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.

 

Did Jesus Exist -- The Probing Mind

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I stumbled upon a nice article questioning the historicity of jesus a while back, and i recently rediscovered it

i thought i'd share it for the FST community, enjoy and discuss


For most of my life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus, although certainly not a god, was nevertheless an historical personage - perhaps a magician skilled in hypnosis. To be sure, I knew that some of the world's greatest scholars had denied his existence. Nevertheless, I had always more or less supposed that it was improbable that so many stories could have sprung up about someone who had never existed. Even in the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis, and Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they were merely deified human heroes: men and women who lived in the later stages of prehistory - persons whose reputations got better and better the longer the time elapsed after their deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I supposed, improved with age.


And here's the rest of the article

remember, read the entire article before you post




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
many christians on FST and CIR have stated that they'd like to see evidence to show that jesus doesn't exist

well, there, look above this post here, i have presented it, why are you not responding?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
OK, I'll start and end the conversation right here:

There are 27 books that I know of that record that there was a flesh in blood man named "Jesus" living here on earth. They have been compiled into one book so that it's easy for people to investigate the life of this man. Upon careful examination of these ancient texts you will find that they do indeed record that this man "Jesus" was crucified around 31 A.D. to 32 A.D. Not only that but these ancient text say that he rose from the dead! This MUST be about the Christ we often hear about!

So now you have your proof, 27 books FULL of proof! WOOHOO!



[edit on 12/18/2006 by kinglizard]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
nice job kinglizard!

you completely ignore the entirety of the article i posted and then claim to have ended the argument without addressing point 1 of said article



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Curses, Foiled Again!

I thought I was going to end this argument once and for all. lol



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard

Curses, Foiled Again!

I thought I was going to end this argument once and for all. lol


maybe you could try addressing the arguments made in the article, and then attack them

that would probably foster intelligent discussion



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
maybe you could try addressing the arguments made in the article, and then attack them

that would probably foster intelligent discussion


You do realize that you just linked to a 17 page 8,040 word document published by atheists.org don't you?

You can't really ask people to read all that and expect a discussion to come about. I mean how about you bring a tidbit back to the board by quoting something from that huge selection. Give us your opinions and comments, I bet that would start a discussion.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
You people who don't believe Jesus existed are like the people who say we never landed on the moon.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
You people who don't believe Jesus existed are like the people who say we never landed on the moon.


...no

that's a completely different situation

there aren't contemporary accounts of jesus, that is the biggest difference
that is a good reason to throw the existence of a figure into question



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Well hell, why don't we throw Plato or Aristotle's existence into question?

Can you prove to me that they really have contemporary writings? For all I know, they could just be lying and saying they're comtemporary.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Well hell, why don't we throw Plato or Aristotle's existence into question?

Can you prove to me that they really have contemporary writings? For all I know, they could just be lying and saying they're comtemporary.


well, for one thing there are records that aristotle tutored alexandar the great...
so that's thrown out the window
because all the records pertaining to his existence are accpeted by virtue of their reliability

and plato, well that one isn't in question at all
because he is mentioned by CONTEMPORARIES

there aren't even sources CLAIMING to be contemporary to jesus

but this isn't about plato or aristotle, that was deflection, shame on you

now please, read the article, it's not like i haven't been told to read quite long articles attempting to prove the existence of jesus
now the christians have to read a long article and they ask me to break it down?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
But how do I know that those are really contemporary writings?

For all I know, someone could have lied and said they were contemporary.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
now the christians have to read a long article and they ask me to break it down?


Yes, we ask that all thread authors "break it down". This way there is input from the thread author and a start of a discussion.

If you are happy with a "cold" half dead thread then continue to ignore my advice.

No biggie....



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
But how do I know that those are really contemporary writings?

For all I know, someone could have lied and said they were contemporary.


well, if we're going that far, how do we know that there is actually history?
how do i know that the entire universe wasn't created with an entire historic record and light travelling from stars lightyears away last thursday?

come on, you have to accept general archaeological evidence
it isn't about lies, it's about tests that show the dating of the evidence to coincide with the supposed date of authorship

and king
i don't have time to break it down now, i'll do so tomorrow



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Madnessinmysoul posting that article earned you a WATS vote.
The article itself is well worth the read and goes a long way to disproving the Christian version of what the man known as Jesus was.
Before I go any further lets get one thing straight you don't to even have believe in the existence of a higher power to make the assumption that the person known as Jesus existed.

