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: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

BOTH passages are in dispute!

From a Christian website:


However, there has been considerable dispute as to whether the phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" were part of the original passage. Wells notes: "Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz and Juster are among the scholars who have regarded the words 'the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' as interpolated." (p. 11) To this list, we could add Karl Kautsky, S.G.F. Brandon, Charles Guignebert, and Twelftree.

......................

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While believing in a reference to Jesus by Josephus does lend some credence to the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph and any reference in the texts to a "Christ" is a known forgery.


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




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
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 sufficient added to the arguments for, or refuted the 10 arguments against.



I have listed the simple facts in very direct form several times.

You stated earlier, apparently dishonestly, that you were only interested in facts.

You are so obsessed with your own abilities and your own intelligence that you can't see that you're making a fool of yourself.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
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 sufficient added to the arguments for, or refuted the 10 arguments against.



I have listed the simple facts in very direct form several times.

You stated earlier, apparently dishonestly, that you were only interested in facts.

You are so obsessed with your own abilities and your own intelligence that you can't see that you're making a fool of yourself.



I apologize if I have come across that way. I would ask that you attempt to view the issue from my perspective, and reread the thread.

There are many examples of people using their opinions of Christianity as some sort of indication that Jesus could not possibly have existed as a historical figure. Infact, I was called mentally ill for drawing comparisons of contemporaneous documentation between Plato/Socrates and Jesus.

I don't mean to come across as arrogant, but I really haven't seen anyone adequately answer the mythicist position in this thread.

To reiterate:

Arguments in favor of the mythicist position:

1) There are no contemporaneous writings from the time of Jesus life which attest to his existence.

Arguments against the mythicist position:

1) There are no contemporaneous writings from the lifetimes of millions (even billions) of individuals throughout human history. Yet they existed. We assume that Socrates and Plato were real historical figures, yet by the criteria asserted by mythicists, we should call their existence into question.

2) The earliest writings about Jesus of Nazareth can safely be dated to within 20 years of his crucifixion

3) Multiple Roman historians and critics of Christianity chronicle the fact Jesus existed, and was put to death by crucifixion (as per the new testament narrative)

4) Early Jewish texts make no effort to deny the existence of Jesus. In fact, the talmud actually attests to his existence and his execution

5) Archaeological evidence has now proven that Tacitus was correct in his writings regarding Pontius Pilate. Subsequently, the argument that Tacitus also wrote about hercules holds no water, since Tacitus never spoke of Hercules as a real individual, but rather wrote about a group of individuals and their beliefs about hercules. However, he records Pilate as executing Christ via crucifixion, without including any caveats.

6) The new testament at no time discusses the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Contextual analysis as well as textual criticism has essentially proven that the gospels were written well within the lifetime of those who would have been eyewitnesses to the events detailed in the New Testament

7) Assuming Jesus was in fact a myth, there is absolutely no good explanation for how someone could have concocted the entire new testament narrative and recorded it within a mere 30 years, let alone spread it throughout the roman empire, based purely on an individual which never existed.

8) Considering the opposition to early Christianity by both Romans AND Jews, it is odd that neither ever denies the existence of Jesus, but rather both groups direct their focus on criticizing his character and discrediting the idea of his divinity.

9) Paul is a historically confirmed individual who records meeting Jesus brother James, as well as Peter

10) Recent archaeological discoveries have proven the new testament to be reliable as far as it's depiction of Nazareth being inhabited in the 1st century (previously disputed) as well as the existence of Pontius Pilate (previously disputed). Additionally, various historical facts detailed in Paul's earliest letters have since been confirmed by extra biblical sources and archaeological finds.
edit on 11-4-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And he was born 56AD so anything he wrote about wasn't even second-hand information.





Wait, so what you're trying to say here is that anyone today who was born in 1995 and writes ooh I don't know how about "John Wayne made movies in the 60's" shouldn't be believed to have been writing about a real person because it's second hand information?

What if in two thousand years, that's one of the few non John Waynian texts talking about his existence, I suppose no one should believe he was really a person. Yep, they should jump to the conclusion that he's a figment of the cowboy way people's imaginations.

