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.

 

Why Are You Attacking Jesus?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
again, you make assumptions about me, that is quite abusive, and as a mod you should not make such baseless claims against me
you are the one that should be setting an example

attack my arguments instead of me

OK, you say I'm wrong but I see ABSOLUTLEY nothing abusive in my comments. Right or wrong it was just an observation not some attack.

How is this an attack?:


Originally posted by kinglizard
Sometimes with your harsh words it seems you are not trying to convince others, rather you are trying to convince yourself. There is a lot of passion in the things you say and I have a hard time believing that passion only stems from your disbelief in what others think.



Understanding that I think what I have said is far from an attack I still offer you my apologies as you seem to be quite upset. I'm sorry that I have made you feel this way.



[edit on 12/16/2006 by kinglizard]




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
madnessinmysoul:

You continue to give yourself away with statements that have already been proven incorrect. The New Testament itself can be argued to be a list of contemporary writings. Furthermore, there are more references to Jesus from outside sources than most historical figures.

Also, the bible has long been esteemed and considered as a reliable geographical and historical source. The bible has long been held in high regard especially in regard to its geographical accuracy. Secondly, more than discrediting the bible, it's minute inaccuracies continue to verify its authenticity. In a sense, a variation in accounts "proves" genuine experience, rather than "copycat" accounts. Maybe you should finish reading those articles?

Lastly, I am Christian (hold a theistic belief), but I do not have absolute faith in God by any means.
Your points 1 and 2 are not really worth responding to: they are only your opinion. So, there's not much to say.

However, I can tell by these statements that you do not understand what faith is. How do you understand it? Maybe we should start a thread to help people understand it better?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NowAmFound
Furthermore, there are more references to Jesus from outside sources than most historical figures.


But all of those sources use the bible, and only the bible as their point of reference, which makes them useless.


Also, the bible has long been esteemed and considered as a reliable geographical and historical source. The bible has long been held in high regard especially in regard to its geographical accuracy.


Of course it's geographically accurate, it was written by people living in the area. If there was a map produced of Antarctica, or Mars, then I'd be impressed, and convinced. But just because something is geographically acccurate doesn't make it historically accurate. After all Huck Finn took place on the Mississippi river.


Secondly, more than discrediting the bible, it's minute inaccuracies continue to verify its authenticity. In a sense, a variation in accounts "proves" genuine experience, rather than "copycat" accounts. Maybe you should finish reading those articles?


No, it shows that stories can be passed down through generations, and changed/ enbelished with each generation until it's written down. Like walking on water, healing the sick, and performing other miracles.


However, I can tell by these statements that you do not understand what faith is. How do you understand it? Maybe we should start a thread to help people understand it better?


Is faith that warm fuzzy fealing I get inside? Maybe it's a childs laughter.....
Maybe it's a Teddybear Picnic. Or maybe it's something that people need when every bit of evidence they try to present in the face of harsh scruteny fails. It's the ace in the hole. The one thing that rational people can't argue against, because it holds no rational reason.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
But all of those sources use the bible, and only the bible as their point of reference, which makes them useless.


Some of the most compelling evidence that supports the fact that Jesus was indeed a real person is that so many different people wrote of him....many of them described the same thing but from different viewpoints.

But again this is a matter of faith isn’t it.



[edit on 12/17/2006 by kinglizard]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Ras:

Wrong. Not nearly all of those sources use the Bible as a point of reference.

My point is the bible is geographically accurate. Someone said it wasn't. But, geographic accuracy does indeed lend a credibility to any and all historical documents. Still, the bible's credibility does not depend on its geographic accuracy alone, no matter how compelling. Whether you are impressed or convinced doesn't change that.

On embellishment and inaccuracies...wrong again. The bible was written within a time frame which has been recognized by scholars and historians as ruling out the probability of myth.

Finally, on faith...very wrong. Maybe if you understood it better you wouldn't be so angry?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I'm quite happy actually.

But if you could teach me of one of those sources that mentions Jesus, outside of a biblical reference, then I may be a little happier. If not, then I'll leave it at what I said before.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
alright, i've posted a seperate thread on the general historicity of jesus, it's based around an article

and part of it points out several geographical innaccuracies
see here for more



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
raso:

Besides the articles I've already posted, here are some cool ones:

1) www.bibleviews.com...

2) www.foolishfaith.com...

(number 7 on the first article will probably be very interesting to the Christians on this site)





[edit on 17-12-2006 by NowAmFound]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
madness: I will read your article tomorrow and try to reply. Hey, how do I cite something, title it, and not have the address show?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NowAmFound
raso:

Besides the articles I've already posted, here are some cool ones:

www.bibleviews.com...

www.foolishfaith.com...

