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: 19
27
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhombus24
Again stupid desperate atheist arguments, what does the earth being falt have to do with that? NOTHING, just trying to make your opion better by some crazy logic..


Read the post again, as you clearly did not the first time. I was stating that simply because half the world agrees that Jesus was real does not make it so, as we do not have the evidence. You think that simply because people thought the world was flat that it magicly made it so?


Originally posted by rhombus24
And did Jesus not spark a controversy? ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT JESUS DID NOT SPARK A CONTROVERSY???!! Man oh man please.


Again, you misread my post. He did spark a controversy in the story. So where is the historical evidence of that? In other words, at the time only a small fraction of Jews agreed with Jesus, and yet we have their writtings, so shouldn't we have many MORE writtings against his view point from that time? We have none. 0. zip.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
TruthParadox doesn't realize that the average Jew was ILLITERATE and couldn't write anything about Jesus Christ even if they WANTED to...

The Pharisees were the people in Jerusalem that could read and write, not the Jews. Oh wait, that Pharisees had plenty to write about Jesus.

Checkmate.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]


Checkmate? You obviously know nothing about the Bible. Jesus speaks against scribes and pharisees many times. In front of their faces. These scribes and pharisees would have written things against Jesus. Beleive you me, they would have written it all down. Yet none did. Why? There are writtings about others during this time. Others that couldn't do miracles. I guess these scribes were too busy doing other things, weren't they?

Checkmate.




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
How would all you Athiests and Agnostics and New Agers feel If I came in with a broad brush and just said ..

ALL OF OF YOU are DEVIL WORSHIPPERS ..even though even I know not all of you are devil worshippers just because some of you do worship the devil doesnt mean all of you do ....



Others who follow Christ are referred to as Christians just as you are. If this offends you, then I'm sorry. This is why we have denominations, because no 2 Christians believe in the same God. If we had a new name for every single possible belief in Christianity, then there would be as many religions as there are people that believe in God. But on a whole, Christians all believe that Jesus Christ was lord. Period.

And please let's keep this on topic, it's starting to get out of hand. If you want to start a thread on how others are not Christians and are faking it then fine, but we should be discussing the existence of Jesus here.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by TruthParadox]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I am offended when we are being painted with a wide brush
Just like you would be Truth if the shoe was on the other foot

I promise you that you better get used to some us because we will be in those camps together with some of you .....since we are just as much an outcast as you all are ..mainly because we follow the Lord and do not agree with nor follow what others have done and are doing in his name.. .and yes I personally get upset because how could they do what they do ......and as you can see it all reflects back on to us ...even if we had nothing to do with it ,..neither do we condone their behaviour
But the bible says their end will be worse than the unbelievers ...
They will get theirs ..

And yall better just worry about YOUR own behaviour ..and stop worrying so much about theirs ..
Just because they will get theirs doesnt mean you wont get yours too .

NON BIBLICAL HERE
What goes around comes around ...dont forget that ...what you sow is what you will reap ..........



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Actually the whole discussion going on is off topic so do not acuse others of being involved in it when you are doing the same thing.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


I'm an atheist. Other atheists do things that I don't agree with. This is not a portrayal of me just as Christian is not a portrayal of you. It's just a word to state what you believe in. All that Christian means is that you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. All of us are humans. People like you are humans, christians, and you have no denomination. Others are humans, christians, and have a denomination. This does not mean that they are not Christians or that you are not a Christian anymore than it would mean that I am not human. It's a broad term. You narrow it with other words within that word, such as protestant. You can't deny that someone is a Christian if they state that they believe in Jesus, just as I can't deny that you are a Christian just because I don't believe he exists. The truth is irrelevant. It's just a word.

Now please, lets get back to the topic.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by TruthParadox]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Actually the whole discussion going on is off topic so do not acuse others of being involved in it when you are doing the same thing.


If someone continues an argument that is off topic and I can put it to rest, then I'm going to. Just as what you now posted is off topic, but I'm posting now so that I can put it to rest and get back ON TOPIC. Also, I'm not accusing anyone in that sense, I'm just saying, let's please get back on topic. Do you have a problem with that? If not, then let's get back on topic.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


LOL, I'm still new here so I'll give you a free pass. one thing about me, I do NOT type irrelevant words, I'm very sarcastic, and I never ask a question that I'm not fully ready to answer/define.








Checkmate? You obviously know nothing about the Bible. Jesus speaks against scribes and pharisees many times. In front of their faces.


Yes, I know, precisely why I brought it up.
I assure you I know the Bible, I began reading it at about age 10, and to date I think I have been through it at least 10 times. I used to color in a star on the inside front cover every time I completed reading it. I own several translations, 2 Hebrew/Greek concordances, and about any book you could imagine on a number of subjects and doctrines.



These scribes and pharisees would have written things against Jesus.


