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.


jesus did exist, face it!

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by johnnyrobbo

Part of that could be true because Constantine never gave up his sun worship and cross-like anhk.(From what I've studied) When he had his priests re"interpret" the scriptures in Alexandria, they supposedly inserted many pagan beliefs.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Iasion..

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

Esoteric and Gnostic Jesus???Explain that to me in plain english...


Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.

There are many references in the bible of extra, non-essential books.

LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

O.K., so you're saying that there's no evidence for christ who these people worshipped , whom the bible says were reviled and hated by Jews and Romans whom this secular ignoramus satirised, sounds like a connection to me!!! If this "obscure cult" being demonized
is called christian, where do you think they got thier name from... ..CHRIST!!!.

GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.

SAYS you.

NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.

How many times do the gospels not specifically contain the name Jesus Christ??? Does that mean they're talking about Newt Gingrich?

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)

How reliable is the talmud, when it says molestation is O.K.? Not to mention destroying the goyem.(the gentiles.)

Many of the caesars after Jesus had such a hatred for anything contrary to them they would have tried to destroy any evidence of a Savior as well as the devotees!!!

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by johnnyrobbo

I have never heard that theory. It doesn't jive with the known history of both the late Roman empire and the church either.

The best and most detailed book on the subject that I know of is by the classical scholar Robin Lane Fox. It is called...

"Pagans and Christians: Religion and the Religious Life from the 2nd to the 4th Century A.D. When the Gods of Olympus Lost their Dominion and Christianity with the Triumph of Constantine Triumphed in the Mediterranean World."

... That really is its whole title. It is a massive book of almost 800 pages and throughly researched and extremely well written.

I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by whirlwind
If you study only from a King James version you can see what those words mean in their original language with the aid of a Strong's Concordance, (assuming you don't speak Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and have access to the manuscripts). If not, you must take man's word for it and Jesus warns us against that. Revisions are very dangerous and can completly change the original intent. It is fine to study them but it's probably wiser to have a solid foundation of scriptural understanding first.

The KJV?
Probably the single WORST translation ever made - in terms of accuracy to the ancient manuscripts. Since the KJV many changes have been made.

Did you notice Iasion, that whirlwind said the KJV alongside the Strong's Concordance so that you could go to the original manuscripts??? Some of us aren't fluent in hebrew and greek.
The KJV isn't accurate to the Alexandrian texts, re-written by Constantine( the vaticanus and the siniaticus.)

Originally posted by whirlwind
As you say, it is accumulated from a variety of hands and times but that makes it all the more amazing in that the story, the teaching, the prophecy remains true throughout. God's thumbprint is shown in places, one of which is Psalms 22. In it David, 1,000 years before the birth of Christ, wrote of His crucifixion.

Amen to that!

Hallelujah !
Jeshua He Messiah is Lord !!!


posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

Ya know Clearskies? For a mythical character, this guy Jesus sures stirs up a lot of controversary doesn't He? Never seen the Easter bunny or Peter Pan, or the tooth fairy do that.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by janasstar

Ya know Clearskies? For a mythical character, this guy Jesus sures stirs up a lot of controversary doesn't He? Never seen the Easter bunny or Peter Pan, or the tooth fairy do that.

That's willful ignorance. They hated him then as well as now.
He is so powerful that he causes the sinner to draw away in disgust, not knowing it's thier OWN vileness that they feel.

How much hatred did Stalin have for him?

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:59 PM
Oh dear, I'm not drawing away in disgust, or hatred. It's because adults who have use of their rational brains still believe in a fairy tale, and then take this into the public life in attempts to shove the morality of this god down other people's throats with our tax dollars, such as by trying to force intelligent design into school curriculums, putting the ten commandments up in public buildings, and interfering in a woman's right to choose.

Those are the things that disgust me, the fact that the believers of this fiction are dead set on controlling other people's lives. I think religion -- ALL religion -- is a poison. It just so happens that I only ever see Christians discussing their deity on this board, and they are the only ones that ever attack non-believers like myself for freethinking and not needing to have a superstition to get through our day.

Perhaps if our way of life here in the US wasn't threatened by the evangelical movement, then I wouldn't be so vehement and vocal in my speaking out against it. But there you go. When people are threatened, they tend to speak out rather than go down without resistance.

If Christians would leave their god in their churches, where it belongs, instead of shoving it into other people's faces, then I don't think anyone would be offended, disgusted or otherwise repelled by it.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

I've kinda always thought that as well. I didn't grow up with any religious training in my home, but I was very much God-aware. And I knew that He was One I wanted to commune with.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by Clearskies

see above, page freeze.

[edit on 8/26/2007 by janasstar]

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:12 PM
I got proof of him.

Records of chinese fighting Romans (they were on an expidition). This proves that ROmans existed

Thus all Roman records of Jesus are real such as Historians.

THe fact that everyone hated Christians so much as to want them to be seen and heard of dieing.

Asian heretical brake off religions that claim a line from Jesus.

That every culture of Eurasia and Africa have break off heretics that preach of Jesus.

Sorry, he's real.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by Iasion

You and your humanist webpage seem to be very committed to your cause.

sad sad sad

Your statements, your "humanist" website's statements and your conviction in this matter, are based on no evidence. I have a number of writings that reference the man Jesus the Christ. You have a lot of anger and supposition.

