It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is true or false in the bible

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2005 @ 10:13 AM
O.K i know its been proven historically that Jesus was real but none of his powers were. Wot else is like this I know about the burning bush where if someone hadnt eaten for40 days and nights (it's possible) then they would have been highly delusinal so if they saw a bush in front of them thye would have mistaken it for god or whatever. I also know a lot of the story of Jesus' death was wrong like if someone was crusified they're body would have been left up to rot to ward off other criminals

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 03:55 PM
I don't know about the leaving up of the bodies, but 2 men came and asked for permission to take down Jesus' body. Pilate granted that request. It was then placed in a tomb.

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:27 PM

John 19 31-33 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

Matthew 27:57-61
As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

The bodies, including Jesus's were not left up to rot. You might know a lot of the story of Jesus, but obviosuly not all of it, at least not what is in the bible.

As far as the burning bush, i see no evidance to support that moses had not eaten for 40 days. Nor explain the change that occured in a rather timid moses being the reluctant prophet, to a person who is able to lead a whole nation to its promised land.

Also I really see no reason why miricles need to be proven. Even in Jesus's time when people experainced and took part in the miricles they still did not believe he was their savior. The Miricles were only provided to prove that he WAS the Son of God, and had power given to him from heaven.

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM
Sorry I thought it was Jesus who saw the burning bush
my head
and I now see i was wrong about the bodies bit if anyone has anything more like this comtinue my conversation (now I'm feeling preety silly)
And how come all these miracles happened but with the bible as the only proof it would have been writtwen in other places about 'a man who heals the sick'

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Shenroon
it would have been writtwen in other places about 'a man who heals the sick'

There are many secular historical Roman accounts of Jesus and His miracles. There are three who documented in great detail the story of the Gospel and Jesus, along with what the followers did afterwards. Luke's gospel is actually one of these, since Luke was hired by Rome to put together a history of what happened. He wasn't there, but he got eye wittness accounts and is the only Gospel which actually presented information which allows us to place the date of the Gospel.

There are accounts of Jesus's miracles outside of the Bible. I just don't have time right now to look them up. I'll check up when I do have more time to see if someone already provided links, and if not, I'll provide a few.

Rock, rock on!

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:43 PM
cant we set out to knock on the torah or the koran for once guys? this bible bashing is getting old

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:46 PM
One of the historian's names is Josephus, who was a Roman historian. Do a google search on him. He was commissioned by Rome to write a detailed history of the Jewish people (he, himself, was an Orthodox Jew) and wrote of Jesus in Antiquities.

Tacitus was another one of them. He's considered the best Roman historian, and, in his history of Emperor Nero talks about Christ's coming, some of the things he did, and some of the things Christians were doing during the time of Nero (given that name well before Constantine, btw)

There are many more, too. Some of these include:

Ignatius of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristides, Justin Martyr. suetonius, and Phlegon, just to name a few. There is an extensive secular historical account of Jesus and the things claimed in the Bible. Enjoy!

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:02 PM
I'm sorry maybe I was wrong but how can we take into account the words of one of Jesus' own deciples even if they were called upon by the Romans he would dismiss anything against Jesus and only really write his view.

And on bad mouthing the Kuran, what would be the point the vast majority of people on ATS are Christian(which ever form) or Atheist so we really wouldn't get anything even like this descusion 'cos there would just be no-one to argue(sorry talk) with

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:36 PM
Luke wasn't one of the deciples. He never walked with Jesus in the physical sense. He was a Jewish historian who did a bunch of research into Christianity and, like many who do so, was converted and believed in the course of his research, I believe. He was not, however, one of the twelve deciples.

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 11:52 AM
O.K I was wrong about Luke and the bible I accept that but please cintinue with the discussion this is begining to get sorto pointless


log in