:rolleyes: Jaden



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph Thats still not evidence that Jesus existed. There is none. Lets face it, if it were historically true then we would read about it in history books and not the fictional stories in the bible. There's no grand conspiracy, its simply not credible.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So one man is foolish and the other is not. one poster lacks intelligence because the other doesn't agree. One poster has a different idea of the facts while the other has a different opinion about religion.

this is why ATS can't have nice things



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anubis259
a reply to: DeadSeraph Thats still not evidence that Jesus existed. There is none. Lets face it, if it were historically true then we would read about it in history books and not the fictional stories in the bible. There's no grand conspiracy, its simply not credible.



You would be reading about it in books outside of the bible if you were in university studying ancient history, new testament studies, and 1st century roman history in Judea. You aren't, and you have no idea what you're talking about, so you assume the bible is the only reason people think Jesus actually existed as a historical figure.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




1) There are no contemporaneous writings from the lifetimes of millions (even billions) of individuals throughout human history. Yet they existed. We assume that Socrates and Plato were real historical figures, yet by the criteria asserted by mythicists, we should call their existence into question.


This does nothing to prove the historic existence of Jesus "Christ", of Nazareth or Son of Joseph.


2) The earliest writings about Jesus of Nazareth can safely be dated to within 20 years of his crucifixion


We have no "fragments" from that time, so this isn't a fact.


3) Multiple Roman historians and critics of Christianity chronicle the fact Jesus existed, and was put to death by crucifixion (as per the new testament narrative)


There is no Roman historian, or otherwise, who mentions Jesus "Christ", of Nazareth or Son of Joseph.


4) Early Jewish texts make no effort to deny the existence of Jesus. In fact, the talmud actually attests to his existence and his execution


False. Jewish scholars have continually denied that their texts mention the Christian Jesus. Further, those texts have been highly censored and edited by Christians, centuries after the supposed advent.


5) Archaeological evidence has now proven that Tacitus was correct in his writings regarding Pontius Pilate. Subsequently, the argument that Tacitus also wrote about hercules holds no water, since Tacitus never spoke of Hercules as a real individual, but rather wrote about a group of individuals and their beliefs about hercules. However, he records Pilate as executing Christ via crucifixion, without including any caveats.


Tacitus never mentions Jesus..... The title Chrestus isn't equal to "Christus". They're entirely separate titles. We've been through this. Even so, there was no shortage of would be "Christs" being executed by Pilot.

Not to mention the dispute concerning the probable Christian interpolation in this passage.


No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.
www.jesusneverexisted.com...



6) The new testament at no time discusses the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Contextual analysis as well as textual criticism has essentially proven that the gospels were written well within the lifetime of those who would have been eyewitnesses to the events detailed in the New Testament


Highly disputable and a good topic for another thread.


7) Assuming Jesus was in fact a myth, there is absolutely no good explanation for how someone could have concocted the entire new testament narrative and recorded it within a mere 30 years, let alone spread it throughout the roman empire, based purely on an individual which never existed.


Not really. We've seen it before with Serapis.


Serapis or Sarapis is a Graeco-Egyptian god. Cult of Serapis was introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm.
en.wikipedia.org...



8) Considering the opposition to early Christianity by both Romans AND Jews, it is odd that neither ever denies the existence of Jesus, but rather both groups direct their focus on criticizing his character and discrediting the idea of his divinity.


That's because Jesus was a composite mythical character who was compared to Hercules by Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologetic.


9) Paul is a historically confirmed individual who records meeting Jesus brother James, as well as Peter


There's much dispute, even among Christians, what the word "brother" actually meant. Many Christians reject James as the 1/2 blood brother of Jesus. It's more likely that "James" was a brother in Christ.


10) Recent archaeological discoveries have proven the new testament to be reliable as far as it's depiction of Nazareth being inhabited in the 1st century (previously disputed) as well as the existence of Pontius Pilate (previously disputed). Additionally, various historical facts detailed in Paul's earliest letters have since been confirmed by extra biblical sources and archaeological finds.


