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: 20
27
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   

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.




Oh, if you want to get into comparative historical religion, we can. I wasn't in my previous statement. There's dozens of figures before the Christian iteration of the Jesus figure that are in fact the same individual. As there are previous Moses figures, many of them.


[edit on 8-9-2008 by ANoNyMiKE]




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE
 


I was not referring to any western related biblical personage. Moses and company have less credibility of existence then biblical Jesus…I know that.
What baffled me is the constant indifference of this Buddha called Issa which has no parallel to western biblical personage unless you account for the missing year (85% of his life) of the biblical Jesus a correlation with Issa .
That for me is the issue at hand where by Issa was a militant for justice and freedom for all with out exception of race or social classes. This really would have turned the intelligence and leaders of that time to think again in letting people speak their mind.
The same people that have masquerade the life of “Jesus” in the NT have for sure left no clue a round in the western antic scriptures or historical records having controlled the thought mind in the so called dark ages.
Kacou.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


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.

Both are biased samples, if one is "biased" towards the truth, then one has to admit the other is "biased" towards the denial.

The Jewish Encyclopedia admits the Talmud references are in fact Jesus:

"... the Jewish Encyclopœdia admits that Jewish legends concerning Jesus are found in the Talmud and Midrash and in " the life of Jesus ( Toledot Yeshu) that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to belittlethe person of Jesus by ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. "

Rev. I. B. Pranaitis revealed in The Talmud Unmasked that Jesus is also maligned as a false teacher:

"… He[Jesus] is referred to in the Talmud as Otho Isch- "That man," i.e. the one who is known to all. In the tract Abhodah Zarah, 6a, we read: "He is called a Christian who follows the false teachings of that man, who taught them to celebrate the feast on the first day of the Sabbath, that is, to worship on the first day after Sabbath…Talui, -"The one who was hanged"…"

Jewish sources avoid the Greek name "Jesus", meaning 'savior', and abbreviate Jeschua to "Jeshu' which means "may his name be blotted out!"

"…name in Hebrew would be Jeschua Hanotsri--Jesus the Nazarene. He is called Notsri from the city of Nazareth… In the Talmud Christians are also called Notsrim. (Amongst other things). 'Since the word Jeschua means 'Savior,' the name Jesus rarely occurs in the Jewish books. It is almost always abbreviated to Jeschu… as if it were composed of the initial letters of the three words Immach SCHemo Vezikro-- (meaning)- -'May his name be blotted out.'"

Truth if you can handle it



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
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.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
"God" is imaginary.


I love meeting omniscient beings! Thanks for sharing.

[edit on 9/8/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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.



You're my friend, but on this statement I have to call "B.S.":




Years ago, I went to the local public library and looked through every page of every volume of the Jewish Encyclopedia.


You read the entire Jewish Encyclopedia in one day at the Library??? To me that seems unlikely, I can't even read a 300 page book in a single day.




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.


So? All that proves is he said "It's not Jesus". That doesn't even prove that he doesn't think it's not Jesus. Many rabbis have to state certain things. Heck, look at all the Christian pastors throughout history who have spread false doctrine just to keep butts in pews to keep the money flowing in.

Logically speaking, all that proves is that man said "It's not Jesus."



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

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.


Imaginary to YOU doesn't mean imaginary to ALL.

That's a logical fallacy. That's appeal to authority.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Lilitu
"God" is imaginary.


I love meeting omniscient beings! Thanks for sharing.



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. 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.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Exactly.

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!'

So many flaws with that line of thinking that it makes it not worth while to even argue with them. Next? lol



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

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.


Did you not call this a 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.


I provided you a statement from Pontius Pilate himself, if thats not good enough for you how is Tacitus going to be? 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 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.


According to how federal law regarding, exceptions to hearsay is written, your wrong.


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".


I agree, mainly because you rarely sustantiate your opinions with any thing of substance and you show little understanding of the scientific method.


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


Your scrutiny maybe, but you are in a huge minority.

I digress, even a clock is right twice a day, no?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


In my opinion, there are FAR more similarites between Hercules and Jesus, but that doesn't mean that they are one in the same. Also, why did you fail to bring up the century it was written? This can not be taken as any kind of evidence for Jesus' existence.

Also, I'm not 100% sure that Jesus didn't exist. I'm about 99% sure. It's just very unprobable that all the writtings of Jesus would have been written LONG after the fact. How can you take the texts with any kind of credibility.

I believe that the most likely scenario was the Romans creating the story of Jesus to pacify the Jews. This theory makes sense of:

* Why there are no first hand accounts of Jesus
* The Roman propaganda which is written in the Bible. Note that not ONE evil thing is written about Rome (which would have been, considering the time and circumstance), yet bad things were constantly written about Jews. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s
* Why Jesus' actions directly mimic battles that the Romans had won over the Jews. (if you read the link, it is such an extremely low possibility that it could have happened on its own)
* The unmistakable resemblences between Jesus and Titus


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.


This link explains it all www.caesarsmessiah.com...

Combine that with a fact that all 'evidence' for Jesus' existence could just as easily be evidence of the story which the Romans propagated. You are left with nothing to support Jesus.

Read that link, and if you still think it is all just a coincidence, then I guess your reading skills will be in question.



