yes. Although impossible to be speaking authoritatively, repeating hearsay at best, with a high probability of pious forgery.

Not very convincing.



Tacitus

The use of the Christians as "living torches," as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs. Death by fire was not a punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State.

The phrase "multitudo ingens" which means "a great number" is opposed to all that we know of the spread of the new faith in Rome at the time. A vast multitude in 64 CE.? There were not more than a few thousand Christians 200 years later. The idea of so many just 30 years after his supposed death is just a falsehood.

It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It isn't the most popular way to convert and bring people into their religion.

The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

The expression "Christians" which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, etc. were universally regarded as Jews.

Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.

This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability.

Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.

This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works including by your supposed historian.

The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.

In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?

Richard Carrier explains.....And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."

Suetonius doesn't mention this event in his histories.

And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus



edit on 25-4-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   







posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You got a source to that quote?

Here is some other info regarding Tacitus.


Source
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius. "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44

What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
- Jesus did exist Jesus was the founder of Christianity
- Jesus was put to death by Pilate Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
- Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)

Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?

Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?

Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Skeptic Interjection:Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?

Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

Skeptic Interjection:Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?

Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator: "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1 "Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2 "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held both positions.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
You got a source to that quote?

Got erased during edit. I have put up better, current peer reviewed (spring 2015 issue of a journal) literature that is probably better. It gets ignored also.

wiki.ironchariots.org...


Here is some other info regarding Tacitus.

Interesting to you, perhaps. It seems to overlook every relevant point in previous objections. Nothing unusual there.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government records over Christian testimony.

Christian wishful thinking. Do any writers who were around at the time and lived through the "fire" episode corroborate this version of events (re Christians being used as torches etc.)? Unlikely official records would mention "jesus" or document how this faith started, further unlikely they would mention gossip about Nero. No references are mentioned.


It is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger.

It's also possible Tacitus got the lot of it from Pliny...or from christians...or that it is a forgery (to more or less extent)...


Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

Unlikely he would see the need to doubt another high ranking official to that extent. He gives no sources nor indication of needing or using any. It also somewhat is at odds with itself (if Nero was at Antium when fire broke out, as Tacitus claimed, why would he need a scapegoat?... makes it dubious).


Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Or judging by the unlikely /fictional nature of the content, that is at odds with what is known of Rome at the time and very unlikely re the spread of christianity (multitudo ingens) it is doubtful re genuine history. It is very odd there is no mention of this passage before the 15th century...no amount of gymnastics with logic makes it less so...


Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

This is simply dishonest. We don't have to wonder if it was available to those who directly reference Tacitus, for starters. It's not just extremely unlikely that something corroborating the execution of jesus would not have been used widely at some point before the 15th century, or by early apologists who scoured documents for exactly such references, it's very good reason to wonder if it was there at all.

Some massive assumptions in that faux answer. This is the "criterion of embarrassment" used as as excuse/wishful thinking (a favorite of apologists) because it overlooks that the entire passage is an attempt to portray christians as suffering martyrs. It overlooks the obvious strong political bias of Tacitus himself which would could explain the use of such hearsay. Also overlooks the many instances where such criterion is simply wrong. Also overlooks the evidence that points more towards forgery (either in part or whole).


No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator: "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1 "Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2 "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held both positions.

It is less odd perhaps for Josephus, or for anyone using hearsay. In fact, that is exactly what it points towards. Far more unlikely that a high ranking Roman official (a senator) and historian such as Tacitus would not know the title(s) of another legate. Especially if he was referencing official documents, as christian historian like to claim (as above). Can't have it both ways. It helps put that notion to rest and makes it very unlikely.

This Q&A looks more like an effort at apologetics. It is also quite odd that the years of jesus supposed ministry are completely missing.

Non contemporary hearsay at best. Forgery at worst.

Still nothing put forward that is contemporary, nor anything that references a contemporary source, for jesus.

At best it shows that christians and their stories existed in the second century.



edit on 26-4-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Contemporary historical references to Alexander the Great...

Alexander The Great = 20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BC

Let's see the dates of birth/death of the main writers of Alexander the Great's accomplishments...

Arrian of Nicodemia = AD 86/89 – after 146/160 AD

Quintus Curtius Rufus = around 1st century AD

Diodorus Siculus = 1st century BC.

Justin = 180 - 255 CE/AD

Plutarch = AD 46 – AD 120

Other writers on Alexander the Great.

Claudius Aelianus = 175 – c. 235 CE/AD

Athenaeus of Naucratis = end of 2nd century and beginning of third century AD.

