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.

 

Early silence and doubts about Jesus

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Greetings again,

Studying the "evidence" for Jesus leads one to find the astonishing silence about the life of Jesus of Nazareth in the first century.

Not only do we find no contemporary writings mentioning Jesus or the Gospel events (even where we would expect it), but the early Christian record is also strangely silent on the life and ministy of Jesus of Nazareth.


Close inspection reveals that there is NO MENTION of the Gospel story of Jesus' life by even CHRISTIANS until the 2nd century - nearly a century after the alleged events.

Christians usually cite references to the "crucifixion", and "resurrection" and "raising" as such - but these references are all in spiritual contexts without any grounding in place or time.

What we DON'T see are any references to the people, the places, the events which comprise the Gospels stories -
* the birth stories, Mary or Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth
* the baptism, John the Baptist
* the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple
* the wedding at Cana, the temptation
* the sermon on the mount, the gathering of the apostles
* the miracles, healings, feeding the masses
* Lazarus, and his raising
* the transfiguration, the Last Supper, Judas
* the trial, Pilate, Nicodemus
* the empty tomb !!!

Look for yourselves – none of these events people or places are mentioned by any known 1st century Christian writer. (The Gospels evolved later, entering the Christian record in early-mid 2nd century and becoming finalised in late 2nd century.)

Look at my chart here which shows when various words and themes began to appear in the Christian recordm :
members.iinet.net.au...



Early works which have NO MENTION of Jesus' life :


Justus of Tiberias wrote a history of Jewish leaders in the first century - he made NO MENTION of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Philo Judaeus wrote at length (in the VERY SAME PERIOD of the alleged Gospel events) about the Jews, their sects, their history and beliefs - and makes NO MENTION of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Paul wrote at length arguing for Christianity - but makes NO MENTION of any specific historical details, no dates, places, times, names, context - Paul's Iesous Christos is no more than a spiritual or distant figure.

* Hebrews records no details of Jesus' life.
* Colossians records no details of Jesus' life.
* James records no details of Jesus' life.
* 1 John records no details of Jesus' life, but does show evidence of Christians who did not believe in the Son of God.
* 2 Thessalonians records no details of Jesus' life.
* 1 Peter records no details of Jesus' life.
* Revelation records no details of Jesus' life.
* 1 Clement records no details of Jesus' life (but does give 2 sayings of Jesus' which are similar to later Gospel passages)
* Jude records no details of Jesus' life.
* The Didakhe records no details of Jesus' life.
* 2,3 John record no details of Jesus' life - and specifically mention those who don't agree Jesus ever came "in the flesh"
* The Pastorals record no details of Jesus' life.
* 2 Peter records no details of Jesus' life.


We have now reached the 2nd century without any mention of historical details of Jesus life.



Gospel Stories arose in 2nd century

Only in early-mid 2nd century do we find the first references to any of the Gospel stories, along with evidence the Gospels were newly written at this time :

The first mention of proto-Gospels is from about the 130s with Papias - he refers to writings by Mark and Matthew which are not quite like our moden Gospels. He considered these writings of little value. Eusebius considered Papias was not very smart (he did believe all sorts of other nonsense.)


The first evidence for a published Gospel is from Marcion about 142CE - his Gospel is now lost, but we know it -
* was called just "the Gospel"
* did NOT have the genealogies of Jesus
* did NOT call Jesus son-of-David (several early Christians denied Jesus was son of David)


The first written quotations of Gospel-like writings is from Justin in about 150 - he refers to "memoirs of the apostles" which are also "called Gospels". He does NOT name or number the Gospels. He does give many quotes - some match our modern Gospels, some do not.



Aristides of Athens, wrote an Apology sometime 138-161 and refers to "... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them".

Note well -
Aristides, a Christian,
describes a "Gospel" (singular),
which has only been preached "a short time"
in the 140s or 150s.


The first Christian to NAME the four Gospels was Irenaeus in the 180s.



The total LACK of mention of any details of Jesus' life, even by CHRISTIANS, until 2nd century - coupled with the evidence from Aristides - shows that the Gospels were totally unknown until early-mid century.

The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown provenance, un-named until a century and a half after the alleged events.



Early Christians with NO BELIEF in a historical Jesus

Even as late as 2nd century, some Christians still had no knowledge of, or belief in, Jesus of Nazareth :

1 John describes Christians who did not believe Jesus came in the flesh

To Diognetus, early 2nd century, responds to "close and careful inquiries" about Christianity, answering in rather neo-platonic ways, without ONCE mentioning the name Jesus.

