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: 33
27
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13

I understand your post, im just want to ask specifically what evidence you would like again...


i can only speak for myself, but

personally, i would be happy with even one CONTEMPORARY document mentioning jesus, in other words in his lifetime or soon enough after to be written by someone who might have been around when he was.

something still might be found, who knows.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Boywonder13

I understand your post, im just want to ask specifically what evidence you would like again...


i can only speak for myself, but

personally, i would be happy with even one CONTEMPORARY document mentioning jesus, in other words in his lifetime or soon enough after to be written by someone who might have been around when he was.

something still might be found, who knows.



Paul's letters

Written between c48-68 CE.



Contemporary enough?

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13


Paul's letters

Written between c48-68 CE.



Contemporary enough?

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]


paul's writings are some of the ealiest accounts oabout being a christian, but the references to a historical jesus are disputed as not being written by him. they include a lot of contradictions, etc.

here is a quick link i found.

there are people who believe paul talks about a non-historical, non-literal christ only.

paul himself says he only met jesus after he died.


Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to The Acts of the Apostles, his conversion took place ('conversion' not in the sense of changing religious identity since the early Christians were viewed as members of a sect of Judaism not as members of a different religion, but in the sense of metanoia, also see religious conversion) as he was traveling the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He was temporarily blinded.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6]





[edit on 15-9-2008 by Convex]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

paul's writings are some of the ealiest accounts oabout being a christian, but the references to a historical jesus are disputed as not being written by him. they include a lot of contradictions, etc.

here is a quick link i found.

there are people who believe paul talks about a non-historical, non-literal christ only.

paul himself says he only met jesus after he died.


Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to The Acts of the Apostles, his conversion took place ('conversion' not in the sense of changing religious identity since the early Christians were viewed as members of a sect of Judaism not as members of a different religion, but in the sense of metanoia, also see religious conversion) as he was traveling the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He was temporarily blinded.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6][/qoute)

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Convex]





[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]

My friend everything in history is disputed, they say Shakespeare didnt even write his plays.. go figure.

I know he never met a physical Jesus, but he did interact with people who would ahve claimed they knew him (peter, james, other disciples etc). So we have the 12 disciples as promiment figures at the time, and they werent just some later creation of the century.

Contradictions? i would be interested in knowing some.

and taking in account the undisputed letters (not all are disputed), the idea is that Jesus was a real figure.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13

My friend everything in history is disputed, they say Shakespeare didnt even write his plays.. go figure.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Boywonder13]


i adressed this above. whoever wrote shaskepeare's plays WAS shakespeare. whomever wrote socaretes dialogue, WAS socrates. i believe whomever wrote jesus' philosophy WAS jesus, whether a person named jesus lived and was crucified to death or not.

neither had super powers.

finding out shakespeare wasn't his name, or socrates wasn't his name, wouldn't hurt my enjoyment of their work. just as knowing no one named jesus lived or died, and his stuff was written hundreds of years later, doesn't change his core philopsophy in my mind.



follow the link i provided for examples of the contradictions and controversey of who wrote paul's stuff.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

paul's writings are some of the ealiest accounts about being a christian, but the references to a historical jesus are disputed as not being written by him. they include a lot of contradictions, etc.

here is a quick link i found.

there are people who believe paul talks about a non-historical, non-literal christ only.

paul himself says he only met jesus after he died.


Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to The Acts of the Apostles, his conversion took place ('conversion' not in the sense of changing religious identity since the early Christians were viewed as members of a sect of Judaism not as members of a different religion, but in the sense of metanoia, also see religious conversion) as he was traveling the road to Damascus, he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. He was temporarily blinded.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6]



RANT
I find it absurd the slant wiki has to Jesus, but not the people of his time. When in reality, if it wasn't for the Bible we would know nothing about these people./RANT

Saul never met Jesus prior to that day on the road to Damascus.

From the wiki source above...

Records that Paul's reputation as a former fierce persecutor of the church preceded him to the area of Judea. He described himself as a Pharisee.


Saul first appears in the pages of the New Testament as a witness to the martyrdom of Stephen.



"... they all rushed at him (Stephen), dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. . . . And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison..."(Acts 7:57-8:1)



"I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished" (Acts 22:4-5).




"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' " `Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "`I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. " `What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. " `Get up,' the Lord said, `and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.' My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me" (Acts 22:6-11).


After that he began starting churches and by 60 AD the concensus is that no less than 7 of the New Testament epistles had been written.

It must have been quite an experience. Saul believed that he was serving God by finding Christians, throwing them into prison, and even executing them when possible. Perhaps even more intriguing, Saul was highly educated for his era in Jewish beliefs about God...



Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you . . . " (Acts 22:3).


Must have been quite a experience Jesus gave him on the road to Damascus.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Everything in history is hearsay really. You take one single event and ask five different people to go into detail about it. These five people come from five different backgrounds and give five completely different accounts of an event. Therefore you cannot say with complete truth that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the "Savior" and vice versus. It's all in a matter of opinion. We cannot ever be truly certain about any event in history because of this.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Jen639682]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jen639682
Everything in history is hearsay really. You take one single event and ask five different people to go into detail about it. These five people come from five different backgrounds and give five completely different accounts of an event. Therefore you cannot say with complete truth that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the "Savior" and vice versus. It all in a matter of opinion. We cannot ever be truly certain about any event in history because of this.


