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: 39
27
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Really? where is this ark? I have seen it claimed to be found in 4 different places and yet there is no actual piece of the ark or any scietific agreement of ANY ark. Care to provide the proof of that? And again, it would not prove Jesus exsisted though would it?


Simply put - No - i won't provide proof. In terms of Jesus, it just, once again, enforces what is mentioned in the bible is backed up by archaeological evidence. But again, Noah may not have existed. It may have been Long John Silver's boat!


There is enough proof of one location being correct.




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

Simply put - No - i won't provide proof.


because there is none.


Originally posted by shearder
But again, Noah may not have existed.


you're right there is the same amount of evidence of noah's existence as jesus' - none at all. is this helping your argument?

let's say the story of noah ended with a named mountain where he crashed. would that give more credence to the story?

just imagine for a moment that the person (or people) who tried writing down the story of jesus was living in the same area he lived. imagine, perhaps, that he KNEW jesus existed based on oral tradition but had no actual knowledge of where he went, where he was crucified, where he preached, or even when exactly he lived - so he based jesus' movements around local, relevant areas he knew well. maybe he timed it around events that happened that were still fresh in his mind, entangled him with leaders that were still talked about. because he knew that the message was the important thing.

so you see it dosn't have to be "pulling a name out of a hat" or whatever straw man argument you can come up with. there really are aternative possibilities than the black and white one you laid out.

now imagine this guy was the Q source that everyone else copied from some time later, thinking it was set in stone, and you have the events falling together nicely.

i'm not saying it happened that way but its a possibility.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Convex
 


You are absolutely right.
It's all bogus. So we don't need to discuss it any further



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Church,Religion,Faith, Belief, the Bible, (or any other written Religious script), IS NOT criteria for the truth !!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
Church,Religion,Faith, Belief, the Bible, (or any other written Religious script), IS NOT criteria for the truth !!!!


Cool. Point taken.

Glad that's now out of the way.

Any thing else?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
FROM ANOTHER POSTER: 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.---------------------------------------------------
------------

MY REPLY:
Hercules, or Superman, another "figure" referenced earlier, doesn't speak to my heart. Most importantly they didn't suffer and die for me,. God so loved us that He manifested Himself in the flesh and suffered that His children would not perish but have eternal life with Him. And many people spit on that gift today just as many did in the days that He walked the earth. But not a one of you who pretends to have it all figured out, has anything on the Bible. Jesus, His Disciples and the Prophets of old, through the Divine Inspiration of God, recorded it ALL before it happened, including the blasphemy being written here today.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
You are absolutely right.
It's all bogus. So we don't need to discuss it any further




thank you. next?


Originally posted by Bombeni

MY REPLY:
Hercules, or Superman, another "figure" referenced earlier, doesn't speak to my heart. Most importantly they didn't suffer and die for me,.
[edit on 17-9-2008 by Bombeni]


point taken. let's just hope some lost story of hercules doesn't turn up that says he DID die for you or you'll be in trouble.

come to think of it, i remember reading that green lantern died saving the world. does that count?


[edit on 17-9-2008 by Convex]

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Convex]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I do not question the existence, of a person of intrest known as, Jesus. However, who he was, what he did or said, etc..,seems to be only spectulation..
I feel Constantine had a tremendous role in the promotion of Jesus to the celebratity status he has today.

The great mass of people … will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
—Adolf Hitler



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 


When you meet Him, all evidence or lack thereof goes out the window.

Who CARES what was recorded or destroyed in the Library of Alexandria?
Or tampered with by Constantine's priests?

The fact is, Jeshua is greater than ALL!
I hope you ask Him yourself!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
I do not question the existence, of a person of intrest known as, Jesus. However, who he was, what he did or said, etc..,seems to be only spectulation..


i agree. i think that when talking abuot the message, whoever wrote the great philosophy that jesus taught IS jesus. just like whoever wrote shakespeare's plays IS shakespeare.


Originally posted by azureskys
I feel Constantine had a tremendous role in the promotion of Jesus to the celebratity status he has today.

without a doubt that's true. constantine's patronage has more to do with the widespread acceptance of christianity than anything else.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
I do not question the existence, of a person of intrest known as, Jesus. However, who he was, what he did or said, etc..,seems to be only spectulation..
I feel Constantine had a tremendous role in the promotion of Jesus to the celebratity status he has today.

The great mass of people … will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
—Adolf Hitler


I wanted to reply to this, but now I don't even know what to say to someone who "speculates" as to what Jesus said during his lifetime, and uses a quote from the most murderous person in history to back them up.


[edit on 17-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I believe a 5 year old could grasp it.

Glad you have managed it now.


Further proof that your reading comprehension is lacking. Read the context. It was an attack on your ability to comprehend what I was saying, and then you prove my point by not understanding the insult as well. You are just making this too easy my friend.



Great, another one of your contradictions. First you say:


Originally posted by shearder


Just to refresh your memory, you stated that John's description of the Pool of Bethesda is accurate, and therefor his description of Jesus is accurate.

Unfortunately i don't have the space for drawing little pictures, SOOO, I didn't state that, it wasn't something i thought up, I merely presented, not stated, EVIDENCE base on an archaeological dig that substantiates the fact that the baths John described in the bible was accurate


Then you say:


Originally posted by shearder
- the baths John described were part of what he was saying about Jesus. Or do you think he just threw that Person in the mix because he couldn't think of anyone else? It backs up what he was saying about Jesus which backs up and adds credence to the fact that Jesus did exist.


So the first quote, you imply that you didn't state that the Pool of Bethesda was evidence of Jesus' existence, then right after you say that it is evidence.

