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.

 

The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
I disagree with your hearsay arguement.

What motivation would anybody have to write about Jesus unless he was real?

I could excuse a couple of instances to coincedence, but you have listed a whole truckload of evidence to support the claim that all those writings mention a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago as being more than just coincedence, anything else would be irrational.

Even many atheist do not deny a man named Jesus walked the Earth 2000 years ago, they just don't support the God aspect. I accept that and can respect and understand how they can rationally come to that conclusion.

I admire your effort, but your claim is borderline absurd.


What motivation would anybody have to write about Hercules unless he was real?

I could excuse a couple of instances to coincedence, but you have listed a whole truckload of evidence to support the claim that all those writings mention a man named Hercules lived 3000 years ago as being more than just coincedence, anything else would be irrational.


Iasion




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manasseh
It's ironic to me.
People don't question the story about King Herod killing all the first-born.
Why do you think he killed the firstborn??


Question it ?
It's a MYTH. It NEVER happened.

Great Scott - surely you don't believe this ACTUALLY HAPPENED ?
Wow.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by EricD
Wow. What a ridiculous bit of tripe.

Forget the documents that were written within decades of Christ's death and resurrection,


The Romans destroyed most of Jerusalem and the people in it in 70AD, sometime after that the Gospels were written.

Then in the 130s the Romans finished of the total destruction of Jerusalem and the remaining Jewish strongholds.

Only after that, in early-mid 2nd century do we see the Gospel become widely known to Christians.

That's a CENTURY after the alleged time of Jesus - after GENERATIONS have passed, and two wars have destroyed all records, and most of the Jews.



Originally posted by EricD
what on earth would cause people who lived while people who were contemporaries of an imagined Christ to become martyrs under horrific prosecution?


There is no evidence of ANYONE who knew Jesus personally.
The martyrdoms are STORIES which were made up later - stories designed to support earlier stories.

Anyway -
people DO die for false beliefs all the time - so what, even if happened?

Suicide bombers die for their beliefs,
and the Heaven's Gate cult,
and the Cathars, etc. etc..
So what?



Originally posted by EricD
What sort of an insane conspiracy would be needed to invent Christ and have everyone who would have known him or of him (or his family) to go along with that conspiracy while it inspired such devoted followers that they would give up their possessions and their lives for Him?


What idiocy.
NONE of those people existed.
They are ALL fiction.
The Gospel stories did not become widely known to non-Christians until mid 2nd century - and we see them ridiculed as myths, fiction, fabrications...

There is NOT ONE SINGLE record of any person in history who EVER saw Jesus.
All we have is stories from long afterwards, from people who weren't even there. The Gospels were originally UN-NAMED, to only be finally given their names probably by Irenaeus in the 180s.

The early epistles have no details about Jesus life - no teachings, no miracles, no virgin birth, no trial...

The Gospels appear in early-mid 2nd century, and THEN Christians start repeating details of Jesus' life - all FROM the Gospels.

It all started with the Gospel of Mark - an original creation, a masterpiece of spiritual literature - people copied it, people loved it... eventually people started BELIEVING it - that faction came dominate the church. The rest is history.



Originally posted by EricD
Don't you think that some first or second century historian would try to provide some evidence or at least an argument for an invention of Christ by the first Christians?


That's exactly what we DO see :

Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”

The church did all they could to suppress such attacks, many of these works are only left as fragments and quotes. Because they SPECIFICALLY claimed the Gospels were MYTHS, FICTION, FABRICATIONS...


Iasion



[edit on 5-9-2008 by Iasion]

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Iasion]

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by EricD
A) It is YOUR contention that the lack of contemporaneous documentation is evidence of non-existence. It is YOUR responsibility to defend that position. Try answering the question of why there weren't scores of attempts by first and second century historians who were writing about the myth of a Christ.


Because generally, historians do not bother debunking silly faithful beliefs. How many historians debunk Xenu today?

And there WERE a few who DID attack the Gospel stories of Jesus as MYTH, FICTION, FABRICATIONS (as I posted above.)

The church did what they could to supress such views.



Originally posted by EricD
B) Christ had an extensive extended family and social network.


In the STORY he does.
But there is no evidence for any of them existing either!

Frodo has "an extensive extended family and social network."
Harry Potter has "an extensive extended family and social network."
So what?
Characters in the story do not make prove other characters in the story true.

There is NO EVIDENCE for ANY of the central Gospel characters.
There is NO EVIDENCE for the central Gospel events.