They DID, precisely why I brought the Pharisees up to BEGIN WITH. The ancient rabbinical writings were called the "Talmud", which makes SEVERAL references to Jesus. And these people were FAAAAAAAR from sympathizers, they were the ones who encouraged Pilate to sentence him to death. These writings condemned not only Jesus, but ALSO His church. These writings were perfectly preserved over the centuries by JEWS, so no one can claim Christians did this for Christs glory.

The Talmud also makes note of Jesus's miracles, however it does not attribute them to Him being divine, but to the magical arts of Egypt. His crucifixion is also described as "being on the eve of passover", the same thing the Bible itself states. The Talmud ALSO records the great earthquake that happened at His death as well as the temple curtian tearing in two just like the Bible does.

The Talmud is NOT sympathetic to Jesus Christ, His church, OR Christianity whatsoever, yet they record the exact same things.


Beleive you me, they would have written it all down.


They did, like I said, it's called the "Talmud". Precisely why I brought it up.



Yet none did. Why?


That's a lie, or spoken by you from ignorance. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll assume the latter.



There are writtings about others during this time. Others that couldn't do miracles. I guess these scribes were too busy doing other things, weren't they?


Deny ignorance.



Checkmate.


Hardly, that happend on my last post to you..

you simply didn't realize it yet.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

These scribes and pharisees would have written things against Jesus.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
They DID, precisely why I brought the Pharisees up to BEGIN WITH. The ancient rabbinical writings were called the "Talmud", which makes SEVERAL references to Jesus. And these people were FAAAAAAAR from sympathizers, they were the ones who encouraged Pilate to sentence him to death. These writings condemned not only Jesus, but ALSO His church. These writings were perfectly preserved over the centuries by JEWS, so no one can claim Christians did this for Christs glory.




The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE)



The Talmud was written between the second and fifth century CE


200 CE is 2 centuries after the fact. How do you take this as evidence? It's written even further after the fact than the gospels are. I don't get how you think this is any kind of evidence.


Also, their is debate on whether it is even in reference of Jesus.



There are four main passages in the Talmud that are alleged by some to discuss the story of Jesus' life and death. ...
We will quickly realize that there are great difficulties in stating that any of these texts refer to Jesus.


www.angelfire.com...


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Checkmate.


Hardly, that happend on my last post to you..

you simply didn't realize it yet.


How so? You've proven nothing. In your head you will always win.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by TruthParadox]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by TruthParadox]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



The Talmud ALSO records the great earthquake that happened at His death as well as the temple curtain tearing in two just like the Bible does.

Their explanation for the curtain ripping is that there was a heavy board that went across the doorway that it was suspended from. During the earthquake, the board broke in two, in the middle, and the weight of it pulled from one side and the other side, thus tearing the curtain.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
They DID, precisely why I brought the Pharisees up to BEGIN WITH. The ancient rabbinical writings were called the "Talmud", which makes SEVERAL references to Jesus.


So you keep saying.
But you repeatedly FAIL to address what those Talmud references actually SAY (and WHEN they said it.)

Will you EVER address this issue NOTurTypical?

Do you really believe these bizarre stories are actually evidence for Jesus?
When they say COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things?
Written CENTURIES later?



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Talmud also makes note of Jesus's miracles,


Really?
Please produce the actual quotes from the Talmud.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Talmud ALSO records the great earthquake that happened at His death


Really?
Please cite the passage or withdraw this claim.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
as well as the temple curtian tearing in two just like the Bible does.



Really?
Please cite the passage or withdraw this claim.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Talmud is NOT sympathetic to Jesus Christ, His church, OR Christianity whatsoever, yet they record the exact same things.


Completely and utterly false. It is clear you have never studied what the Talmud says about Jesus.

In fact the exact opposite is true :
* the vast majority of the Gospel stories are NOT found in the Talmud
* what the Talmud DOES say is completey different to the Gospels stories :

Such as :
* Jesus being a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* Jesus learning black magic in Egypt by hiding the magic scroll in a cut on his thigh so the magic guard dog would not erase it from his memory
* Jesus burning his food
* Jesus worshipping a brick-bat
* Jesus having 5 disciple
* Jesus stoned to death in Lydda.
* etc.

These bizarre stories are from long long afterwards, and describe a Jesus COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the Gospel stories.

How can anyone claim these stories are evidence for Jesus?

Why does NOTurTypical keep ignoring this glaring problem?


Iasion


[edit on 8-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eleleth

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

I suspect it was a pious fraud orchestrated by Theosophists.



I am surprised that only you have given a comment in this issue.
In a sense it shows that both, people that believe Jesus existed and people that don’t believe that he did, have one think in common. They want to keep this person in the western way of thinking. Therefore unbeliever will like to debunk any proof of the missing years of Jesus because if they don’t then they have in their hand a true historical personage.
The believer’s wants to debunk it also because it will show that Jesus got his teaching from a down to earth method which every one can access if the will is strong. So Jesus is not so divine after all but like you and I a human.

