Vatican sued over Jesus' non existence

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Iason, there was a medieval celtic king who reigned during the 5th century in britain, and he was called "King Arthus". Aside from the popular legends and songs on his life that carry many variating interpretations on what he did and his kingdom, little facts are known about him but he is known to have defeated the saxons many times and contributed in some ways to the

The oral tradition has as much historical value as the things that a few members of an elite that's out of touch with the masses will write. The american native never had any historians, and they never wrote any book. Yet they were NOT ignorant of their past and the memory of the anicent times, that was passed wisely through oral tradition from one generation to the other, mainly through the elderly, contends a rich corpus of historical knowledge that is still being ignored too much by today's scholars and scientists. This is the way humans used to teach history for thousands of years before the study of history as a (pseudo-) scientific object, and before there were schools and universities to do what parents and priests were doing before... to past the wisdom of yesterday to the minds of the youth. Illeterate? Yes they were. Ignorant? A preposterous idea! The average people backthen in the middle-east knew A LOT more about their society than what the average Joe knows today about what's going on inside his government or about mundane scientific or philosophical problems.. thanks to an elitist, platonic education system designed to impose views and dispatch the workforce rather than acquiring the tools to learn and discover about the world on your own, a system that keeps negating the oral tradition as a valuable way of spreading information. This is that very same system that makes you believe things like the ones you're preaching here.

Please note that, although I really enjoy being on ATS, I have better, more concrete things to do in my life than spending hours upon hours of reading and answering to miles long posts that are refuting each and every sentence of what the previous guy said. I have made my point. Think about it. And after that if you still think that my views are wrong, then go ahead and explain me why... but you don't have to write a d-mn book for that!




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
'forgot that:

(...) in some ways to the expansion of the british society in the dark ages.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
You can’t prove a negative. There is no way that you can prove that some one named Jesus did not exist over 2000 years. You can only disprove information about him being the absolute truth. Guess what thats already true.


The best you can hope is to cast doubt about Jesus holiness.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Greetings again,



Iason,


Sigh, another person who can't even get my name right :-(



there was a medieval celtic king who reigned during the 5th century in britain, and he was called "King Arthus". Aside from the popular legends and songs on his life that carry many variating interpretations on what he did and his kingdom, little facts are known about him but he is known to have defeated the saxons many times


Aha !
Just as I suspected...
You have NOT CHECKED the evidence for yourself at all - it would have only taken 5 minutes on Google to check - but no, you don't like checking and proof-reading your posts, do you? :-)

There is NO EVIDENCE for anyone called "King Arthus".

For instance, Gildas and Bede make no mention of Arthur.

6th C. Nennius refers to Arthur.
The 6th C. History of the Britons refers to Arthur
Then the later Annales Cambriae mention Arthur as well.

But,
No early record calls him "King" anything.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Greetings


You can’t prove a negative. There is no way that you can prove that some one named Jesus did not exist over 2000 years. You can only disprove information about him being the absolute truth. Guess what thats already true.


If YOU claim Jesus existed, then YOU need to present a case.

If you are happy to believe things for which there is NO EVIDENCE - great, thats your business.

But,
If you want us to believe your claims, then you have to present evidence.

And the thing is...

I HAVE CHECKED for myself all the alleged "evidence" for Jesus.

And guess what?
It's all suspect - late, forged, faked, vague...

It turns out there is NO hard evidence for Jesus at all,
and more and more people are starting to realise this.

Of course, apologists like RazorDragon do their best to ignore this unpleasant fact - repeating the usual mantras "You can't prove Jesus did not exist" .. "most people acknowledge he existed" etc.. etc.

Come on RazorDragon -
if YOU believe Jesus existed,
then YOU show me the evidence.

My prediction?
You will come up with no evidence, just more preaching...