Originally posted by EricD
How was his being imaginary suppressed? No one said 'uhhhh, I was there. He didn't exist. Ask anyone.'? What about 'Hey Joseph, some nuts are saying that you paid for a tomb for this dude that never existed."? How about 'Peter, all those guys getting killed by lions? They say that they are worshiping someone you knew. Crazy huh?'?


Because the stories did not become known until early-mid 2nd century, after 2 wars and several generations. WHO could argue? Jerusalem was a smoking ruin, the events had taken place generations before, before the Romans double destruction.

The Gospel stories arose a CENTURY or so after the alleged people in them. Any alleged characters in the story were long long gone.

The first non-Christians to show any notice of the Gospels were in mid-late 2nd century (e.g. Lucian, Celsus.) Even the Christians only become aware of the Gospels in early-mid 2nd century (e.g. Papias, Justin.)

Have a look at the timing :
members.iinet.net.au...



Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by Alienmojo
How strange you would say this, but understandable I suppose. However, you are totally wrong and there is lots of evidence.


Apologists often talk about this "lots of evidence", but can only seem to ever come up with a few feeble fragments.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
2) Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian, Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. His misspelling of Christ as "Christus", was a common error made by pagan writers. "Christus, the founder of the name was PUT TO DEATH BY PONTIOUS PILATE."


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
3)Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist of the latter half of the 2nd century, Lucian spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians... "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinquished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account..."



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.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
This can all be found in the book THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell.


Which is thoroughly refuted in
"Evidence that demands a refund"
www.infidels.org...
by Jeff Lowder.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
I'm not gonna bore everyone and keep quoting, but there are also: Suetonius,


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



Originally posted by Alienmojo
Pliny the Younger,



PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



Originally posted by Alienmojo
Thallus,


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
Phlegon,


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
Mara Bar-Serapion,



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


In short - NONE of it stands up to scrutiny.
Such is the alleged "evidence" for Jesus : nothing more than later reports of Christian BELIEFS.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alienmojo
To state that Jesus never existed is as ignorant as saying that Caesar or Alexander the Great never existed. This has long been a closed argument and I'm surprised anyone brings it up anymore.


In fact the opposite is true.
Increased knowledge of history and church and bible is exposing more and more religious beliefs as goundless.

Knowledge of just how WEAK the is the alleged "evidence" for Jesus is becoming widespread, and the apologists are forced to desperate methods in an attempt to draw attention away from the actual facts, by pretending the argument is over, by ridiculing anyone who disagrees.

It certainly is not over, the existence of Jesus HAS been questioned by various writers and historians over the years, and increasingly so.

Yes,
it's still a minority view, because the church still holds sway over NT bible studies - 99% of NT scholars are believers - of COURSE they believe in Jesus.



Originally posted by Alienmojo
Argue with me that he is not the son of God and I will understand that...but argue that he never existed??? My friend, as nice as I can say this, that is just plain ignorant.


I find the shrillness of the apologist's insults to be inversely proportional to the strength of their arguments.


Iasion


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
dont forget, maybe there is no physical evidence.
there are much authors who write he is already here again in an etherial way.
he wont be here physical any more, as written (in the bible)

but thats not the point.

dont get confused by the disInfo guys here.hold your breath.

dont feed the trolls.

cheers



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Hiya,


Originally posted by Alienmojo
I truly believe it is safe to believe Jesus existed. If you have problems with the rest of it..fine. That is your belief and your entiltled to it. But you will NEVER prove that Christ never existed. It can't be done.


Mate -
If YOU believe this mythical god-man existed, it is up to YOU to show he did.

In the absence of historical evidence, the default possition that a god-man with super-natural powers, did NOT exist.

Your list of "evidence" turned out to be nothing more than people who BELIEVED in Jesus, or people who REPORTED those who believed in Jesus.

But actual contemporary historical evidence for Jesus?
None.

We have a HUGE array of such evidence for many people from that time - from famous to minor.

For Jesus?
Zero.

If YOU think he existed, great.
But if you want to convince sceptics here, you will have to better than assert your beliefs, and list others who believed also.

Belief, or reports of beliefs, are NOT evidence - whether ancient or modern.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bone Collector
Interesting, Jesus was or not could have been a carpenter because all the structures at that time were either stone or mud brick so it would fall in line that he would have had to be a stone mason or bricklayer....


Not so.
Some buildings used wood.
Things other than buildings also use wood.

