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: 37
27
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
Quick question......for the Christians....

What happened to all the people who live before Jesus???? Did they all go to hell for not believing in someone who did not exist yet?


The Bible says God will judge all people righteously. It seems there will be a stricter judgment for those who have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ than those who have never heard. Paul said that those who follow the law will be judged by the law. The people who have never heard of the law are judged by the law of God which He has placed into their hearts:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16)

I have to give God a lot more credit than you do; it has never entered my mind that God would haphazardly punish those who never had the chance to reject Him so rigidly as refusing the gift of salvation.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

Originally posted by Convex
so far you're provided some proof of pontius pilate,

No i didn't




the fact that the pool of bethesda might have existed, etc but still nothing about jesus himself.

You also missed it - right? Why would so many facts be substantiated which would prove he existed and yet everyone who refers to him i.e John writing about him in the baths is BS'ing?

Your arguments are just very weak guys - very weak.

Most scholars consider the author of the gospel of John anonymous. Written around 90AD.

You can write stories around real events and places. Authors do that all the time today in books and movies.

There are no independent verification, no first-hand accounts, nothing about Jesus himself, much less Jesus as a son of god, performing miracles, etc.

Jesus might have existed. The point is, we don't know for sure until new direct evidence comes up.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

Originally posted by Grafilthy
Quick question......for the Christians....

What happened to all the people who live before Jesus???? Did they all go to hell for not believing in someone who did not exist yet?


I have to give God a lot more credit than you do; it has never entered my mind that God would haphazardly punish those who never had the chance to reject Him so rigidly as refusing the gift of salvation.

This is not a choice. If some one points a gun to your head and ask you to believe that he is superman, what would you do?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Boywonder13
from my point of view it just seemed like u dismissed paul's letters beacsue u read a skeptics idea on them.


i dismissed him as an eye-witness, first hand account of jesus (which is what you presented him as) because he himself says had not met jesus when he was alive.

Yes, that is true. Paul wasn't an eyewitness of Jesus. Therefore, we cannot use any of his writing as a proof of Jesus' existence. This is an example of hearsay. Paul's mystical experience cannot be used as a proof (this would point more to the proof of Christ being a spiritual entity than a physical entity).



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

This is not a choice. If some one points a gun to your head and ask you to believe that he is superman, what would you do?


Oh yes it is a choice and it appears that you have made yours. Besides, if you don't even believe that Jesus was The Son of God or in God Himself, or that Jesus even existed for that matter, this choice is a moot subject for you I'd say.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by TruthParadox
...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? ...


No, you can't say that; however, you CAN say that since the author wrote truthfully of those places, and that they do exist, that is evidence that what he wrote on Jesus is ALSO truthful. It is called circumstantial evidence (which means something ENTIRELY different in legal circles than it does to the average person). The average person would think of it more as "corroborating evidence".

It is quite possible that he was telling the truth about Jesus as a man. We do not know for sure. That's the point.
It gets stranger when people start writing him as a son of god, performing miracles and flying in the clouds, etc. We have no point of reference for that.
People wrote about 12 Olympians living on Mt. Olympus. Mt. Olympus is very much a real place. Since those people wrote about a real palce, does that mean they were telling the truth about those 12 Olympians?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

This is not a choice. If some one points a gun to your head and ask you to believe that he is superman, what would you do?


Oh yes it is a choice and it appears that you have made yours. Besides, if you don't even believe that Jesus was The Son of God or in God Himself, or that Jesus even existed for that matter, this choice is a moot subject for you I'd say.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Bombeni]

I was a christian for many years. In fact, I used to debate with non-christians for a long time. Anyway, let's not talk about ME. This is not the topic.

No, it is not a choice. If somebody came to you and tell you to believe that he is a superman without threat of death, you can make a choice easy.
However, if he points a gun at your head, you have no choice but say yes I believe so that you can live.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13

anyways Josephus wrote about Ponitus Pilate in 75 CE. 30 decades from when Jesus crucifxion is said to have take place, with Pilate proably dying 20 years or less before. 75.

Tacitus mentions Pilate in 116 CE, as the one who Jesus was crucified under. I stress the fact that Tacitus, is a ROMAN historian, and the only signifgant thing he could muster about Pilate was his ties to the controversial trial and death of a first century jew. again i repeat Roman historian.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Boywonder13]


well, tacitus and josephus were both investigating and talking to chsitians at the time. this tells us that the story of jesus being crucified was probably in place by their times.

some people suggest that tacitus might have simply copied josephus since they both make the same mistake in pilate's rank.

you suggesting "all" that tacitus can come up with about pilate is misleading. this mention of pilate is in the context of explaining christians, so why would he write anything else about pilate?

but neither of them ever claim to have met jesus so its irrelevant anyway as evidence.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Well, this does get into murky waters, the subject of choice. But I believe in God's omnipotence; to me it means He knew/knows/did know/has always known, every millisecond of our lives and thoughts and how we would ultimately choose (Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.). Refer to the 139th Psalm for the complete text www.ibs.org...