This is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Nazareth wasn't a city, as the Bible described.

So tedious!



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

lmao already have a star and nobody has bothered to fact check anything you said. It can't be fact checked, because it's wrong, but we both know this is pointless anyways.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Your source is jesusneverexisted.com

if i was debating you in college I couldn't use that source since it is blatantly not neutral and obviously has an agenda.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Took me a while to find this article again, but here it is...
5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.
3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.


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



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Jesus Never Existed is a website that contains multiple disputed topic sources, that come up when discussing the historicity of Jesus. It's like the Wikipedia of "Jesus never existed" information all gathered to one place. It presents a handy compilation of evidence that disputes the commons arguments that Christian apologists throw out over and over again.

It's certainly not the only source I cite. With a little research one can find other line sources that cite the same sources and make the same claims. They're universal to the scholarly community.

Argue with the content presented, not the source.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can even use only the bible to see the Paul doctrine vs Gospel message to see that there is a difference even in the bible to what Yeshua taught and what Paul taught.

He does talk like a anointed one so I have no reason to not believe Yeshua was an "anointed one". And I am saying he is not the only one. Pauls version called Jesus is another story.


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

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The evidence that Jesus exist lies closer to your own breath and not in skewed historical documents: Be Still... When one discovers this Christ within, they will discover that it is the same as finding Buddha...

The Jesus Christ of scripture represents a spiritual state of consciousness.

It is your imagination...



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

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



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: chr0naut




While the fragment may be from 117 AD or later, all the canonical NT texts make no mention of of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and its subsequent consequences, so the original documents must have been written prior to then.


There is no way you can make a logical leap like that from a fragment.

The canonical NT texts are also a hell of a lot different from what people have in their homes. All the different versions of the canonical NT texts.

There shouldn't be any mention of the fall of Jerousulum the NT is supposed to be about a story from before then. It wouldn't be logical for it to have been mentioned as it would serve no purpose.



I wasn't making that leap from a single fragment. There is a large collection of fragmentary and full texts which we can compare with more recent ones. In all, there are about 60,000 fragments and texts against which we can compare modern texts. The provenance of modern texts is particularly strong.

And, as I was pointing out, the contextual evidence for the writing of the entire NT, is that it ALL must have been originally written within that 37 year window after Christ's death. For historical purposes, that IS contemporaneous.

The writers also were not solely writing, but filled many roles in the establishment, structure, governance and evangelism of the early church. They were busy blokes! It would be inauthentic if the gospels and letters all appeared months after Jesus death. What we would rather expect to see is a gradual accumulation of writings over that 37 year period and this appears to have been the case, from historical and contextual cues within the documents themselves.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

BOTH passages are in dispute!

From a Christian website:


However, there has been considerable dispute as to whether the phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" were part of the original passage. Wells notes: "Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz and Juster are among the scholars who have regarded the words 'the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' as interpolated." (p. 11) To this list, we could add Karl Kautsky, S.G.F. Brandon, Charles Guignebert, and Twelftree.

......................

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While believing in a reference to Jesus by Josephus does lend some credence to the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph and any reference in the texts to a "Christ" is a known forgery.



At least the Christian websites have the honesty to question the passage from Josephus.

You, however, have described the passage as a "known forgery".

If such is "known":

Why do ALL the oldest copies of the passage from Josephus have exactly the same text and none exist without the disputed section?

What was the identity of the forger?

When and how did they perpetrate the forgery?

How did this forger then locate and destroy ALL the originals and then distribute the forgery in place of the originals?

So it is SUSPECTED that the passage MAY be a forgery. There are significant issues with the possibility of it being a forgery just as there are with it being authentic.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

So one man is foolish and the other is not. one poster lacks intelligence because the other doesn't agree. One poster has a different idea of the facts while the other has a different opinion about religion.

this is why ATS can't have nice things


This seems off-topic. If you have a statement on-topic that you'd like me to address, please state it.




top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join