Minucius Felix wrote the Octavius in mid 2nd century, he explicitly DENIES that Christians believe in a crucifixion or an incarnation:

"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary : “...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation.”

Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks in mid 2nd century - he expounds at length in neo-platonic tones about the Logos, but never ONCE mentions Jesus in any way. He also compares the Gospels to Greek myths :“Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”.

Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned even once.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote To Autolycos in the 170s, without once mentioning Jesus.


Here we see several early Christian Fathers write about Christianity at length, but show NO KNOWLEDGE of Jesus, or even argue AGAINST a belief in Jesus !



Doubts about Jesus' life story

Logician also wrote :
“Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multipleextra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponentsof Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputedfor the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the endof the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."(Article on "Jesus", 1990)”

This is simply false – there were many sceptics and doubts from the earliest times.

Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"


Celsus wrote in On The True Doctrine in the 170s: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal
this monstrous fiction"


Tertullian in early 3rd century, wrote that Sadducees doubted the resurrection :
“Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.”

Porphyry, 3rd century, wrote in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were inventors – not historians."

Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was a fraud : "why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


So,
we see many doubts by early sceptics - including both pagans and Christians who don't believe in Jesus at all.



Iasion




posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Hmmm, I seem to remember Josephus [a Jewish 1st century historian] alluded to Jesus with some measure of disdain.

But I could be wrong.

So, what's your point? What are you trying to prove?

What if God USES inspired mythology to operate His Covenants with people?

Would that be out of bounds for you?



[edit on 30-12-2004 by defrag99]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by defrag99
Hmmm, I seem to remember Josephus [a Jewish 1st century historian] alluded to Jesus with some measure of disdain.

But I could be wrong.

So, what's your point? What are you trying to prove?

What if God USES inspired mythology to operate His Covenants with people?

Would that be out of bounds for you?



[edit on 30-12-2004 by defrag99]


It would certainly be out of bounds for most christians. Their faith rests on Christs resurection, if it never happenend, their faith is worthless and there is no need for salvation from sins.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I don't agree at all with, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If the Landlord STATES there must be a payment (sacrifice) for errors (sins), that stands, no matter who He is.

If the Landlord STATES the terms of the Covenant include Law-Abiding behavior and a positive attitude, that stands, no matter who He is.

If you want to tear up your Lease because you don't want to believe what your Landlord tells you about the history of the property, you tear up your lease at your peril.

A person can't get out of the Christian Covenant HONORABLY by turning on God.

His Version of History is His version of history. He can tell us whatever He wants, to make the point that Law-Abiding behavior is part, parcel and paramount in this Consent Agreement we call "Salvation." (Matt 5; 1Joh 5:3, etc.)

He's the Author of Law, REMEMBER? Not ourselves.

I never understand why people embrace Grace, then turn around and "find reasons" to throw it away. If a person is in relationship to "God," the Higher Intelligence, it's the relationship that is precious--not the text.

But who am I to presume to know God's mind? Just the way I think about it, that's all.





posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by defrag99

I don't agree at all with, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If the Landlord STATES there must be a payment (sacrifice) for errors (sins), that stands, no matter who He is.

If the Landlord STATES the terms of the Covenant include Law-Abiding behavior and a positive attitude, that stands, no matter who He is.

If you want to tear up your Lease because you don't want to believe what your Landlord tells you about the history of the property, you tear up your lease at your peril.

A person can't get out of the Christian Covenant HONORABLY by turning on God.

His Version of History is His version of history. He can tell us whatever He wants, to make the point that Law-Abiding behavior is part, parcel and paramount in this Consent Agreement we call "Salvation." (Matt 5; 1Joh 5:3, etc.)

He's the Author of Law, REMEMBER? Not ourselves.

I never understand why people embrace Grace, then turn around and "find reasons" to throw it away. If a person is in relationship to "God," the Higher Intelligence, it's the relationship that is precious--not the text.

But who am I to presume to know God's mind? Just the way I think about it, that's all.




I dont get it. Its like, a guy living 10 years ago, saying he will give me ten dollars if I follow him, he is the only way to 10 dollars and I must obey him, then we find out he never existed, but I somehow still expect to get my 10 dollars even though I know the man who offered it never existed. Or would you go back to the torah? Waiting for Gods coming messiah? Because if Jesus never existed, then the messiah has yet to come.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
No. It's not like that at all.