Nicolas Notovitch had nothing to do with Theosophists. Investigate it and you will see that his premise for going in India and Tibet was not religious at all but something to do with studying the customs and habits of the inhabitants of this region like many scientists did at that time.
Furthermore many other people went passed his trail and find testimony of his journey there and others have actually seen the Tibetan manuscript which reveals that Jesus Christ spent some time there.
It really makes me laugh that both for and against the existence of Jesus, likes to debunk this facts.
Kacou.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I brought it up for a reason, the MOST authoritative source about ATG was written 400 years after his death.


So because this late source is CONSIDERED the most "authoritive" (in the opinion of someone,) that allows you to IGNORE the earlier evidence? Even the contemporary evidence?

How dishonest.

In fact - we have clear contemporary historical evidence for Alexander - even hard evidence such as coins.

Nothing like that for Jesus.

NOTurTypical simply ignores this evidence.
Like he ignores what the Talmud actually says about Jesus.


Iasion


[edit on 8-9-2008 by Iasion]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
John, James (Jesus's half-brother), and Peter weren't eye-witnesses?


Modern NT scholarship agrees -
These books were NOT written by the people whose name they bear.
They are all forgeries (the polite word used by scholars is "pseudograph".)

For example -
James (allegedly Jesus's half-brother) - we would expect many direct even personal statements about Jesus and his actions in a letter from a half-brother. Go READ the letter - it is obvious it's writer has never met any such Jesus.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
What about Daniel? He met Jesus in the furnace.


A mythical person from centuries before Jesus?
You think that will actually convince us?
Wow.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Paul? He met Christ on the road to Damascus personally.


Paul had a VISION.
Which is described in different ways.
By someone OTHER than Paul.
And you think that is evidence for a historical Jesus?



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Matthiew was an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry as well.


Only faithful believers believe this.
Scholars agree it was largely plagiarised from G.Mark (written in Rome by someone who had never met any Jesus) by someone who had also never met any Jesus.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Iasion
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.


I guess this is a forgery too, how convenient.


Pardon?
I said nothing about a forgery.
I pointed out that the T.F. uses the wrong title for Pilate.
Which argues Tacitus was NOT using any Roman records.
You ignored it and made a bizarre comment about forgery.



Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Iasion
* 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.)


That may seem logical to you. My opinion is that as CHRISTianity grew around the beginning of the first century and the followers called him "Christ".


You opinion here is irrelevent.
What matters is the evidence of how Romans named people - NOT what Christians called him.
They DID use forms like "Jesus son of Joseph", or maybe "Jesus of Nazareth" for example.)
They could NOT POSSIBLY have records which named him as "Christ" - that would make the record say something like :
"Calends April, 16th year of Tiberius - we crucified the Messiah"
Ridiculous.
This argues that Tacitus was NOT using Roman records, but simply repeating Christians BELIEFS of the 2nd century - NOT evidence for Jesus at all.



Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Iasion
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.)


Disagree, in science, however small a fragment of evidence it is, if it shows any support for theory it is used.


Mate -
you didn't actually READ my post did you?
Because my argument isn't about how SMALL it is.
The argument is about the CONTENTS which show it's merely a repeating of 2nd century Christian beliefs - which are NOT evidence for Jesus.




Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Iasion
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


Disagree, see last comment


Well, not much point discussing the evidence if all you have to say is that you "disagree".


I think I have shown conclusively that none of the alleged "evidence" for Jesus stands up to scrutiny.



Originally posted by mhc_70

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


I would have expected more facts, less arrogance.


I posted the facts -
Lowder demolished McDowell, and you can read it online.
You ignored it.




Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Iasion
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...


Wonder how good the editing was back then?
Alienmojo has ruled out coincidence by all accepted scientific standards.


Once again you just ignored the issues.
I said NOTHING about co-incidence - I pointed out that Suetonius' Chrestus was not Jesus.



Originally posted by mhc_70
It sounds to me like the only evidence Iasion will accept is the kind that caused Saul to change his name to Paul.


Sounds to me like mhc_70 is admitting there is no normal historical evidence for Jesus - just FAITH and VISIONS.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by rhombus24
And did Jesus not spark a controversy? ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT JESUS DID NOT SPARK A CONTROVERSY???!! Man oh man please.


Jesus,
himself,
had NO effect on ANYTHING or ANYONE.

We have NO evidence of anyone who EVER met Jesus.
We have NO contemporary evidence of ANY kind for Jesus.
We have NO evidence of any of the Gospel events.

Jesus made NO MARK on his time at all.
But, later - BELIEF in Jesus had a HUGE effect.

