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.

 

Alleged historical evidence for Jesus

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


You cling to fictional and unreliable sources for the existence of Jesus, yet you denounce rock-solid evidence for Mozart?

There really is no point in discussing this with you. Your mind is made up. It's clear that your bias is overriding your objectivity.




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
This is why the Neo Darwinian career forum warriors who are so busily and actively disbelieving in Jesus have such an axe to grind lol.

Why would I trust anyone with all that mud on their back? Is she cheating on us as she did demeter? I loved all the evidence you have offered us as I will use them myself to substantiate his existence.

In each and everyone of them you impeach the testimony like an amateur and merely contradict each and every one of the extraordinary voluminous catalog of statements and records, YOU expect us all to believe are all flawed for this reason or that when what you seem to be asking us to do is quite a stretch. You mean ALL of those are wrong? We are to dismiss ALL of that ?? What is this some huge conspiracy and all those are in on it? HA HA HA HA

What motivates one to do all that exhaustive research by one who is so fascinated with Greek Mythology where just about anyone of us concur as myth but THIS guy Jesus seems to be the one that slipped through tha cracks and of the myths we acknowledge as myths like electra and platos, I have the sneaking supicion Jesus would not measure up to your fascination with Mythology.

Your hatred of the man you call myth shows through your transparent veneer of disengenuous BibleBigotry like a Laser fanned out before our eyes. You merely googled the arguments of a man you actively disbelieve because why? It is you civic duty? Do yu correct other myths like loch ness or big foot? Or is it just this man Jesus that has you so pre-occupied overshadowing your greek gods?

You have your mission dark soldier and I have mine.

Telling me you don't believe in Jesus with so much passion so much zeal while anyone who disagrees you assume some self proclaimed superior knowledge looking more desperate to drive home your mission to bring down a so called myth while anyone who really believed that would have just laughed at their interlocutors and not wasted time on fools.

But Not You, no yours is a mission but not of yourself but the God you know not but follow.

No YOU don't do that because their is much more at stake here isn't their. Yes it is because you just happen to want to help people understand with your staggering intellect and backround, your formal education in the study of ancient documents and histrionics. You do this because you get so many people thanking you for steering them in the right direction but I only know of two extremes coursing through the blood of a mans veins that would lend such a passionate pursuit.

The first would be the love for Jesus by those who believe he is real and have had it proven the way Jesus taught by coming as a child and asking him with a genuine heart.

The antithesis of that is pure un adulterated hate that lines a mans arteries like the plaque of disobediance attempting to stop the life giving blood of the body it has taken as it's host.

Ive seen you before and you have seen me, but I am afraid the outcome will always be the same my rival.

No one reading this post believes you who are his and the rest I seek not their approval while it is YOU who seek his. You do this by giving this Myth a platform lending credibility to his name and to his existence.

Has it ever occured to you that Christians don't care what an Atheist suggests? How is it that someone like yourself spends so much time arguing with those most difficult to persuade? The believer his owned and that you will never change no more than we care for your approval or how ignorant you you think we are. We at least have a reason as Believers but you ?? Oh yeah,, only a person hating someone this much risking the insult a of others you belittle as know nothings would trouble himself so.

My question is, why go to all that trouble over something you don't believe when the only thing unbelievable,,

is you

- Con



[edit on 17-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Iasion
 


I was just about to respond to this thread at length as the historicity of Jesus is one of my interests and there are a lot of obvious flaws in your OP. However, your user name looked strangely familiar and I now remember you from before:

The Gospels are not Eye Witness Accounts (Therefore you won't be interested in listening to the arguments of how they tesity to Jesus' existence in spite of confirmation via extrabiblical historical references to their authorship).

No Evidence for Jesus of Nazareth (Which is eerily similar to content in this thread).

Early Silence and Doubts about Jesus (Although a lot of the information in that thread is also false, it is strangely similar to your following thread):

List of Early Authors Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus.

The Jesus Myth and Apologist's Claims.

Early Writers Who Failed to Mention Jesus (I guess one thread wasn't enough for you to dwell on the logical fallacy of 'argument from silence.').

Did Jesus Even Exist?.

Congratulations. You are the first person I've met on here who has an equal amount of passion for this topic as myself. Sadly, our interests in this topic are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of purpose and evangelism.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD


Congratulations. You are the first person I've met on here who has an equal amount of passion for this topic as myself. Sadly, our interests in this topic are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of purpose and evangelism.


Well ashley, I think you have just described he who has petitioned an assignment against you. LOL


I must say, of all the ignorant machinations Satan has duped Neo Atheists into perpetrating against the God they activley disbelieve. This one is SO outrageous, so far fetched so obviously contrived, the only other thing I have seen that comes this close to bunkbrokering,,

is the ever lying illusion of,

evolution.

- Con

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
A bump for those who claim there is "dozens" of historical sources for Jesus existance.

You can check the facts on these alleged sources in my OP.

Compare them with AshleyD's claims.