Reality is subjective--a holodeck--not objective as a textbook should be.

We have an account--a Book with a story in it. That Book describes what it means (to the Owner of this planet) to transcend the life of a mere physical bipedal hominid--stewardship, community, literacy, law and mercy.

Whatever metaphors or parables were utilized are sufficient to teach, that living is more than enjoyment, more than pleasure, more than power, more than getting one's own way: it's learning how to sacrifice for others.

The Bible is fine--just the way it is. Whether it is strictly letter-perfect or not doesn't matter at all. The Author takes responsibility for the outcome.

And that's enough for me.

Peace be unto you.




posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Very interesting info Iason ['the healer' no? Jason?)

I do have to say tho that some of the sources not mentioning jesus (infact, practicaly none mention him) isn't terribly helpful tho, because, why would they metion him? Its very rare to find people talking about christians at the earliest times too (of course, one does find this tho). Jesus could exist, but just be a no-body to them.

But the interpretation is interesting. Of course, the gnostic christians might very well agree with this idea of your. I do have to note tho that some of the sources seem more to say that jesus was around, but that he was 'all holy' or entirely produced by god and had no 'character' of human in him. SO the events would've still happened in that reasoning, rather than being the inventions of the apostles.

It is interesting to consider the jesus story as a device created by the apostles to teach religious theory and truth. Althought, I have to wonder at what they thought of Paul who cliamed to have spoken to jesus in a vision. Seems like they'd recognize him as a delusional loon and be better able to eliminate or isolate him.

Although, its not terribly difficult to think that there was something like what the gospels describe, espcially in that environment. Outside of the 'miracle/mystery' of the resurrection. I suppose one variation of this 'jesus as device' idea could be that the resurection itself is the device, whereas the rest is actual events.

The other thing to keep in mind, as far as the gospels not really being around before ~200 ad, even the sources you've noted have mentioned something like some of them, and of course if the apostles are the ones who fabricated the jesus story, then the documents would have to have existed anyway. Or would the apostles also have to be devices?

Either way, the sources that are had now probably aren't the first copies of these christian texts.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
People are programmed by society to only believe that which can be seen. Because our minds are so underdeveloped (I mean we only use a very small portion of the mass), we have difficulty believing or "having faith" in things we cant physically see or touch. What I find fascinating is, that so many people that are "skeptics" seem to ask God for help when they are in a dire situation. Or pray to God for things they want,or need. Makes me believe that our subconcious knowledge of God holds the info we all seek. That is why we dream, to reflect and learn from stored knowledge that we consciously did not absorb. Our dreams may not make sense to us when we wake, because we closed the door again in consciousness, but whether we know it or not we learned the answers we seeked, and our actions from that point on will be directly affected by that knowledge that was redirected to the necessary areas in our psyche. We can not see our conscience,yet we know it is there. We dont see air, yet we know that it is there. We dont hear many frequencies yet we know they exist. Technology has developed many tools for detecting, and measuring, things like air, frequency, gravity, etc. We were blessed with the ability to acknowledge and know God and feel love, and happiness. The science of living beings is so complex, that science will most likely never be able to explain even 1/4 of it. Science can explain what makes up cells, and how they mutate, or develop, but they have no tool that can explain what makes any of the science work. They may figure out the "what's" , but for every "why" they think they figure out, they realize that the "why's" are infinite- like a mirror face to face, the image bounces back to each other infinately (I think you get my example).
If God is the creator, why would we think that God cant be more complex than the millions of things we havent discovered with science? After all, if scientists ever discovered God physically, they would cease to exist because they would now know absolutely everything, eliminating the need for scientists, and in essence, we would all end up being just multipliers to keep the planet inhabited, and teachers to children until the time we evolved to have complete knowledge at birth. Life is the quest for knowledge, and improvement. When we learn everything, and nothing is left to improve, we will no longer have a purpose for living, and we will then only live in spirit, we wont have a need for bodies because they are imperfect and once we have perfected everything with the absolute knowledge we will have, bodies will have been shed for their lack of perfection.
Now back to the point, I believe in Jesus Christ because God has the power to create such a being. I mean if He had created all of this, why is it so hard to believe that He couldn't have created a Son in His image to be The messenger of His Word, and as a life preserver for a creation that was drowning. Are we so arrogant to believe that in all of our greatness, that there can or could never have been anyone superior to us? Who are we to question things that we can not possibly ever understand? Not only do we question it, we slanderously avow that it cannot be true. Believe it or not, there is so much more present around us than just the things we can "see". To us, everything has a beginning and an end, yet we know that numbers are infinite. How can we possibly understand everything when we know absolutely that there is no end to numeric value. We believe (or choose to believe), that numbers start with zero and continue on forever. That is until you enter in the negative values of numbers. If you figure that into the whole equation, we only know that zero is the absolute center. Science can tell you that numbers are infinite because the value always changes, but ask them why, and then, ultimately after you question every response they give you, the only answer you will get is bacically, " because, thats just the way it is!"
Well, I guess I just mean that what reality is, and what we percieve to be reality are 2 different things. There is so much more than our conscious minds can even fathom, that we would better serve not to assume we know everything, or that science can totally explain anything.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Cooster. Our minds are not underdeveloped, we use all of it, contrary to the popular myth that we only use 10%. Faith is the belief in something that does not rest on logical proof. Not just something we cant see or touch, but something that we are supposed to accept with no logical proof, which makes no sense.