Iasion



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
his family like i posted in your other topic. Do you really think James would have himself stoned for a non-existant brother? Really doesn't add up.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
First, Geoffrey of Monmouth in "Historia regum Britanniae" in the 12th century and a certain "Nennius" in "Historia brittonum" from the 9th century. Both wrote about a certain King Arthur -or King Arthus- who waged war against the Saxons in the 5th century. Gildas the Wise in "De Excidio Britanniae" refers to the british leader Ambrosius Aurelianus (Arthur was deemed to be the "Duke of Britain") who also, along with the remaining Roman Empire defeated the Saxons in the 5th century, on Badon Hill. Due to the same nature of his exploits, and the timframe where he lived, Aurelianus is believed to have been King Arthus (perhaps was it the name that he taken when he was crowned). Two entries from the "Annales Cambriae" (Annals of Wales), dating from 445, also tell about the reign of King Arthur in these times.

These are historical evidences. They are not proofs of the existence of Arthus (or King Arthur), but pieces of knowledge that were not written under the same academic standards of historical study of modern historians but still are reliable evidences of the existence of such a king. Evidences are historical data that leads us to believe in the reality of an event of a fact in the total absence of data which would make us believe the OPPOSITE, and by default of having actual proof of that event or fact. The further you go back in History, the hardest it is to find unquestionable proofs about some events or persons that many believe to have existed; but still, as long as there are no proofs or evidence that these do not exist, or of any evidence which would lead us to believe that the information we have was or could have been forged, there is reason to BELIEVE that it was TRUE... even if we cannot be convinced on an historical level. And the same can be said for Jesus Christ. No religions are based on long, tedious hsitorical studies of ancient facts, even if it's frequent through History that religions do collect and gather writings and relics that are related to key events of the past. Religion has it's own way, that is totally independent from science, to testify on the truth, as they also have their own way to rely on reality... and that's called "FAITH".

Here's a very skeptical, and interesting, analysis on the existence of King Arthur, which separates facts from popular fiction or mythology and clears out at least some substancial evidence form all the stuff that was written on Arthur:

www.users.globalnet.co.uk...

You can also try to debate against Wikipedia itself... as far as I'm concerned:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
And by the way, Iasion, the Holy Bible counts as an "evidence" for all believers of the Christian faith. You can find it in most bookstores, libraries and there's even a few free online versions on the web.



Spent enough time in here... nothing else to debate. I'm out.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I am talking about the actual fact that you can’t prove a negative.

It is impossible, it is a basic law of structured logic that you can’t.

The idea of trying to prove that a specific man did not exist is impossible. There were millions of people alive in those times in that location of the world that you can’t prove existed. There is no way to prove he did not exist. Like I said before the only thing you can do is analyze the impact the he had or did not have on the world.

As to the realty of his existence.

The likelihood of Christianity creating Christ out of scratch is very small.
Especially if you study the fact that Jesus was not thought of as the Son of God in the early forms of Christianity. Jesus was more like Martin Luther rather then a God made man. It would be very stupid to create a “man” from scratch rather the use an already existing one.
I don’t believe in Jesus the god. I do not find it logical to believe that Jesus the man did not exist.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Greetings again,

Glad you have now gone and checked the sources - more people here should do that :-)

My point was - no early source called Arthur "King".

No need to lecture me about Gildas and Nennius, I have these documents right here on disk, I checked them myself first, thats why YOU went off to finally check the facts, but still didn't quite get it right :-)



Originally posted by Echtelion
First, Geoffrey of Monmouth in "Historia regum Britanniae" in the 12th century and a certain "Nennius" in "Historia brittonum" from the 9th century. Both wrote about a certain King Arthur -or King Arthus- who waged war against the Saxons in the 5th century.



Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote over 1/2 a MILLENIUM after the events in question by which time the tale had grown much in the telling - of course Arthur is a "King" by this time. You can not possibly expect this legend to tell us anything about the original.

Like I said - Gildas says NOTHING about Arthur.
Bede says nothing about Arthur.
The two closest sources - not a word.


Nennius is a crucial early source, even though much later - he does NOT call Arthur "King" - his earliest title was Dux Belorum "Warleader".

That was my point - no early source called him him "King", you were mistaken about Nennius - you can find Nennius online if you want to check.

My secondary point was how LATE the evidence was, and how evidence was MISSING from the earliest source - rather like Jesus.


Iasion





top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join