Iasion



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Show me his birth- and death certificates then! Or any legal document proving his existance. And again. Where is the mention from a respected historian?
[edit on 9/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Mozart's death certificate
Birth register
Baptismal Record
Death notice in the paper
Certificate from Academy Bologna 1770
Wolfgang and Constanze's marriage contract
Copy of handwritten letter by Mozart asking for a loan
Concert Ticket



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
A bump for those who claim there is "dozens" of historical sources for Jesus existance.

You can check the facts on these alleged sources in my OP.

Compare them with AshleyD's claims.


Iasion


No, I don't even have to do that iasion, as you haven't done your homework at all. You take the most famous person in the history of man and then take a list of historical suppositions against the any documents where the only refutation is that which one might only say if he had an axe to grind and didn't really think this through. For example:

You say his name would have been Jesus, Son of Joseph.

Their is a very good reason he is not named Son of Joseph, and if you knew more than you could fit on a postage stamp about why his name wouldn't be what you THINK it should, it makes perfect sense why he wasn't named that way.

Can you at least try to be fair and honest and think real hard,,

what would that reason be?

- Con



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Iasion
 


My claims? I didn't even bother to debate the topic because I know it would be like talking to a brick wall. The only thing I mentioned was your repetitive zeal with the topic. Nothing more. I don't waste my time debating those who have their minds made up. It's migraine-inducing and I'm 99% sure I would know your rebuttals in advance.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Phew!! Feel the anger and excitement mixed in with the big words! Better pull out a dictionary to hang with this guy..I for one am truly impressed by the absolute dominance you portray in your humble christendom of a rebuttal. Well done chap


I will not debate whether or not the historocity of Christ is in fact exactly how the Bible portrays him. I will take a quote from a friend of mine who puts it eloquently. I believe in Christ exemplified. In other words in todays reality and tomorrows death it does not matter whether or not we know with an absoluteness whether Christ lived, died or was actually the "Son of God" 2000 years ago and remains so today. If you can say with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago, then all I can say is: Good for You! You know more than the rest of the world.

And so con (interesting nickname you got there) I hope when you read over your posts you find Christ rampant through the words you so 'elegantly' put together. That is all the love and compassion that Christ demonstrates throughout the New Testament. Is this what you find con?

I hope you can hear me from way up there on your horse of Mt. Everest stature. Well, at least maybe Jesus can?

Why is it I get the feeling you are one of those Christians that as soon as church is over, jumps in his car, and cuts people off in the parking lot to be the first one on the road.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate anyway.

At any rate...
moving on back to the Laker game, something actually worth the time to respond to.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Hiya,


Originally posted by Conspiriology
You say his name would have been Jesus, Son of Joseph.


No I didn't.
Please try reading for comprehension.

I said that any ROMAN RECORDS would have called him "Jesus son of Joseph", or perhaps "Jesus of Nazareth" because that's how Romans recorded people's names (a basic fact you seem un-aware of.)

Roman records could NOT POSSIBLY have called him "Jesus the Messiah" (because Christ means Messiah.)

Can you imagine a Roman record saying :
"Calends 5 April, Tiberius 18 - Crucified the Messiah."

That's what you are essentially claiming.
Next time - please READ what I wrote before you post such nonsense.

So anway Con - which of those writers do YOU think is actually evidence for Jesus?


Iasion



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Hi


Originally posted by Conspiriology
No, I don't even have to do that iasion, as you haven't done your homework at all.


It's quite obvious that I HAVE done my homework and presented a lengthy detailed post with facts and evidence which can be checked and debated.

But you didn't even TRY.
I see Ashley has given up as well.

But no doubt he will still prtend there are two dozen historical sources for Jesus - when I have clearly shown that is not true.


Iasion



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


You like to listen to yourself talk don't you, Conspiriology? Look at all that purple prose.




Your hatred of the man you call myth shows through your transparent veneer of disengenuous BibleBigotry like a Laser fanned out before our eyes. You merely googled the arguments of a man you actively disbelieve because why? It is you civic duty? Do yu correct other myths like loch ness or big foot? Or is it just this man Jesus that has you so pre-occupied overshadowing your greek gods?


One could ask the same questions of you: Why do you spend 3,000+ words writing something that doesn't really say anything profound? Or, why do you spend time talking about evolution, which you so adamantly seem to hate? I mean, you do show up in every single thread that talks about science, evolution, or even hints at atheism. So why do spend all this time and research talking about something you seem to dislike with a passion?

When you answer this for yourself, then you'll have the answers to your own questions.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Roman records could NOT POSSIBLY have called him "Jesus the Messiah" (because Christ means Messiah.)


Actually, Christ literally means "the annointed" - so you are already wrong.

Secondly - there are coins from Nero's days that say "Our Christ Nero" and in that text.. Christ is meaning "Leader"

So... sorry to bust that bubble - it does not mean messiah. Just wishful thinking on the part of some Christians.

VV



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
SO HERE GET REAL

GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from
Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4

There's more historical evidence for Jesus that nay other figure in ancient history you dimwite. The whole system of time is based on his birth and death - HELLO? Fellas I have a treatment program with medication counseling and prayer that will cure your atheism. Please send me an email Ok?




[edit on 31-5-2008 by Reverend SamuelTophatJack]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
When do we get to see a reference written sometime during Jesus' lifetime?