Anyway -
the Greek word is "tekton".

It does not mean exactly "carpenter".
A better translation maybe "craftsman".

It can refer to anyone who works on a hard material (wood, stone, bone.)


Iasion


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
What about all the near death experiences? Should every single one be discounted?


What do have to do with the existance of Jesus?
Can you please explain?


Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
But even with those aside - what about his followers that willingly laid down their lives for what he stood for?


What about suicide bombers that willingly laid down their lives for what their sect stood for?

What about those people who willingly laid down their lives for what the Heaven's Gate cult stood for?

What about them?
Are you saying their beliefs must be true?
Will you join them?

Anway -
there is no hard evidence for the early martyrs either - they are called "tradition" (the pious words for groundless legend.)


Iasion


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by Parabolic
The time during which Jesus existed is considered 'prehistory' in which writing took the shape of symbols, or proto-writing. There were no sophisticated means of recording anything save for by mouth.


This is completely untrue.
Pre-history is THOUSANDS of YEARS before Jesus.
Roman script is not too different to ours.

Have a look at this example :
farm2.static.flickr.com...


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabolic
Its immaterial, as a refined system of writing came much after Jesus' death.


Roman writing is not symbolic, pre-historic.
What EXACTLY was refined about our system of writing after the time of Jesus?
Please be specific, and show examples like I did above.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Hiya,


Originally posted by mhc_70
This is found in the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul and as an appendix to the Gospel of Nicodemus in Latin. The translation is from M. R. James as given in Quasten's Patrology, vol. 1, p. 117.


This is known to be a late forgery.
Is your case that bad you have to resort to obvious forgeries?


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salvatore_Rubberface
Do not forget that Jesus is mentioned rigorously in Quran, and that he's the most quoted prophet by name in the Quran these quotes are not taken from the bible but God's own questions towards Jesus that he answers in the Quran. So Jesus did existed. He also prophesied that another prophet will come after him and he was right, Muhammad was the last prophet after Jesus.


Um, why?

The Lord of the Rings frequently mentions characters found previously in The Hobbit.

According to you, that makes Gandalf etc. real.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alienmojo
The whole reason the quard was placed on Jesus' tomb was so that a myth could not be begun in the first place!


Amazing what a faithful believer can faithfully believe.

The guards are PART of the STORY !

But alienmojo really seems to believe that this episode of the Gospel story, proves the rest of the Gospel story is true!

That's like saying :
"Gandalf didn't denounce Frodo as fictional, so they must both be real"

The mind of a true believer is a true circle - when pressed to support their Gospel stories, they cite other Gospel stories as proof.

Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alienmojo
But not in the same context nor to the extreme that Jesus is mentioned. You don't see people saying, "Harry Potter!" and you don't see people who don't believe in Harry Potter praying to him in life or death situations as some non-believers do when they know death is immienent.


But we DO see people who say :
"Lord Krishna!" or "By Zeus!" or "Xenu"
and prey to them or various deities.

Does that make Krishna true Alienmojo?
Does that make Zeus true Alienmojo?

Or does your argument only apply to YOUR faithful stories?
We all know the answer to that one, don't we? :-)


Iasion



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabolic
The time during which Jesus existed is considered 'prehistory' in which writing took the shape of symbols, or proto-writing. There were no sophisticated means of recording anything save for by mouth.


UTTER TWADDLE

written latin [ as used by the romans ] had a full aplhabet , rules of grammar , a massive lexicaon

read ` the conquest og gaul , by julius ceasar - written wetween 58 and 50 BCE

written greek was just as advanced centuries before - read the illyiad by homer

where the hell do you get this lack of sophistivation from ?????

PS - modern english uses the roman aplhabet - and modern greek uses the same anchient greek alphabet

contemprary greeks do need further education to read a origional homer manuscript

but contemporary enghlish men who have not studied the origins of englisgh find 11th and 12th century english documents hard to read



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I asked before, and I'll ask again.

What year is it?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I asked before, and I'll ask again.

What year is it?


The A.D. system was not invented until 525 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus (link), over half a millennium after the alleged birth of Jesus. And modern biblical scholars think he got the start date wrong! So what is your point, exactly?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Incarnated
If a Policeman takes a report from a First Hand witness of an event, it's NOT HEARSAY!


But every police officer knows if he takes reports from two or more witnesses she will get two or more accounts of what happened. Fact is that eye witness accounts (or first-hand as you put it) are terribly unreliable.

www.truthinjustice.org...



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join