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.
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Salvatore_Rubberface
you cant rule out Jesus, he's mentioned every where.
by your logic harry potter is real - he is ` mentioned everywhere ` too
Originally posted by Lilitu
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.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Oh this is deliciously ironic.
Originally posted by kacou
The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ by Nicolas Notovitch:
what about the life of Issa?
So similar don't you think!
kacou
Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Lilitu
You totally missed the point. Read it again. I'm saying you people are balking for the sake of balking. I clearly said even IF every account was an eye witness account then you would just raise the objection that eye witness accounts are unreliable. There is no way to win with those who simply cannot believe but refuse to believe.
Originally posted by TheComte
Originally posted by Parabolic
The most obvious was simply that there was no 'real' system of writing.
Care to explain to me in a U2U why you think the Romans did not have a real system of writing.
Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Salvatore_Rubberface
I totally agree with you. Comparing historical figures to obvious fictional characters is so ludicrous I can't believe they can't grasp the reason why it is ludicrous. But those kinds of arguments are very, very typical in this kind of debate. They will say the craziest stuff and use the silliest arguments to justify their disbelief.
Originally posted by Heike
I am not "balking" at anything. I am interested in finding - and knowing - the truth. Physical, empirical truth, not "spiritual" truth.
Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by Parabolic
Except your premise is neither reasonable nor plausible as the Romans had an advanced system of writing and kept quite accurate records, many of which are known to this day. Please, enlighten me on why you think the Romans could not keep written records.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AlexG141989
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Do you realize that if we go by your standards then the evidence for Alexander the Great is hearsay as well?
Originally posted by Parabolic
To say that my premise is neither reasonable nor plausible is logically fallacious, as we'd have to first accept your unsubstantiated appraisal that Roman record keeping was indeed advanced, and that Romans were the definitive record keepers of the time. My premise was more general and hardly exclusive to the Romans.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Ahem! ^^^^^^^
Did I make a point or not?
You see, all "evidence" we have the Alexander the Great lived was written about him after his death.
If we can state with certainty that this evidence rules out the existence of Jesus Christ, then it at that very moment rules out the existence of Alexander the Great.