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.


The Romans never HAD TO destroy any records. They're the ones that propagated the whole thing. This is why there are no Roman records.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by TruthParadox]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
First! all of us could do ourselves a favor when we use the process of thinking. The number one question that is being ask is did Jesus exist?
First of all you would have to have a profound knowledge of language.
And not just the English language. Many people that knew Hebrew, Aramaic,
Greek, back then had no knowledge of this man by this term Jesus this
is recorded fact. As the Original poster said there is not one tablet by anyone
person that left his named inscribed anywhere doing his time. Why is that?
Is it because he was called by his real name which is not the English term
which the Westerners uses by calling him Jesus. Most Easterners call Jesus
Isa Ibn. The man that the post is talking about spoke Aramaic so there for he
would not have answered you if you where to walk up on him and said Jesus
how are you. English was not a profound language 2000 years ago this is
recorded knowledge. Most westerners like to look at everything from their
own narrow view and it is understandable because thats the way most are
trained. Because of language barriers that westerners have when it comes
to understanding other cultures they love to believe tales and scribes
that they can understand in their language. Now to put some of the falsehood
to rest. This is where you have to put your thinking cap on. 2000 years before the man people call Jesus was born back in the OT he was predicted to come. Now he was writing of back then according to the OT and if that
was the case and the world was waiting for him to come and you say he did
come where are the records leading up to his coming. They surely was writing well before Jesus came. There is proof of that. Writing and leaving
cultural evidence has been here for a long long time well before Moses and
even before so called Adam. However the most important man of all times
according to the Christians and many other religions comes in the time that
is predicted. And no one began to follow the man and write the events down
at the time of there happenings. All of the miraculous works of this man is put down decades and in some cases centuries later. Jesus is the mega Star
of all Stars. There are reporters sleeping outside some star house right now
and you think that was just started right? If there were a man name Jesus
with that much Star power 2000 years ago he would have been writing about
back then when the events were taking place. And most of you know this is
truth and you will never admit to it. I must humbly say that we as a race of
humans should not be so quick to except everything that comes to us as truth. We should no longer sit back and not question all that is in front of us. Question it and expect and answer. The Creator wants you to have the truth
because it will truly make you free. Fear is injected in every religion why is
that? Every religion has a middle man why is that? Every Civilization has had
these same mythical stories dating back 250,000 years ago why is that.
There have been so many things that have come to light concerning this very
topic. Someone would love to keep the masses of human beings apart with
this madness called religion. Humans love to divide themselves in every way
they can. Race, Religion, Cultural, Sex you name it we will find a way to
divide ourself from it. This is the sad part about it you say you believe in God
A loving God at that. People and fellow human beings we must wake up to
who wants us divided and why? There have been Great men come and Go throughout history but known is greater in the his of the Creator then you.
You can stand like a Jesus
You can stand like a Moses
You can stand like a Muhammed
You can stand like a Buddah
Ghandi did it.
Mother Theresa did it.
Martin Luther King did it.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

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.


You think because its a contradiction that it also applies to God?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

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.

A 3rd grader could point out the contradiction.

This is not even the tip of the iceberg. I could litteraly write a book about all the contradictions. The funny thing is once I ask Christians about these contradictions, they either give a BS answer that makes no sense (or in some cases makes it worse), or they ignore it.

Which will you do?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

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.




You equate your opinion of theories as fact.

The world may appear flawed to you, but how much history of the world can you speak to?

If you do not believe in God and the world is so flawed, then why hasn't the law of entropy taken over?

To say the world is flawed, but we are a result of natural selection, is an oxymoron.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Hi all,


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.


Wrong.
You just don't understand it.
The issue is not "proof" but evidence.
(A concept believers just cannot seem to grasp.)
No-one is saying you "CANNOT use the Bible" as evidence at all.
Get with the program.

The NT books CAN be used as EVIDENCE for Jesus.
They ARE.

But,
when we EXAMINE this evidence, we find it is simply late beliefs, weak or ambiguous, or sometimes even FORGED.

Thus this evidence is very poor, essentially useless evidence.

No-one said you CANNOT use it.
It is used, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits the Talmud references are in fact Jesus:


We see you continue to ignore my point about what the Talmud actually SAYS about Jesus. Like you ignored the contemporary evidence for Alexander when that showed you wrong.

It's obvious you do this because you have no answer, but cannot admit you are wrong.

NOTurTypical believes these claims are evidence for Jesus :
* Jesus is a bastard son of Roman soldier Pandira
* Jesus was conceived during menses
* Jesus stole magic from Egypt concealed in a cut on his thigh
* Jesus worshipped a brick-bat
* Jesus had 5 disciples
* Jesus was stoneds to death in Lydda (Lud)

It seems NOTurTypical's approach to debate is simply to IGNORE everything that shows him wrong.

Perhaps we should call him : JUSTurTypicalBeliever


Iasion



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You're my friend, but on this statement I have to call "B.S."


I QUOTED the actual Talmud words.
You ignored them.
Like you repeatedly ignored my comments about what it says.

YOU keep claiming the Talmud refers to Jesus.
Then put up or shut up.

Address the issue of what the Talmud says.
Or go away.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join