Why then do many people, including wiki, accept many other events in history, that have nothing but hearsay to give them credibility, as factual history?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Just because Wiki says something, it doesn't make it 100% factual. It's an internet encyclopedia that is user generated. It is definitely not a reliable source. It can be changed easily by another user claiming something different with "evidence." You can only know the truth of something if you actually experienced it, and even then a person's experiences throughout their life could alter their perception of a particular event. So again I say, Jesus could be real and couldn't. No one will ever know for complete certainty. It's all in a matter of their beliefs.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
Why then do many people, including wiki, accept many other events in history, that have nothing but hearsay to give them credibility, as factual history?


this is a seperate point. sure, its a valid one but does nothing to address the fact that there is no direct evidence of jesus' existance. i'm not even argueing he doens't exist, but that there is simply no evidence of his existance. if/when something does turn up i'm more than willing to accept it. some new scroll could be discovered tomorrow, unearthed in a dig and i'll accept it.



yes, wiki is only as good the people who contribute to it, same really as any encylcopedia. and if somewhere there was something that said there WAS eveidence and wiki said there wasn't, i would certainly give less credence to wikipedia. but when they agree, as is the case with these forgeries and lack of evidence, why not accept them?

or are you suggesting that just because they its in wikipedia it must be false?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jen639682
Everything in history is hearsay really. You take one single event and ask five different people to go into detail about it. These five people come from five different backgrounds and give five completely different accounts of an event.


yes, but then at least we could say with some confidence that the event happened, with 5 different people witnessing it and giving testimony about it. such is not the case with a historical jesus. we have ZERO testimony of witnesses to this event extant.


Originally posted by Jen639682
Therefore you cannot say with complete truth that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the "Savior" and vice versus. It's all in a matter of opinion. We cannot ever be truly certain about any event in history because of this.


you can't prove something doesn't exist. its impossible. and no one is seeking proof for whether jesus was or was not the messiah, that really is impossible to prove archaelogically too.

but once again, we CAN find proof that an event happened.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
LOL, then Iasion I challenge to provide us with some authentic writings about Pilate from an author that you haven't labeled a forgery.


Easy.

Josephus.
Philo.
Tacitus.

What was your point?


Iasion



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Heres the problem with proof. God does'nt want proof. He wants free will. There cant be free will with proof. God want faith, he want his children to follow by faith. You will never actually find prove of God or his Son Jesus Christ.

See it happen before. Satan was the most beautiful angels, even more so than Jesus. And He wanted God's power. Knowing who God was and his power. Knowing first hand. And what does he do. He wants God's position. And taking a 3rd of the Angels to hell with him. So God now wants faith believers. True followers, true Soldiers of God.

You will never find proof, you should even want proof. Proof means more strict laws not so easy forgivness of sins. We follow by faith and God's forgives us almost anything as long as we come in heart to him.

I dont want proof. I want my faith in God to grow strong so that one day when God calls on this soldier I might have my sword and Shield with me. God bless and go in his spirit.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by mhc_70
LOL, then Iasion I challenge to provide us with some authentic writings about Pilate from an author that you haven't labeled a forgery.


Easy.

Josephus.
Philo.
Tacitus.

What was your point?


Iasion



You just made it! Thanks



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
And then I can play this hand:
In John 5:1-15 Jesus heals a man at the Pool of Bethesda. John gave the precise location and a description of the pool as having 5 porticoes (pillars):


This is a real place, mentioned in the NT.
So what?

You really, actually believe this is archeological evidence for Jesus?
Wow.

In which case you must believe Hercules was real, and Odysseus, and Demeter, and Harry Potter, and James Bond ....

They all have real places mentioned in their stories.

This is ridiculous.

No serious educated adult could consider a mention of a real place to be archeological evidence.

Like I said -
there is no historical and archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.



Iasion




[edit on 15-9-2008 by Iasion]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
Do you remember Jerusalem was liberated from the Romans? The Romans were killed. Do you know that the High Priest was also killed? Am i making this too easy? You do know that the High Priests house was also burned? You knew this - right? Need i go on??


Riiiight...

So you claim there are NO RECORDS of Jesus - because :
* Rome had a fire
* Jerusalem was destroyed.
* ignores other places

What does history show?
Do we have records from Rome before Nero?
Yes.
Shearder's claim is false.

Do we have records from Jerusalem?
Yes.
Shearder's claim is false.


Sheredr says we have no records of Jesus, because we have no records at all - because they were all burned !


Of course, we DO have records from Rome, Jerusalem, and other places - showing shearder's claim is nonsense.


Iasion





Join the dots...

[edit on 15/9/2008 by shearder]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
You have already attempted to label every record a forgery.


Bollocks.

It's just that I know what are forgeries and what aren't.
Because I studied the facts first.
You still refuse to.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
Dude, you claimed earlier in this very thread that the records attributed to Josephus Flavius are a forgery.


Wrong.


Originally posted by mhc_70
Oh wait...just the ones that tell of Jesus, right?


Right.

Because that is what the evidence shows.
That is what scholarship agrees.

Not that you'd know.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
Josephus Flavius? According to Iasion, he is a forgery.


Wrong.

But mhc has long since stopped reading my posts properly.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
Mr. Iason i am intersted in what archaelogical evidence, you would like?


Another person who can't get my name right.

There is no archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events. If YOU think there is, feel free to cite it.

Note -
real places mentioned in the NT are NOT.


Iasion



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join