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by MajorMalfunction

could I ask where it is that you live that all these monster Christians are attacking you? I keep hearing this. And as far as this prayer in school thing, I believe the Christians rolled over and played dead on that one, and let one bored housewife, take that out from under us(fierce bunch aren't we?). I've attended many types of Christian fellowships and none of them were involved in street ministries or banging on people's doors. So unless you are referring to a cult religion such as the JW's or the Moonie's... I don't know. If I'm talking to someone one on one and I feel the situation is appropriate, and I happen to belong to a church, I might extend an invitation. But I don't know any of these people that FORCE things on ppl.

[edit on 8/27/2007 by janasstar]

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:47 AM
Using scripture, or any Christian source, to prove the existence of an historical Jesus is spurious at best. That type of reasoning is circular. It is akin to me trying to prove the historicity of Spider man by citing a comic book as evidence. We all must admit that the historical Jesus will likely never be found based upon the evidence and sources at our disposal. The more people try and prove his purported historical existence, the more apparent there bias, whether theistic or atheistic, becomes.

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:00 AM
The story of Jesus is the story of Attis of Phrygia, Dionysus/Bacchus, Horus/Osiris of Egypt, Krishna of India, Mithra of Persia, Zoroaster/Zarathustra and many more.


Here's a start:

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:45 AM
You know some people think that god is the bright light coming from the star cluster in the middle of our galaxy^^

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:23 AM
people would you please understand tht i am not trying to 'push' my ideas on anyone, i just thought is was something people would want to know as lots of people think that the bible is the only evidence of jesus' existance.
Also can people please look at the other sources from google.

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:37 AM
and yeah sorry the title was a bit too 'in your face' that was my mistake

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:40 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Iasion

you forgot his own writings, caesar had those...
for the person supposed to be god, jesus really didn't write...
is god illiterate?

UM, O.K. come on now..............

Is God illiterate?
Gee, yeah....see he never got to go to school since He hadn't created
the world yet , and well,
now he is hoping santa brings him the "hooked on phoniucs" set
that he asked for
He says He is always a real good boy!
that just sounded funny to me

I Do believe in jesus
however i am not into the idea that he was God
I tend to believe that God sent him
and he was teach and save and die ...all like its been said
but the part where catholics taught me that he is god himself in human form
well that sounds silly.
God is in everyone, some more than others
prophets , and the such have WAY more
and Jesus had the most.......
but , no i don't call him god

THere is but 1 God and that is a commandment
(p.s.- catholics are famous commandment breakers, so you gotta
watch them...)

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:53 AM

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by janasstar
reply to post by janasstar

Most people commonly know that the bible itself is an historical document.

The Bible is NOT a historical document... it is an accumulation of writings from a variety of hands and times, some mutually exclusive or contradictory with many different revisions.

If you have any doubts look at the many different versions of the books of the Bible in the Dead Sea scrolls collection.

The Bible is a terribly sloppy piece of journalism. This is not to say that at least some portions of the Bible have kernels of historical accuracy.

Imagine you are a newspaper editor. One of your reporters comes running to you and hands a story with a headline saying " David slays Goliath." The story describes how a young man named David slays a 15 foot tall man named Goliath with a stone between the eyes. The Bible's editors, being terribly sloppy journalists, allowed the story right into the Bible without any changes.

A good editor would pull the writer of the story and critically examine it. He would ask questions like: Who exactly is this David? Who exactly is the Goliath? Was Goliath really 15 feet tall or was he just really tall? Did they really fight at all? Did David really slay Goliath with a stone between the eyes? What do the Phillistine's have to say about all this? What is the Phillistine's side of the story? We may never know the real answers to these questions or what the news story really should have read. Perhaps the story should have really read "David slays a 6 foot 9 inch man" or "David and his friends were involved in skirmish with Phillistines."

Nevertheless, to say the stories happened exactly as described in the Bible may be absurd. The Bible is a sloppy fact checker and it does not get the other side of the story. This is not to say that there is some story, and it is the role of a historian who studies the Bible to find out what the real story is.

i can't believe that you just went there
i hope that you are not a writer because your credibility in the literary world has just plummeted

yeah- a sloppy piece of journalism.....
well of course you could find millions of journalists who could write circles around those "bible guys!"

I can't evn go on.....
i am sorry
i never have read any of your work.
How dare i judge what i have not seen
lets see some of your findings of better "journalism"
maybe we can all believe in that instead and then we will be at peace

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:40 AM
Of course Jesus existed, but that does not mean much, it certainly does not proved God exists, he doesn't btw.

Mary was with child because she got pregnant in the usual way, then being a smart girl knew the fable of the coming of the future leader and to keep herself from being stoned to death, lied for all she was worth to keep from being stoned to death, which is what happened back then to unwed mothers.

She continued to lie to everyone, she had no choice, her son was raised with this notion, either that or he used the lie for his own benefit, sort of a con man, and thus begins his down fall. So the fact that Jesus existed proves nothing.

Oh yeah, I forgot the miracles that Jesus performed and you read about in the bible right. Think about it, how many modern day miracles have you heard about? Their all easily explained by science, but of course true believers never listen to such explanations, since that would mean lack of faith.

Religion is the greatest con of all, it parts people from money and is forever perpetuated with the belief that God answers your prayers and if you get what you want then it is God's will and God answered your prayer, if you don't get your prayer answered then God knows best and even if you don't understand it, it is God's will.

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in