Polyaenus = 2nd century CE/AD

Strabo = 64/63 BC – c. AD 24

All historians who wrote about Alexander the Great did so at least 200 years to 300 years+ AFTER Alexander the Great died... ALL the writers of Alexander the Great wrote about him 200 to 300+ years AFTER Alexander had died... Does that mean Alexander the Great was a myth?... No...

Hence Cogito, Ergo Sum's claims that no contemporary author wrote abut Jesus so he must be a myth does not stand to scrutiny...

Cogito, Ergo Sum has been shown this yet he continues to ignore it, and deny it simply because Cogito, Ergo Sum, among some others have no logical argument to present, hence they have to make up claims which do not stand to scrutiny.



edit on 27-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct post.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

i have yet to see a logical argument in favor of worshipping anyone or anything, regardless of whether a jesus of nazareth existed or was crucified.
edit on 27-4-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

i have yet to see a logical argument in favor of worshipping anyone or anything, regardless of whether a jesus of nazareth existed or was crucified.


What exactly does that have to do with the subject of the thread? It's hilarious how so many people have chimed in here with their personal beliefs on religion. As if that somehow has any bearing on the subject at hand. Biased much?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's ridiculous. Not only is there contemporary evidence for Alexander the great, there are contemporary coins, reams of corroborating secondary and tertiary references to contemporary documents (some to accounts from his own generals) and archeology that supports it in every way. A quick google search could have cleared that up for you. Or do you listen only to your "unbiased" biblical scholars?

Contemporary accounts from Bactria.

www.khalili.org...


During this period, which begins with the reign of Artaxerxes III, the Achaemenian Empire came to an end when the kingdom was captured by Alexander the Great. One document is dated to year 7 of his reign.


Contemporary mentions in the Babylonian diaries.

www.livius.org...

www.livius.org...


On 1 October 331, the Macedonian king Alexander the Great defeated a large Persian army at Gaugamela, commanded by king Darius III Codomannus. The only contemporary source describing the event is the Astronomical diary, a day-by-day account of celestial phenomena, written by the officials of the Esagila temple complex.

The following text, a cuneiform tablet now in the British Museum in London, is damaged, but the account is clear: there were terrible omens and the battle -which is described after the astronomical observations- was truly important. (A more scholarly edition can be found here.)


Contemporary coins.

www.coinsoftime.com...


Alexander’s armies defeated every army for 13 years. While traveling back home through Babylon, Alexander died at the age of 33 in 323 BC. The coins minted under his name from 336 to 323 BC are referred to as lifetime issues and command a high price today.







Have you got anything like that for Jesus?


edit on 28-4-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

i have yet to see a logical argument in favor of worshipping anyone or anything, regardless of whether a jesus of nazareth existed or was crucified.


What exactly does that have to do with the subject of the thread? It's hilarious how so many people have chimed in here with their personal beliefs on religion. As if that somehow has any bearing on the subject at hand. Biased much?


there is only one point to arguing about jesus, and that is in clearly outlining the nature of his divinity.

and there is only one point to arguing about divinity in regard to anything.

and thats to decide how much ass you should be kissing.

but you are right, thats my opinion.

its a free forum.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
You got a source to that quote?

Got erased during edit. I have put up better, current peer reviewed (spring 2015 issue of a journal) literature that is probably better. It gets ignored also.

wiki.ironchariots.org...


Here is some other info regarding Tacitus.

Interesting to you, perhaps. It seems to overlook every relevant point in previous objections. Nothing unusual there.


Thank you for posting the link. I was hoping to learn some objective insight on the myth of Jesus, well not the case with that site.Iron Chariot Wiki

You know that thing on Wikipedia about having a neutral point of view? Well forget all about that. This is an atheist wiki: of, by, and for atheists. Its intent is to promote robust atheist arguments and counter-apologetics.


While they claim to be honest

This site will have an inherent bias toward truth, honesty, reason and reality.

Here is their definition of Dogma:

Dogma (sometimes plural, dogmas) is a set of central religious beliefs, whether written as divine doctrine or not, that are typically held to be beyond question. In rare cases the term dogma may also apply to ideology or simply philosophy. The term dogmatic is often used to describe those who oppose rational argument, and who hold a very fundamental set of beliefs based on their religion. Source


Here is wiki definition of Dogma:


Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2] Source


I know you can find other sources, but I thought it was important to show the dishonest intent among some atheist to discredit anything Christian. Do you think that the anti religious atheist dogma might be corrupting the research?



edit on 28-4-2015 by Observationalist because: Gramm



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join