Ephesians 1:4-5,11 “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

2 Thessalonians 2:13, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”

I think He knew which of us would reject Him. That is my opinion, I don't pretend to understand it all.

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor, 13:12)



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
Quick question......for the Christians....

What happened to all the people who live before Jesus???? Did they all go to hell for not believing in someone who did not exist yet?

Or the Native Americans...where are their dead really? It makes no logical sense. ((If)) Jesus is "ruling" from a realm we cannot see, he could care less if people believe he's there or not. He would not be a just ruler if he sent people to "Hell" just because they refused to believe in someone there is no solid evidence of. If people were not meant to use their brains, why give them one? Didn't God make angels to be mindless robots who only do as they're told? Having a brain means investigating what we're told to believe, not mindlessly following orders by people who threaten us with burning in "Hell" forever. What sick minded people.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by mmariebored]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Why the Bible? Ravi Zacharias at the University of Illinois

www.rzim.org...

enjoy

Why the Bible? Ravi at the University of Illinois
Politics and religion - where should the two intersect?
The Law of Non-Contradiction and the Trinity
What are the boundaries of beauty?
Is Western culture deteriorating?
Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve
Postmodernism: is it a new idea?
Maintaining a Godly Perspective in the Classroom
Atheism, Feminism, and the Bible
How to approach people in non-adversarial ways with the Gospel


[edit on 053030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by TruthParadox
...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? ...


No, you can't say that; however, you CAN say that since the author wrote truthfully of those places, and that they do exist, that is evidence that what he wrote on Jesus is ALSO truthful. It is called circumstantial evidence (which means something ENTIRELY different in legal circles than it does to the average person). The average person would think of it more as "corroborating evidence".

It is quite possible that he was telling the truth about Jesus as a man. We do not know for sure. That's the point.
It gets stranger when people start writing him as a son of god, performing miracles and flying in the clouds, etc. We have no point of reference for that.
People wrote about 12 Olympians living on Mt. Olympus. Mt. Olympus is very much a real place. Since those people wrote about a real palce, does that mean they were telling the truth about those 12 Olympians?


Great! Now show me any 10 people who were willing to die (and did!) to defend the "truth" of the Olympians living on Mount Olympus. When you can do that, THEN we can have a meaningful discussion There is absolutely NO indication that people were willing to die for the "gods", but there is absolute, historical records indicating all the early church fathers died defending Jesus Christ as both God and Man.

If we use YOUR SAME STANDARDS on everything else, we have to throw out the entirety of history. I say that the story of the Olympians was never true, and that it was just some really great fiction, and the people of Rome knew that. Can you prove otherwise? Can you prove Alexander the Great actually existed. Now remember, I get to pick "scholars" who are going to say with every bit of eyewitness evidence you bring up: "I'm sorry, we believe that is a fable, written hundreds of years after his death". Not hard to "disprove" a theory when you get to set the standard for rules, is it?

EVEN HIS ENEMIES ACKNOWLEDGED HE PHYSICALLY EXISTED. EVEN HIS ENEMIES ACKNWOLEDGED HE DID MIRACLES. Only, they said he did them from the power of the devil.

The Gospels have been tracked back MUCH earlier than "scholars" would have you believe. They have been traced back to having been written at a time when there was STILL living eyewitnesses who could have said "This isn't true", if it had never happened.

But, the point is this: Like all unbelievers, you don't give a rat's behind about the truth. You want people to tell you what your ears itch to hear. Because if Jesus Christ existed, and was who he said he was, you don't get to do whatever the hell you want to do anymore. You have a greater responsibility. And like children, these unbelievers want to continue in their irresponsibility.

And as for Paul, he was a member of the Sanhedrin. So, it is VERY likely that he actually sat in on Jesus' trial. Besides that, how do you account for the miracles that occurred AFTER Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension? How do you account for the miracles that the writers of the letters (to call them "books" is a bit of a misnomer, because they are actually letters to people.) saw with their very own eyes, for which they WERE eyewitnesses?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
...He would not be a just ruler if he sent people to "Hell" just because they refused to believe in someone there is no solid evidence of. ...


OMG! I've never seen such hubris with such lack of logic, common sense, or using the "brains that god gave you"!