Yours is the closest but almost a 100 years after Jesus supposedly died, and it's already been shown that "Chrestus" was not "Christ".

Is it too much to admit that there was no contemporary reference to Jesus? Would it destroy your faith?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
 


First, I want to say it is completely understandable to want to protect and defend you beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, but...



SO HERE GET REAL



Lets pretend for a minute that your are a Reverand...As a "Reverand" is this how you approach anyone with doubt and questioning... "GET REAL"...?

Jesus may have been blunt at times (according to his disciples), but I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it says to give off an attitude of "GET REAL".

It is quite sad actually, because of some of the real Christians that I have strong friendships with would never try to degrade someone opinion by shouting at them to "GET REAL."

This is a poor example of Christianity in my opinion. I believe this is a very real reason why Christianity is loosing its grip on mainstream America. The "If you don't believe what we believe you are going to hell..because I know the truth" mentality is so old and over-used it is pathetic.

I feel for you "Reverand", maybe you have not had success in your attempts of converting "non-believers", or your congregation has diminished? Maybe this is why you try to input your opinion/ "knowledge" in a degrading way. I don't know, but you may want to reasses your relationship with that God that got you going in this direction in the first place. If it is waining like it seems to be (at least through your smug statement of "GET REAL"), it may be a good idea to step away from such a contraversial site such as ats as well.



Fellas I have a treatment program with medication counseling and prayer that will cure your atheism.


I know plenty of people who have meditation and patience practices that may be able to cure your wisenheimer condition.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by abelievingskeptic]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
[edit double post]

[edit on 1-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Hiya,


Originally posted by ValhallasValkyrie
Actually, Christ literally means "the annointed" - so you are already wrong.


The etymology is "anointed" or "smeared with oil".
The general MEANING is "Messiah".

Either way - Roman records could NOT POSSIBLY have said :
"Today we crucified the anointed"
or
"Today we crucified the Messiah".

Just not possible.

My point stands - there are no Roman records of Jesus - just later beliefs.


Iasion



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from
Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4


It says "Chrestus".
Chrestus is a common Roman slave name (it means "good" or "useful".)
This Chrestus was causing disturbances in Rome in the 40s.
Are you actually claiming this "Chrestus" is actually Jesus?

Are you really and truly claiming that Jesus was in Rome causing trouble in the 40s?

Seriously?



Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJackThere's more historical evidence for Jesus that nay other figure in ancient history you dimwite.


Rubbish.
You apologists keep claiming this, but as I have shown - none of it stands up to scrutiny.

Like this Suetonius crap - he is talking about someone completely different who is onbviously NOT Jesus - but you are so blinded by faith you will grasp at any straw.

There is NO contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all.
None.
Not one person in history met any Jesus.
Not one person in history recorded Jesus or the Gospel events.

All we have is much LATER reports of Christian BELIEFS, after Jerusalem had been destroyed and everyone was dead.



Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
The whole system of time is based on his birth and death - HELLO?


Bollocks.
ONE Calendar system, widely used by Christians, is based on Christ - whoop de do. You don't even know there are OTHER calendars, do you Samuel?

Consider -
Our week-days and months are based on the Gods - e.g. June is named after Juno - Thursday is named after Thor.

The whole system of weeks and months time is based on the Gods - HELLO?

Therefore (according to Samuel's argument) the old Gods are real - Thor is real, Juno is real !!


What nonsense.
Just more silly preaching from a true believer.


Iasion



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Hiya,


Originally posted by Conspiriology
You say his name would have been Jesus, Son of Joseph.


No I didn't.
Please try reading for comprehension.

I said that any ROMAN RECORDS would have called him "Jesus son of Joseph", or perhaps "Jesus of Nazareth" because that's how Romans recorded people's names (a basic fact you seem un-aware of.)

Roman records could NOT POSSIBLY have called him "Jesus the Messiah" (because Christ means Messiah.)

Can you imagine a Roman record saying :
"Calends 5 April, Tiberius 18 - Crucified the Messiah."

That's what you are essentially claiming.
Next time - please READ what I wrote before you post such nonsense.

So anway Con - which of those writers do YOU think is actually evidence for Jesus?


Iasion


Oh I am well aware of his name son, moreover you could just as easily have said his name wasn't "Jesus" for that matter. The point is, we wouldn't even know pontius pilot but not for Jesus fame. For anyone to corroborate a lie of something or someone of the magnatude and greateness as the story of Jesus Christ would most definatley require co-conspirators to substantiate it which means they would have to have been living people at the time. Do you or have you heard of anyone that may have been one of the liars of this so called scam. I don't suppose their would be much about that.

Other than to correct you for insulting me for not including the referance for the Joseph part of my post, I did think it was rather desperate for you to consider I gave you enough credit to assume that is where you got that from without having to list it again when I said you said it.

I guess I should have been more explicit and said YOU "Referanced" it.

Next time Ill make sure I remember your inability to speak extemporaneously on a subject that requires reading and writing.

It won't be on this topic however for you are determined to

remain ignorant and pass along lies as facts

I call people like that disinformationalists

another words, you are,

nothing but a liar

- Con



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join