Believers can not tell these apart, I find.

Iasion


[edit on 8-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
TruthParadox doesn't realize that the average Jew was ILLITERATE and couldn't write anything about Jesus Christ even if they WANTED to...


But how does that stop the others who CAN write?

It didn't stop Philo from writing at the SAME TIME as Jesus - he discusses the Logos, the Holy Spirit, Jewish teachers and history.
If he had known of Jesus, he would certainly have mentioned him.

It didn't stop Justus of Tiberias from writing his History of Jewish leaders in Galilee, the home region of Jesus.
If he had known of Jesus, he would certainly have mentioned him.

It didn't stop many Roman writers writing about affairs in Palestine.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Checkmate.


Actually, you made a false move.
Try again.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
OT Asks, “Could it be? The god of this world, Satan, has BLINDED the MINDS of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:4


OT prayin’ you skeptics might read…


www.christiananswers.net...


www.geocities.com...


www.leaderu.com...


www.johnankerberg.com...


…and see!


After all He said…


Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me [the Lord], and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Rev 3:20 Behold [Here I am!], I [Jesus Christ] stand at the door, and knock: if any man [anyone] hear[s] my voice, and open[s] the door, I will come in to him

A little ROCK - N - Roll for you...see www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
For reference, readers may be interested in these quotes - the main Talmud references claimed to be about Jesus.

Note that scholars do generally claim these are actually about Jesus, but perhaps about two different people :
* Yeshu ben Pandir c. 80 BCE
* Ben Stada c. 100 CE

They do not sound anything like the Gospel Jesus at all.
Read for yourself...


Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a
BenStada


It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.

Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.

R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.

[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.

[No,] the mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband.



Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a
Yeshu


What of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah?

When John [Hyrcanus] the king killed the rabbis, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah [and Yeshu] went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Shimon Ben Shetach sent to him "From me [Jerusalem] the holy city to you Alexandria of Egypt. My husband remains in your midst and I sit forsaken."

[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect. He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper].

[Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes.

[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself?

[R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him.

[Yeshu] came before [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] many times and said: Accept me. But [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] paid him no attention.

One day [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was reciting Shema [during which one may not be interrupted]. [Yeshu] came before him. He was going to accept [Yeshu] and signalled to [Yeshu] with his hand. [Yeshu] thought that [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was repelling him. He went, hung a brick, and bowed down to it.

[Yeshu] said to [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah]: You taught me that anyone who sins and causes others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.

And the master said: Yeshu [the Notzri] practiced magic and deceive and led Israel astray.


Talmud Sanhedrin 67a
Trial


It is taught: For all others liable for the death penalty [except for the enticer to idolatry] we do not hide witnesses. How do they deal with [the enticer]? They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place witnesses in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them. One says to him "Tell me again what you said to me in private" and he tells him. He says "How can we forsake our G-d in heaven and worship idolatry?" If he repents, good. If he says "This is our obligation and what we must do" the witnesses who hear him from outside bring him to the court and stone him. And so they did to Ben Stada in Lud and hung him on the eve of Passover.



Talmud Sanhedrin 43a
Execution


It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.


Talmud Sanhedrin 43a
Disciples


It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d."
They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."

They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay."
They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."

They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots."
They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."

They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel."
They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."

They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]."
They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me."

Others

There are some other passages sometimes claimed refer to Jesus (the Plony and Balaam passages.)

The is also the later Sepher Toldoth Yeshu in various versions - a lengthy bizarre life of Jesus with many odd tales.
Here's a page on that :
lost-history.com...


Iasion


[edit on 8-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
If there actually were references to a historical Jesus figure you don't think such references would be used in every creationist argument as frequently as possible? Relentlessly even?
They don't exist and neither did he. I wrote a paper about historical religious icons in first year anthro and the only reference I could find of Jesus was some important roman figure, but as it turned out, it was taken out of context and referred to an entirely different "Christ" person without any religious implications. Though the guy is still used in many flawed creationist arguments with no regard for it having been clearly disproven.

Buddha was the only one with some real background I came across, living roughly around 400BCE, though the date is somewhat disputed.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE
 


Don’t you ask you’re self why you can find background on Buddha and not on Jesus?
If you look at the personage known as Issa recorded by Brahman historians you will find so much similarity to Buddha and the biblical Jesus.
But one thing differ from them two.
Buddha was none political activist, actually never really spoke against the class system of that time. Those denunciation where add after his time.
Issa or “Jesus” did denounced all injustice hence his existence and true teaching been eradicated from the page of history to make place to a mythical Jesus. And no one wants to hear about this, specially the creationist because it will undermine the so called divinity of Christ because for them this Jesus sun of God is the premise of they doctrine, with out it every thing else dissolve. So the denying suits every one and as before, establishes the status co of ignorance.
My opinion anyway.
Kacou.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join