Hypothetically speaking, a God could be way more advanced and complicated than the universe itself or anything we could possibly imagine. I've just not seen any good reason or evidence to believe a God is at work. Science doesnt deal with God because the concept of God is senseless to science, adding God into an already complicated enough universe doesnt solve anything, it only adds more complexity which isnt nessecary. Again, if a God exists, I dont find it hard to believe that he could have sent his son down to spread his message, I just find it incredibly insufficient and there is no evidence supporting it. On the same token, it wouldnt be hard to believe that a God could send messages to a prophet, named Muhammed, and tell him to convert people by the sword. Is Islam right? Is Christianity? Hinduism? Judaism? We have no way of knowing because we have no way of knowing the nature of a God. I dont think anyone is saying science can absolutely explain everything, but it explains more than "Goddidit"! Once I see evidence of a God I will start to ponder the possibility, and once I see evidence for the Christian God I will start to consider that too. I doubt this day will come, though.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by defrag99
No. It's not like that at all.

Reality is subjective--a holodeck--not objective as a textbook should be.

We have an account--a Book with a story in it. That Book describes what it means (to the Owner of this planet) to transcend the life of a mere physical bipedal hominid--stewardship, community, literacy, law and mercy.

Whatever metaphors or parables were utilized are sufficient to teach, that living is more than enjoyment, more than pleasure, more than power, more than getting one's own way: it's learning how to sacrifice for others.

The Bible is fine--just the way it is. Whether it is strictly letter-perfect or not doesn't matter at all. The Author takes responsibility for the outcome.

And that's enough for me.

Peace be unto you.


Still not understanding your line of thinking. It sounds good, but again, if Jesus never existed then Christianity=false. It may have some good teachings in it, but it is not inspired by the concept of the Old testament-New testament God, mere men wrote it, which I think Christians are more concerned with.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   
And despite all the claims, assertions, the proofs, and evidences....

Isn't it mighty ironic how so many have tried to disprove and discredit this figure, Jesus, the Christ, and yet, this mysterious 'entity', this fictitious 'being', this 'non-individual' has soooooo influenced much of this world, from past to current society?



seekerof



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And despite all the claims, assertions, the proofs, and evidences....

Isn't it mighty ironic how so many have tried to disprove and discredit this figure, Jesus, the Christ, and yet, this mysterious 'entity', this fictitious 'being', this 'non-individual' has soooooo influenced much of this world, from past to current society?



seekerof


Not really. Most people will believe anything as long as the majority does, regardless of evidence or logical proof. Ironic? sure. Pathetic? Very. We live by the rules of whoever has the biggest stick.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
alec eiffel, what I meant by not using 100% of our brain is that we dont use it all for thinking, and by the scientific proof that is so popularly needed in this realm, there are large parts of the think tank that do not get used. Evident by MRI's (might not be MRI's, cant think of it at this time)and other tests that show the thought activity within the brain that differs from person to person. There are also parts of the brain that are not tapped into that would enable the regeneration of limbs or nerves.
I dont argue with your perspective because it goes right along with what I was saying that most people believe, like you do, that if there is no proof, or even the probability (as defined by most), then it doesnt exist.
As your belief -that what isnt proven, isnt real- is of strong conviction to you, my belief is that -if unless you can answer all of my questions,definatively, you (meaning the "experts), do not have my faith that you know anything at all. Do you get what I mean, Alec?
My faith is my knowledge that all that is, cannot be explained, nor proven without some argument that there is more to learn. My name is "Mark", because my parents named me "Mark", yet I look at it on paper and feel that I am signing someone elses name. I hate to get all sci-fi like, but I like the idea of the Matrix movies, in that we live in one reality where we think we have all the answers, but in fact we are only living a program. I cant say that the Matrix is a true story, but it is probably the closest analogy, I can come up with. By the way I am 35 years old and I dont just write the things I write for attention, like I believe many of the younger posters do, that are seeking some kind of classification that will make them feel important, I might just think too much sometimes, and I might have just overloaded my brain, but I truthfully feel that God is a reality, and it seems just stupid to think otherwise. What you might find wierd is that I am not religious, I dont go to church, and I sin regularly. Which is probably very stupid, because I KNOW that God exists.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Well, the brain has different parts that function differently, so obviously not all of it can be used for thinking, and damaged parts are most likely to not be used properly, while underdeveloped parts are harder to develop as you age.