Uh, "just ruler" according to you? How can you even say that if there is no God? You cannot, neither logically, nor common-sense wise. Do you even understand why that argument is not even internally consistent? Of course you don't. You think your opinion on matters is just as valid as everyone elses, even when your ideas contradict themselves.

(edit: added this paragraph for clarity) Here is my point in the previous paragraph: Do you see how part of your statement IS DIRECTLY OPPOSING the other part of your statement? If not, come back and join the discussion when you do. Because you are doing the logical equivalent of saying "But this is dehydrated water!"

Job kind of said the same thing to God. Know what God said? (paraphrased) "Hey buddy! When you can create your OWN universe from scratch, then you come tell me how to run mine."

And I'm going to say the same thing. When you can create your own universe from scratch, then you can come and call God "unjust" for ANY of his decisions.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 




I believe in God's omnipotence

Then.....can God make a rock so big, even he can't move it???



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by Bombeni
 




I believe in God's omnipotence

Then.....can God make a rock so big, even he can't move it???

Yes he can. And he already has. It's called "Free will".



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
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...


It's hard to believe that muslims would sacrifice their lives for a belief that isn't true.
Jesus Christ (no pun intended), I am getting tired of this argument.

Yes there are people in early days that believed Jesus existed, just as there were people that believed Hercules existed.

So you believe in Hercules, correct? After all, if you state the above to be logical, and yet disagree in a historical Hercules, then you would only be contradicting yourself.



Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by TruthParadox
...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? ...


No, you can't say that; however, you CAN say that since the author wrote truthfully of those places, and that they do exist, that is evidence that what he wrote on Jesus is ALSO truthful. It is called circumstantial evidence (which means something ENTIRELY different in legal circles than it does to the average person). The average person would think of it more as "corroborating evidence".





So I take it you didn't read my entire post? How does it prove Jesus' existence? How can you state that to be logical, and yet I'm sure you don't believe in the pink unicorn of death. But wait, I stated that the pink unicorn of death lives in the White House. The White House exists, therefor the WHOLE story is factual.
Agree that the pink unicorn of death exists or else admit that the above is not logical thinking at all, but rather based on assumption.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 




Job kind of said the same thing to God. Know what God said? (paraphrased) "Hey buddy! When you can create your OWN universe from scratch, then you come tell me how to run mine."

And now that we understand science.....that would be called schizophrenia.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Can you prove Alexander the Great actually existed. Now remember, I get to pick "scholars" who are going to say with every bit of eyewitness evidence you bring up: "I'm sorry, we believe that is a fable, written hundreds of years after his death". Not hard to "disprove" a theory when you get to set the standard for rules, is it?


yes, we have contemporary evidence that alexander the great existed. much of what he was supposed to be able to do might not be true, but we know he existed.

and if every scholar said that there was no evidence that he did exist somehow (like they do jesus), i would accept that.

a better comparison would be king arthur.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by mmariebored
...He would not be a just ruler if he sent people to "Hell" just because they refused to believe in someone there is no solid evidence of. ...

Job kind of said the same thing to God. Know what God said? (paraphrased) "Hey buddy! When you can create your OWN universe from scratch, then you come tell me how to run mine."

And I'm going to say the same thing. When you can create your own universe from scratch, then you can come and call God "unjust" for ANY of his decisions.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]

I quote the Bible, too, but that doesn't mean I believe it's 100% true.

OMG! I've never seen such hubris with such lack of logic, common sense, or using the "brains that god gave you"!

Uh, "just ruler" according to you? How can you even say that if there is no God? You cannot, neither logically, nor common-sense wise. Do you even understand why that argument is not even internally consistent? Of course you don't.

Why do people who consider themselves to be "Christians" fight with such ungodly venom towards their fellow human beings? Why do they insult them? That's a very barbaric way to get your point across, accusing the ones you're trying to convince of not being able to understand...

(edit: added this paragraph for clarity) Here is my point in the previous paragraph: Do you see how part of your statement IS DIRECTLY OPPOSING the other part of your statement? If not, come back and join the discussion when you do. Because you are doing the logical equivalent of saying "But this is dehydrated water!"

This is a discussion board. People discuss their opinions, their theories, their philosophies etc.

You are clearly a cyber-bully who enjoys verbally beating people up.


You think your opinion on matters is just as valid as everyone elses, even when your ideas contradict themselves.

You didn't say which statement I made contradicts with what. I mentioned theories I have, I have many. Yes, some of the DO contradict each other, that's why they are THEORIES. You read from a book that makes no logical sense(no wonder you're so pissy) and you expect people to believe what you say has any kind of solidity? YOU come back when YOU understand...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
The average person would think of it more as "corroborating evidence".


for it to be corroborating you would first need other PROOF of some kind. so, no, this isn't corroborating evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join