(number 7 will probably be very interesting to the Christians on this site)





Good find NowAmFound!



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone

Originally posted by NowAmFound
raso:

Besides the articles I've already posted, here are some cool ones:

www.bibleviews.com...

www.foolishfaith.com...

(number 7 will probably be very interesting to the Christians on this site)





Good find NowAmFound!


Why is it a good find when none of them give any proof for the existence of the man????? The writers are either out of the timeframe and writing hearsay, or in the case of Josephus's claim which is now regarded as a fraudulent addition.
Of all the so called extant proof of Jesus there are but 24 lines of text in ALL and are, as stated above, out of timeframe, ambigious and of course fraudulent. You would think someone of Jesus's caliber would have just that little more evidence eh???


G



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
shihulud:

Too many ways to respond to that. So glad others have already done it for me. I would be here all day.

www.geocities.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
madness:

I didn't see the geographical inaccuracies. Also, someone did write about the eclipse. Furthermore, the sources presented pale in comparison to those in support of a historical Jesus. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NowAmFound
www.geocities.com...




IT is the skeptic's burden to overturn that presumption and prove that Jesus didn't exist!


So, if one doesn't believe Jesus existed, they are required to prove a negative?

No wonder the argument continues!



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

The major argument here presented by many skeptics is that Jesus never existed. When real scholars of the Bible talk about "the historical Jesus" they don't' just examine the issues pertaining to his existence, they all assume he existed. But, this view that he never existed has become very fashionable on the Internet, which is very odd since no academic, or scholar, or anyone off of the Internet takes it seriously. Yet, it is growing in popularity on the discussion boards thanks to a whole host of sites which tout this absurd nonsense. The basic argument is merely an argument from silence, and is based upon the lack of very many extra-Bblical sources about Jesus from his own time. The arguments says "If Jesus really existed, worked miracles and rose form the dead, the whole world would know about him. Historians of his own day would have written volumes about him." Of course they also add that there are no official records of his existence, no birth certificate and so on. This is merely absurd because they didn't' have birth certificates and we have very few records of any individuals in that time. There were many, in fact a host, of "healers" and "wonder workers" running around all over the Roman world of that day, so to single out this one guy in Palestine just because his followers made claims about him is absurd.



Now Skeptics will often charge "you cannot prove that Jesus really existed..." But wait! This is not the believer's burden to prove! No academic scholar or real historian takes the Jesus-Myth theory seriously, and no historian can 'prove' that anyone existed. All history is basically a matter of probablitliy based upon best guess from documentary sources. The existence of Jesus has been accepted by history for centuries. IT is the skeptic's burden to overturn that presumption and prove that Jesus didn't exist!


The ones I put in bold said it all.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Benevolent:

"Did Jesus Exist?" is interrogative. As such, the burden of proof must be shouldered by both parties. Since Christians have been able to provide more references, evidence, and examples, and because they have the support of the majority of secular historians and scholars, the burden now rests on the atheist.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Well said NowAmFound, It is up to the Jesus myth types to prove to me he didn't exist.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by thehumbleone

Originally posted by NowAmFound
raso:

Besides the articles I've already posted, here are some cool ones:

www.bibleviews.com...

www.foolishfaith.com...

(number 7 will probably be very interesting to the Christians on this site)





Good find NowAmFound!


Why is it a good find when none of them give any proof for the existence of the man????? The writers are either out of the timeframe and writing hearsay, or in the case of Josephus's claim which is now regarded as a fraudulent addition.
Of all the so called extant proof of Jesus there are but 24 lines of text in ALL and are, as stated above, out of timeframe, ambigious and of course fraudulent. You would think someone of Jesus's caliber would have just that little more evidence eh???


G



Shihulud, why don't you go back and read THIS again and try to prove to me he didn't exist.

And please read the whole thing, not just the first page.

[edit on 18-12-2006 by thehumbleone]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Well said NowAmFound, It is up to the Jesus myth types to prove to me he didn't exist.


wrong
the burden of proof normally goes towards the people making a claim for something's existence

that is how logical systems work
you take a claim and support it with evidence
you don't make a claim and say "prove that it's wrong"

and if you want some stuff that disproves the existence of jesus as a historical figure, i have a thread Did Jesus Exist?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The other people and I on this thread have shown sufficient evidence that Jesus existed, now it's up to you to try to prove he didn't.

We should not have to prove something we know is true.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join