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: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by DeadSeraph removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The truth is the if you can argue that there is no evidence of Christ existing you destroy Christianity. The need for atheist to hammer home the fact that the Romans didn't write vast amounts of information about a lowly carpenter from Judea is that it is a sucker punch to Christians. Its almost like as an atheist they have to find validity their own lack of belief through bias research into the subject. NO ONE REALLY KNOWs 100%

If atheists can argue that Jesus never existed through "scientific evidence" they insult the very foundation of Christianity.
Thats why people who claim no religion have to drive home the fact the Romans really only wrote about the Christ once Christians started showed up in the empire.

I ask again.... Why would the Romans write about an execution/messiah running around Judea preaching against Roman occupation? Why would you use the only known medium to spread information (writing) to help spread the message that is against your own beliefs and could very well have you crucified?
edit on 11-4-2015 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2015 by JDmOKI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




Remember when I shot you down while you were touting Joseph Atwill's theories? Let me guess...


You have never shot me down. And, I have never touted Joseph Atwell's theories, my theories are my own, founded on my own research spanning over 4 decades!

Here's another Jesus like charactor from Josephus.


According to Flavius Josephus, there were many people during the governorship of Festus

who deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were in fact for procuring innovations and changes of the government. These men prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.259]
He continues with the following story.

There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives. He was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to rule them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-262]


[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171]


30,000 men that were deluded by him! Those are epic numbers of "biblical" proportions!



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yes, the Jews were probably one of the most rebellious people in the Roman Empire and raised several armies around God wanting liberation for the Jews.

Do you think its crazy that religious military figures shows up and tried to take back Judea from the Romans? Jesus didn't raise an army though... and seems to be the only one that people remember



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

Yes well, we know how this goes because you and I have been over this 100 times windword. You never address the one passage from Josephus in which he specifically mentions Jesus brother.

You also never seem to adequately address tacitus, suetonius, and pliny the younger. Your entire "theory" is based on your own personal problems with religion. Something many of your cohorts in this thread seem to share.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The way some people talk you would think it would be a miracle a true act of god for people to document at the time a walking son of...


Oh wait...
edit on 11-4-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI




The truth is the if you can argue that there is no evidence of Christ existing you destroy Christianity.


Not true. Christians worship a celestial being, not a flesh and blood man. Your Jesus is merely another representation of the celstial "The High Preist Joshua" (Jesus) from the Old Testament:


And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2 And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

......

And the angel of the Lord protested unto Joshua, saying,

7 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.

8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch.

9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.


There was already a Jewish "High Priest" named Jesus who's obedience to God removed the sins of the land in one day, through a celestial event.

Jesus Christ is a composite figure, not an historic figure.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Ironically, it is apparently more of a miracle for people to disassociate their own personal beliefs about a religion from the historical evidence in favor of its founder.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
HISTORICAL YESHUA (Josephus 1 good reference, 1 mostly forged reference, Tacitus 1 good reference, "most" scholars agree)

Lived in Palestine c 30 CE
Was an itinerant preacher
Was crucified by Romans
Had followers who still honored him after his death

BIBLICAL JESUS (New Testament, church traditions, etc)

Lived in Palestine c 30 CE
Was an itinerant preacher
Was crucified by Romans
Had followers who still honored him after his death
Was born of a virgin and the Hebrew god YHVH
Was able to argue the Torah with learned Rabbis at age 12 with no (apparent) formal training
Was able to miraculously cure disease, blindness, and raise the dead back to life
Was able to walk on the surface of water and control the weather
Was able to transform water into wine
Was able to multiply the quantity of simple foodstuffs
Was able to predict the future
Was able to return to life after being killed and dead for 1-3 days
Was able to miraculously appear inside of locked buildings
Was able to fly up into the air and disappear
Was able by suffering and dying to appease the god YHVH, who he apparently also was, to forgive the "sins" of the world, as defined by that same YHVH



Now, one of these things is not like the other.

At all. Not even close.

EDIT: I was going to leave the last example of Biblical Jesus off ... but that actually kind of rounds out the whole set of ludicrosity.
edit on 12Sat, 11 Apr 2015 12:00:38 -050015p122015466 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

so you admit that there is evidence for a historical Jesus while simultaneously holding up a strawman argument? Good form.

Again, a magical jesus that was born of a virgin and owns the #ing universe is not necessarily a precursor to the notion of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Why the hell can't you grasp this simple concept? There are literally 3 people in this thread arguing in favor of a historical Jesus, and not one of us has insisted he is the son of god as some sort of caveat.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Interesting links -- thank you!

To return the favor, here's a link I once found with contemporary descriptions of Jesus' physical appearance, further confirming the historical existence of Jesus.

Physical Descriptions of Jesus

And you may want to check out The Archko Volume, if you haven't already, which an ATSer was kind enough to share with me.


...a 19th-century volume containing what purports to be a series of reports from Jewish and pagan sources contemporary with Christ that relate to the life and death of Jesus.


I hope you donned your Armor of God... this is ATS after all and the attacks will be fast and furious. No matter what position one takes, there's always plenty more in contention!



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


I can understand, because it's easier to keep running with what you want to believe.