I can understand to a certain degree where you are coming from, as I used to be a christian and have these types of debates with atheists or non-beleivers, it just doesnt make sense to me anymore. Also, im not saying that a God doesnt exist, I just see no good reasons to believe there is one. I guess I tend to be more atheistic, but after reading about quantum physics and such, I cant totally rule out the idea of "God", whatever that may be, just because I understand you when you say nothing is as it seems. Because nothing really is as it seems, I just think we possibly differ on what we may think what really is. I cant help it much, im just skeptic.

I also agree that some younger posters say things for attention, they are usually the ones in which atheism appeals to them emotionally, rather than intellectually. You know, the "I hate God!" types, the ones who feel the need to rebel. Anyways, im glad we can discuss these things in a civilized manner. Good day.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
also, as far as Muhammed goes, if you ask a true preacher of that version of The Word, an actual scholar of the Karan(sp?), they will tell you that it has been twisted to meet the agenda of extremists with motives of greed, and that if you look at a true version-you wont find that vebage anywhere in the book. Muhammed was a prophet of peace, and preached repeatedly that violence was evil (granted, most religious texts also preach an eye for an eye stuff, but as justice,not tyranny)
Also, for something that seems so hard to prove as real, sure has enough effort in diproving it.
I often hear people talk about discrepancies in The Bible, yet that is false. The Bible is not written by one man, it is written by many, and they are the testimonies of men. They are the recollections of true events that were witnessed and written down by the many that authored The Bible and in all religions that worship one Almighty God, follow The Bible. Christians,and all of its branches-and do Jews, etc. -Same book, some chapters are omitted, and added, depending on the relevancy of belief, but the chapters that they all have in common, tell the same stories. Jews dont believe in the New Testament in accordance to the teachings of Jesus Christ, however they do acknowledge his existance,as a figure from that time (just not the Messiah). To test the relevance many have compared the modern Bible to the writings of the earliest known versions, and found that it is the ONLY religious text that is still as it always was. (that is until they came out with "The Living Bible - Paraphrased" version. An attempt to interpret old style english into modern style-terrible unjustice! It leaves out, and alters passages that totally lose the intended meaning. It often misleads the meaning of literal text in many parts. It should never be recommended for serious study). The Vatican has what is believed to be some of the original authentic writings of some apostles. Of course, I cannot attest to that for sure, I just saw something on TV about it.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
alec, glad to see you are still here, and I think you do really understand where I am coming from. I would just like to ask you though, and I totally understand your meaning when you say you have no "good" reason to believe, in such a scientific age- it seems pretty impossible.
BUT, I would say this to you, -- if you wouldnt say exactly that God doesnt exist, then it is just that lack of conviction that gives you a very good reason to believe.
And if you had proof, being that God is all powerful and all, I think it would be good to believe.

Also, you got me completely about the younger posters-lol



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Pathetic? And your reply was "very"?
Seems that "pathetic" is a relative term used by those who seem to seek to discredit and nullify?
Tell that the approx. 2 billion people that think and feel otherwise, k?


I would guess that also according to your perspective, those approx. 1.3 billion that follow 'Allah' are "very pathetic"?
Maybe those near billion that follow Hinduism (Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, etc.) are "very pathetic" also?

Remember that what can be scholarly discredited and disproven can likewise be scholarly validated and proven. Don't believe me, check any decent research library or a decent university library, but of course, you already know this, right? Side note: Btw, the Qu-ran (Koran) mentions Jesus as 'real' individual/entity. You missed listing that...along with Josephus, etc., etc.

