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: 35
27
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Riiiight...

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

You asked what about other places and included Jerusalem as an example. You feeling a little weak now?


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


Dude, you have no grasp - you lose the plot, don't you? We are talking about records of Jesus having existed - nothing else.


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.


AHHHHH so you agree!! There are records of Jesus!!! I think this thread has served its purpose! I have to admit that i have encountered weak arguments on ATS before but this takes the cake! It is the best! It should go into the ATS hall of fame for the weakest argument ever contrived.

MODS: I think you can close this thread. We are now all in agreement that Jesus existed and that there are records of JESUS existing in Rome, Jerusalem and OTHER places.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
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


Oh dude, you are not really serious are you? I DID cite it! Real places found are not archaeological evidence? Or ONLY if they are spoken of in the New Testament?

Do you even know what archaeology is? Let me assist you here because i am afraid of your answer:

The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

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?


One more time... archeology

AH!! Archaeology! But Iasion doesn't believe in Archaeology - especially if it proves what was written in the bible.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by mhc_70

I guess if you choose to believe there is a shortage of archeology to verify the authenticity of the Bible, thats your choice.


Not starting a fight here but, what evidence is that? I do not think that the thread is disputing a story or two in the bible might be true. They were not all about Jesus. This is about Jesus. Where is all the "archeology to verify the authenticity of" Jesus? Just asking.


There was something that, and this is an EXAMPLE, John wrote about and it has been confirmed. So what he wrote about actually exists - archaeologically proven - where Jesus was. Why would he write about it if he wasn't compiling a travel brochure? See my post here.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder


There was something that, and this is an EXAMPLE, John wrote about and it has been confirmed. So what he wrote about actually exists - archaeologically proven - where Jesus was. Why would he write about it if he wasn't compiling a travel brochure? See my post here.


So the answer to the question of archelogical evidence of Jesus is no.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
The topic is: Are there any first-hand accounts and archeological evidence for Jesus' existence?
Um, yeah!


John 1:29 - The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

I would say that was a first hand account AND he wrote about things that have been A R C H A E O L O G I C A L L Y proven. Can't get more "contemporary" than that huh? That's of course if you know what that words actually means - which i doubt. But you have school, Google etc to help - i don't have the time right now.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


You have all this time to keep posting that there is proof yet you have yet to provide even a hint of what it is.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
So the answer to the question of archelogical evidence of Jesus is no.


If that's what you got out of my post then so be it.

Who am i to question you



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by shearder
 


You have all this time to keep posting that there is proof yet you have yet to provide even a hint of what it is.
I have time to post all day if i wish, i just don't have the time to school anyone.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
So the answer to the question of archelogical evidence of Jesus is no.


If that's what you got out of my post then so be it.

Who am i to question you


You have yet to provide any out of how many posts? Your answers are vague circular arguments that offer nothing real. What is the archeological evidence for Jesus Christ. Please do not bother repeating that John wrote about a valley that really exsisted and John wrote about Jesus and voila, proof. Hardly, my friend. Now are you going to continue claiming it exsists without ever providing it? You do realize that each time that chips away at any credibility you have right?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
You have yet to provide any out of how many posts? Your answers are vague circular arguments that offer nothing real. What is the archeological evidence for Jesus Christ. Please do not bother repeating that John wrote about a valley that really exsisted and John wrote about Jesus and voila, proof. Hardly, my friend. Now are you going to continue claiming it exsists without ever providing it? You do realize that each time that chips away at any credibility you have right?


There is much more to offer but why? If i am to worry about my credibility i first consider the audience - i can honestly say I am not concerned about my credibility considering SOME audience members questioning my credibility.



[edit on 16/9/2008 by shearder]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
I sit and ask myself why do i entertain like this? The answer, in short, is that perhaps there are others that are not only searching for proof that Jesus didn;t exist but also proof that Jesus did exist.

This post is for that reason alone.

This, below, can be read here


Though the New Testament has many historical errors, the fact is that many of its points have been proven historically correct. Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived and died in a time and a place described in the New Testament. Some of the evidence supporting these writings surfaced nearly 2000 years later, adding a strong rule of evidence toward their historic accuracy. Many books were omitted from the compilation of the New Testament, the writings of John and of Mary, for instance, were never included in the scriptures. But the same is true with the Old Testament. It was the early church father, in the case of the New Testament, that made the decisions on the composition of the New Testament.


