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.
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.
Originally posted by kinglizard
Curses, Foiled Again!
I thought I was going to end this argument once and for all. lol
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
Originally posted by thehumbleone
You people who don't believe Jesus existed are like the people who say we never landed on the moon.
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.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
now the christians have to read a long article and they ask me to break it down?
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.
Originally posted by GreatTech
madnessinmysoul, do you believe that Jesus Christ has tried to harm you?
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!!!
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.
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!
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