As far as I'm concerned, Unicorns, along with UFO's, Bigfoot, etc., etc., etc. are real till they can be totally disproven.

Allow me:


When skeptics question the existence of Jesus, they often assume that anyone who accepts the historicity of Jesus must be able to provide extra-Biblical confirmation of his existence. According to this view, the New Testament does not provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus; independent confirmation is needed.

In my opinion, that view is mistaken. But before I explain why, we need to review some general axioms of historical inquiry. As historian David Hackett Fischer points out, all historical investigations begin with a properly framed question. The historian's job is to answer such questions with verified empirical statements.

Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus
Did Jesus Christ Really Live?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Pathetic? And your reply was "very"?
Seems that "pathetic" is a relative term used by those who seem to seek to discredit and nullify?
Tell that the approx. 2 billion people that think and feel otherwise, k?


I would guess that also according to your perspective, those approx. 1.3 billion that follow 'Allah' are "very pathetic"?
Maybe those near billion that follow Hinduism (Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, etc.) are "very pathetic" also?

Remember that what can be scholarly discredited and disproven can likewise be scholarly validated and proven. Don't believe me, check any decent research library or a decent university library, but of course, you already know this, right? Side note: Btw, the Qu-ran (Koran) mentions Jesus as 'real' individual/entity. You missed listing that...along with Josephus, etc., etc.

As far as I'm concerned, Unicorns, along with UFO's, Bigfoot, etc., etc., etc. are real till they can be totally disproven.

Allow me:


When skeptics question the existence of Jesus, they often assume that anyone who accepts the historicity of Jesus must be able to provide extra-Biblical confirmation of his existence. According to this view, the New Testament does not provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus; independent confirmation is needed.

In my opinion, that view is mistaken. But before I explain why, we need to review some general axioms of historical inquiry. As historian David Hackett Fischer points out, all historical investigations begin with a properly framed question. The historian's job is to answer such questions with verified empirical statements.

Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus
Did Jesus Christ Really Live?





seekerof


I do indeed, think it is pathetic that some people would believe just because the majority does, with no real logical proof or evidence. Notice I didnt call them pathetic, nor did I imply that people who believe in God arent capable of having evidence or good reason.

I also didnt start this thread, so I missed nothing in my list, because I never created it. Im not sure if you are being sarcastic or not about everything being true until proven otherwise. Thats just silly, I guess there really is a pink elephant standing right behind me right now watching me, too bad I cant disprove it, oh well, it must be true. You seem to like science, you should know you can never prove a negative.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   
The Unicorn Song
words and music Shel Silverstein, new verse Andrew McKee

A long time ago, when the Earth was green
There was more kinds of animals than you've ever seen
They'd run around free while the Earth was being born
And the loveliest of all was the unicorn

There was green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
The loveliest of all was the unicorn

The Lord seen some sinning and it gave Him pain
And He says, "Stand back, I'm going to make it rain"
He says, "Hey Noah, I'll tell you what to do
Build me a floating zoo,
and take some of those...

Green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
Don't you forget My unicorns

Old Noah was there to answer the call
He finished up making the ark just as the rain started to fall
He marched the animals two by two
And he called out as they came through
Hey Lord,

I've got green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but Lord, I'm so forlorn
I just can't find no unicorns"

And Noah looked out through the driving rain
Them unicorns were hiding, playing silly games
Kicking and splashing while the rain was falling
Oh, them silly unicorns

There was green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Noah cried, "Close the door because the rain is falling
And we just can't wait for no unicorns"

The ark started moving, it drifted with the tide
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried
And the waters came down and sort of floated them away
That's why you never see unicorns to this very day

You'll see green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
You're never gonna see no unicorns

[New Lyrics]
Now you might think this is the ending to the song,
But I'll have to tell you friends that in fact your wrong
You see, Unicorns are magical, so when the rain started pouring,
They grew themselves some wings and they took to soaring.

You'll see green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
But if you're looking for the unicorns, don't be forlorn,
The second star to the right and straight on until morning.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Yes...of course.
The only thing missing here is a burial location, coffin, bones, and a DNA test....

Enjoyed your commentary on the links provide...one of which comes from the same place the initial member who created this thread drew some sourcing from on his other thread. Matter of fact, concerning the two separate threads on Jesus, the Christ, seems that they could have been done together, in one topic thread... *scratches head*

Oh well....





seekerof

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Seekerof]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join