That's exactly why I do what I do. You're doing great expanding the minds of, not only people searching, but also people trapped in dogma(sheep are people too, they just need you to talk slower to them). TY for the links.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
That's exactly why I do what I do. You're doing great expanding the minds of, not only people searching, but also people trapped in dogma(sheep are people too, they just need you to talk slower to them). TY for the links.


You are most welcome and thanks for your post


I am starting to feel that i need to draw pictures to explain what i say. Anyways, it is all good at the end of the day - this is simply one thread of thousands and sometimes threads become magnets for certain types of people.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by shearder


There was something that, and this is an EXAMPLE, John wrote about and it has been confirmed. So what he wrote about actually exists - archaeologically proven - where Jesus was. Why would he write about it if he wasn't compiling a travel brochure? See my post here.


So the answer to the question of archelogical evidence of Jesus is no.


Oh i forgot to add:
Archaeological evidence can also be strengthened by possible DNA evidence found


But that's for another time


[edit on 16/9/2008 by shearder]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

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.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Convex]


If ur seriously interested u wouldnt only adhere to what skeptics say.
www.tektonics.org...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder


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

Now that's got you all confused - hasn't it ol' boy. If it is real it exists - If it was dug up by archaeologists - it exists. If it exists it is definitely evidence - wouldn't you agree?



So you're saying that because the Bible makes mention of places which are known to exist, then everything else in the Bible is accurate?
Wow...
It's only evidence that those places existed, not that Jesus ever lived.
Allow me to adopt your logic for a second. If I write about a pink unicorn of death which lived in the white house, then that must be true, right? After all, the white house exists, therefor the whole story I just fabricated is factual.

Wow.




You are going to stick with this huh? Cool. I won't feed you any more evidence. You are grasping at straws. You see your arguments slipping away VERY quickly.


What evidence? Your evidence is based on asumption, just as your religion is. Do you even know the definition of evidence?



Originally posted by shearder

Originally posted by Iasion
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.



AHHHHH so you agree!! There are records of Jesus!!! I think this thread has served its purpose! I have to admit that i have encountered weak arguments on ATS before but this takes the cake! It is the best! It should go into the ATS hall of fame for the weakest argument ever contrived.


Wow...
First, might I suggest learning how to read, or at least take those blinders off when you do so. He never agreed that there are records of Jesus. He stated that there are records from Rome and Jerusalem during this time, proving that your point as to why there are no contempory records is false. Instead, you ignore his point and act as though you have won the argument, when the logic simply flew over your head.



Originally posted by shearder
MODS: I think you can close this thread. We are now all in agreement that Jesus existed and that there are records of JESUS existing in Rome, Jerusalem and OTHER places.


Who is agreeing? You have no evidence, therefor anyone who is agreeing with you is doing so because they already agreed with you to begin with. We have as much 'evidence' for Jesus existence as we do Hercules. If you are consistent, then you should claim that Hercules also existed and was the son of Zeus. You are not consistent, however, because your beliefs have blinded you.



Originally posted by shearder
There was something that, and this is an EXAMPLE, John wrote about and it has been confirmed. So what he wrote about actually exists - archaeologically proven - where Jesus was. Why would he write about it if he wasn't compiling a travel brochure? See my post here.


So you do believe in Hercules? Afterall, many of the places he visited existed as well, therefor Hercules must have existed.

I seriously hope you are joking.

Either claim that Hercules and the pink unicorn of death exist, or else admit that this is not evidence of Jesus. Two choices, one logical answer.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
If ur seriously interested u wouldnt only adhere to what skeptics say.
www.tektonics.org...


i read a little bit, but why do i care if paul used to be a so-called gnostic or not? if i'm missing something, please point me to a specific part of the link i should be reading.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
and computers are making us all sick

www.rawair.net...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Convex
 


Because if paul was gnostic than he would possibly be referring to a non-historical Jesus. though he does refer to a Jesus that lived, and died.

from my point of view it just seemed like u dismissed paul's letters beacsue u read a skeptics idea on them.

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;"

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

and this is from one of them that is agreed to have been written by Paul himself. If that sounds like a non-literal Jesus, non historical Jesus, than idk what to say.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
www.nypost.com...

Archaeologists have discovered a cave in Jordan where they believe 70 disciples of Jesus Christ worshipped - and that could be the first Christian church in the world.

Hard to believe that the people of that era would become martyrs for a god/man that didn't exist.

bibleprobe.com...




top topics



 
27
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join