You know as well as I do, Christianity is all about belief and faith. How can you chastise anyone, especially a non-believer about "running with what they want to believe?"

I am more open than most atheists to the possibility that Jesus could have existed. But having read everything I could get my hands on when I was a Christian, and now having read everything I can find as an atheist. I just don't see the solid evidence in favor of his existence as recorded, or Christianity as a whole. Yet there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest all the Abrahamic religions are built on religions that pre-date them by centuries.

Neither side can ever win this argument.

ETA: Scratch whats italicized. It's off-topic. I'm willing to lean in favor of a rebel preacher by the name of Jesus who might have existed, but I'm willing to go no further. Because most everything written about him was fabrication from what I have read and seen.


edit on 4/11/2015 by Klassified because: eta

edit on 4/11/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI




Jesus didn't raise an army though... and seems to be the only one that people remember


I'm sure, that IF Jesus existed, and it's true that he took the "multitudes" outside the city, to the Mount of Olive to "preach to them for so many days that the disciples were worried about how to feed the multitudes, the Romans would have considered that gathering a threat and the multitudes an army. And, according to the Bible, the multitudes, in this case DID want to be an army and make Jesus their king, overthrowing Roman rule.


When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.


Just like "The Egyptian" who disappeared into hiding in wilderness after stirring up Roman ire.

Jesus Christ is composite character.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Why care if Jesus existed? If he existed what he preached was for the age in which he was preaching. His people were being raped, robbed, and murdered by the drug crazed Romans. He did what he could to save his people.


edit on 11-4-2015 by stayinglowkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




You never address the one passage from Josephus in which he specifically mentions Jesus brother.


What are you going on about! We've been through this more times than I care to count. The Josephus passages concerning "Christ" are proven pious forgeries concocted by lying Christians.

The tired examples of Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny have ALL been handily debunked time and time again.

edit on 11-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

so you admit that there is evidence for a historical Jesus while simultaneously holding up a strawman argument? Good form.

Again, a magical jesus that was born of a virgin and owns the #ing universe is not necessarily a precursor to the notion of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Why the hell can't you grasp this simple concept? There are literally 3 people in this thread arguing in favor of a historical Jesus, and not one of us has insisted he is the son of god as some sort of caveat.


I've stated several times in this discussion that there was the evidence I've outlined for a historical Jesus.

I've done that I think three times.

Do you actually understand what a strawman argument is? That is not apparently what you're talking about.

A historical Jesus is not THE biblical Jesus. They're not the same person, thing, figure, historical element, literary character, quality or quantity.

Period, that is all. Anything else is your own obsession, which is becoming quite evident.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: DeadSeraph


I can understand, because it's easier to keep running with what you want to believe.

You know as well as I do, Christianity is all about belief and faith. How can you chastise anyone, especially a non-believer about "running with what they want to believe?"

I am more open than most atheists to the possibility that Jesus could have existed. But having read everything I could get my hands on when I was a Christian, and now having read everything I can find as an atheist. I just don't see the solid evidence in favor of his existence as recorded, or Christianity as a whole. Yet there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest all the Abrahamic religions are built on religions that pre-date them by centuries.

Neither side can ever win this argument.



You haven't read enough then.

I am perfectly content to accept your lack of faith. In fact, I'm not even sure what it has to do with the subject. There is a great preponderance of evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Much of it has been covered in this thread and eslewhere.

Unfortunately, confirmation bias plays too large a role in how we approach debates on this site, and evidence doesn't count for #. I've seen it thrown out on a number of subjects, so lets not pretend like this one is any different.

It is offensive that anyone could suggest it's a religious issue, because it really isn't. The only religion I see being practiced in this thread, is the religion of ignorance. We even had a person claim to be a historian who also claimed that no historians view Jesus as a historical figure. That is a complete farce.

There has been anger at Christians, Anger at the Christian Religion, and little in the way for arguments in favor of mythicism.

edit on 11-4-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph




You never address the one passage from Josephus in which he specifically mentions Jesus brother.


What are you going on about! We've been through this more times than I care to count. The Josephus passages concerning "Christ" are proven pious forgeries concocted by lying Christians.

The tired examples of Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny have ALL been handily debunked time and time again.


"pious forgeries"

It is literally like talking to a wall. There are two references to Jesus of the new testament by Josephus. One of them is uncontested. I have pointed this out to you ad nauseum, and you completely ignore it every time.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
SO ...

No evidence that Jesus was the Son of a god.
No evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
No evidence that Jesus redeemed the sins of the world
No evidence that Jesus performed miracles

Evidence that a man named "Yeshu-a" lived.
Evidence that this man was crucified by the Romans.
Evidence that this man had followers who honored him after his death.

Yeshua lived, Jesus Christ didn't.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

when you consistently hold up the religious Jesus as an example of why things need to be YOUR way, while simultaneously admitting there is the possibility of a historical Jesus (as per the threads subject and title), yes, you are in fact proposing a strawman argument.

Don't belittle my intelligence. I have contended with every single one of you throughout this entire thread, and yet have not been answered even once on the one post that matters most. I have outlined one argument in favor of the mythicist position, and ten arguments against it. Yet nobody has sufficiently added to the arguments for, or refuted the 10 arguments against.

edit on 11-4-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join