But thats as far as it goes you obversely need to be a Christian to believe that Jesus came back from the dead and so on. My own personal belief is that the person known as Jesus existed but beyond that all details are up in the air including his death.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
madnessinmysoul, do you believe that Jesus Christ has tried to harm you? If so, would this explain your antagonism towards Him? If not, do you think you are superior in intelligence to the billions of people that have loved and worshiped Him? You seem to have the psychology that "everything is mythology except for what I believe." Do you love any beings other than yourself? Who? Do you believe anything is alive? Or do you believe the Universe is a "cosmic accident" and that there has never been any life?

God will reach you sooner than later.

Merry Christmas and Happy Easter!!!



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
madnessinmysoul, do you believe that Jesus Christ has tried to harm you?

that's hard for me to believe since i'm quite sure jesus did not exist as a historical figure, though on the historicity of many things i'm not 100% because there's always new evidence that can be found. so let's say i'm 90% sure jesus did not exist



If not, do you think you are superior in intelligence to the billions of people that have loved and worshiped Him?

no, i just think that i've realized something that they have not
this doesn't have anything to do with intelligence
and remember, using the argument that a lot of people believe it, so i must think i'm better is very weak
a lot of people believed the earth to be flat
and that it was at the center of the universe



You seem to have the psychology that "everything is mythology except for what I believe."

well, since i'm an atheist, that isn't a psychology issue, it's a lack of religious faith issue



Do you love any beings other than yourself?

yes



Who?

my family, my friends, my dog, and pretty much anyone who is a decent human being



Do you believe anything is alive?

yeah, all those plants, animals, and microscopic creatures ARE ALIVE



Or do you believe the Universe is a "cosmic accident" and that there has never been any life?

just because i believe the universe was created by a big bang doesn't mean i don't believe in life...



God will reach you sooner than later.

...
no comment



Merry Christmas and Happy Easter!!!


thank you, and merry christmas to you and all the other board members
though i'll hold of on easter wishes for now

now, kinglizard, i'm going to break down the article

[edit on 12/19/06 by madnessinmysoul]

[edit on 12/19/06 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
the first thing the article points out, i'm just going to paraphrase it, is that the burden of proof is on those who hold that jesus DID exist

then it goes on to exclude old testament prophecy as a source of evidence, because that is purely theological
also, it sights the views of thoman paine in An Examination of Prophecy

now, let us keep the OT out of this
can we also agree to keep revelations out?
prophecy doesn't make any claim of historicity



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era') knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds. Thus, unless one supposes the argument of Irenæus to be other than ridiculous, we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor.


this points out that the gospels were in fact NOT written by eye-witnesses
and not by matthew, mark, luke, and john
or by any specific individual



It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both writers plagiarize d (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus e and would-be historical details. Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus - and thus cannot both be correct
...
It is significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry. Both can be dismissed as unreliable without further cause. We can know nothing of Jesus' childhood or origin!


the piece i cut out merely hammered the whole plagirization point
this does make the point that only 1 of these two gospels can be correct because of their inherent contradictions

alright, now let us discuss these snippets



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's hard for me to believe since i'm quite sure jesus did not exist as a historical figure, though on the historicity of many things i'm not 100% because there's always new evidence that can be found. so let's say i'm 90% sure jesus did not exist


That's like saying to someone...OK here is a wicker basket, now put all the proof you can find in here. Yes it will hold the 27 different books(NT) that record Jesus existence and teachings. Yes you can place the 40 Apocrypha books in there. There is room right? OK good just push them all down so they don't spill out onto the floor. OK I think you can fit in the book from the roman scribe, yes there you go, perfect fit. Now will someone help me move this 200 pound basket of proof into the other room. With muscles stressing the wicker basket is moved to the other room.

Now that all that stuff is in the other room please give me proof that Jesus existed....but it can't be anything in the wicker basket.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join