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.
Originally posted by kacou
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.
Originally posted by Simplynoone
There are different SECTS in every religion and there are EXTREMISTS in all of them ...You should not lump all into one bunch
Originally posted by Lilitu
"God" is imaginary.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Iasion
Years ago, I went to the local public library and looked through every page of every volume of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I copied the interesting names of different people and Books that I ran across, into a notebook. I went to talk to the Rabbi, who was in the local Temple, back in those days.
He had a doctor's degree in the study of the origin of Christianity. I asked him what he thought of the names of a couple of people who may have been Jesus. He said no, they were other people.
Years ago, I went to the local public library and looked through every page of every volume of the Jewish Encyclopedia.
I asked him what he thought of the names of a couple of people who may have been Jesus. He said no, they were other people.
Originally posted by Lilitu
Originally posted by Simplynoone
There are different SECTS in every religion and there are EXTREMISTS in all of them ...You should not lump all into one bunch
Extremist or not you are all delusional. "God" is imaginary.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Originally posted by Lilitu
"God" is imaginary.
I love meeting omniscient beings! Thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by Iasion
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".
Originally posted by Iasion
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.
Originally posted by Iasion
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
Originally posted by Iasion
Well, not much point discussing the evidence if all you have to say is that you "disagree".
Originally posted by Iasion
I think I have shown conclusively that none of the alleged "evidence" for Jesus stands up to scrutiny.
A further joke was buried in unmistakable parallels between the life of Jesus and that of Titus: in worshiping Jesus, the Jews who adopted Christianity, as it came to be called, were in fact hailing the Emperor of their conquerors as god.
Originally posted by mhc_70
Besides, I think it was pretty much agreed upon that nearly all Roman records of Jesus were destroyed. Due to the fact that they keep popping up from other places this only makes sense.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Hahahaha, I always ask atheists where they got their omniscience from. In order for a person to state "God exists." They need only trace evidence.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
However, for an atheist to state "God does NOT exist", they would need to have been to everywhere in the universe, and in all dimensions to verify it as fact.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Then they typically fire back with things like, 'That's not true! I can state with certainly invisible pink flying unicorns don't exist either!'
Originally posted by TruthParadox
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Hahahaha, I always ask atheists where they got their omniscience from. In order for a person to state "God exists." They need only trace evidence.
There's evidence now? Where?
.
.
.
Ya, I didn't think so.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
However, for an atheist to state "God does NOT exist", they would need to have been to everywhere in the universe, and in all dimensions to verify it as fact.
Wrong. There are so many contradictions with God it's not funny. Let's start with the contradiction of a perfect omnipotent being creating a flawed world. Don't see the obvious contradiction? Oh well, it's not my fault nor my concern that you do not see these contradictions, just don't think that atheists don't have a damn good reason for their beliefs.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Then they typically fire back with things like, 'That's not true! I can state with certainly invisible pink flying unicorns don't exist either!'
The problem with proving a pink unicorn exists is that we have no proof that regular unicorns exist.
The problem with proving that God exists is that the contradictions concerning an omnipotent God have not been disproven.
In my mind, a pink flying unicorn is far more probable, as it doesn't contradict itself, nor does it claim to be an omnipotent being, which would not contradict itself.
Originally posted by mhc_70
You think because its a contradiction that it also applies to God?
Originally posted by TruthParadox
Originally posted by mhc_70
You think because its a contradiction that it also applies to God?
What are you talking about?
A perfect omnipotent God creates a flawed world.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Okay, for the sake of sound logic we have to admit that IF a Christian CANNOT use the Bible as proof the the story of Jesus is true, then at the same time we also have to admit that the writing of "debunkers" cannot be used to admit that the story is false.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits the Talmud references are in fact Jesus:
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You're my friend, but on this statement I have to call "B.S."