You say you 'presented' evidence and didn't 'state' evidence. The words mean the same thing in the context. You presented your belief that the Pool of Bethesda points to a historical Jesus, therefor you stated that you believe it to be evidence for a historical Jesus. It is not.



Just to refresh your memory, you stated that John's description of the Pool of Bethesda is accurate, and therefor his description of Jesus is accurate.


So the above statement made by me WAS in fact true.


Originally posted by shearder
Or do you think he just threw that Person in the mix because he couldn't think of anyone else? It backs up what he was saying about Jesus which backs up and adds credence to the fact that Jesus did exist.


Oh yeah, you're right! Of course! It's so simple.
Hold the presses everyone, a bit of shearder's logic is coming in.
According to him, we no longer have to worry about anything being historicaly accurate, because everyone is an eye witness that tells the truth. According to him, there's no possible way Hercules could not have existed, because the places that he visited are real. After all, it's impossible that the writters simply made up a character and put him in an archeologicaly proven scenario.

Hold on, let's actually think about this. People who fabricated the story of Jesus wanted to make it feel more 'alive', so, like many many other stories, they included actual places that existed in the story. Then, these places become abscured and lost in time. People question if the places mentioned in the Bible existed. Archeological discoveries confirm that they did indeed exist. People like you read way to much into it and believe that is also evidence for Jesus.

You ignore the fact that:
1) Many stories make reference of real places, people, and events.
2) The story of Jesus is written as a fable. It is not written as an eye witness account.
3) There is no evidence to support Jesus, only evidence to support places written in the Bible.
4) There are no miracles done today which would lend credibility to the story of Jesus.
5) The Bible is very contradictory and should be taken at face value for what it is.


Originally posted by shearder
Now wasn't that easy?


Too easy.


Originally posted by shearder


What bait? You made a blatantly obvious error, and now you're trying to look like you did it on purpose? Jesus Christ man that is sad. Do you need me to explain it to you again?


Yeah... BUT before you do, read what he said then, carefully think how i could have said what i did
Unfortunately I have had MANY (about 18) years of reading documents, legal and contractual in nature, and perhaps, and this is wrong, I assume others also have the skill to read, understand and respond - i apologies for this. I try and make it pretty easy. Once you graduate and leave school you may have that opportunity too.


So instead of using logic, you, yet again, say "your wrong", and don't describe how I'm wrong? I stated facts. Facts that you can't refute. In response you insult my intelligence.
Wow.


Originally posted by shearder


Do we have records from Jerusalem?
Yes.

What records do you have?? Can you give me a few links. Thanks.



Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus (born 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E.) He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus “the Christ.” Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca’s (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).


stupidreligion.com...

We have several historians from the time of Jesus. Yet none make mention of Jesus. This is odd, considering how popular he was according to the Bible.
There are many historical records from this time. I wouldn't expect you to know this, especially with those blinders you're wearing.


Originally posted by shearder

Originally posted by TruthParadox
You resort to personal attacks because you have no logic to back your claims

Take a good look at the above... really look at it. Then, review the entire thread. I wasn't making personal attacks, i was pointing out the obvious. Get it????


Actually no, that's where you are wrong. If you were 'pointing out the obvious', then you would have pointed something out using logic. Your response seems to be a long version of "You're wrong because I said so, kekeke", with no logic to back it. If my logic is flawed, then point out, in a coherent manner (I realize that is hard for you), how.

To be continued...



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Incarnated
If a Policeman takes a report from a First Hand witness of an event, it's NOT HEARSAY!

The accounts of the life of Jesus are not at all Hearsay.


Agreed

And might I add, that within the covers of the Bible itself, Peter himself addresses this issue:


Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty


Peace

[edit on 17-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 



Here's something on Seneca, (who supposedly isn't known for writing current event articles and was trying to further his own religious views);
He was supposedly tudor and then advisor to Nero;
Can we say 'conflict of interest'?


In 1966 scholar Anna Lydia Motto also challenged this view of Seneca, arguing that his image has been based almost entirely on Sulius's account, while many others who might have lauded him have been lost.[10]

"We are therefore left with no contemporary record of Seneca's life, save for the desperate opinion of Publius Suilius. Think of the barren image we should have of Socrates, had the works of Plato and Xenophon not come down to us and were we wholly dependent upon Aristophanes' description of this Athenian philosopher. To be sure, we should have a highly distorted, misconstrued view. Such is the view left to us of Seneca, if we were to rely upon Suillius alone



Here's a good rebuttal on them both;
Did Jesus exist?
[edit on 17-9-2008 by Clearskies]

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Last time, on Creationists Say the Darndest Things:


Originally posted by shearder

There is archeological evidence for MANY fables.
I haven't studdied this. Could you give me archaeological evidence of, lets say, 7 fables?


Gladly. I will give your definition of archeological evidence. This is evidence for a place that is mentioned in a story. This is your definition of archeological evidence, as it is all you have and it is all you have provided.
Also note that these are not all fables. They are stories, but the same logic applies - that evidence for a place does not support a supposed event written about that place.

1) Paul Bunyan - " Paul and Babe dug the Grand Canyon by dragging his axe behind him, and created Mount Hood". Wow, not only does the story make mention of accurate places, but it stated that Paul Bunyan MADE them.
2) Hercules - Makes mention of historically accurate places.
3) Aladdin - Characters are from China. China exists. Therefor Aladdin must exist.
4) Santa Claus - The North Pole exists. Santa Claus lives in the North Pole. Therefor Santa Claus exists (according to your flawed logic).
5) Noah's Arc - A story which is impossible (All the animals we know of today fitting in an arc as well as the whole Earth being flooded by rain). Yet it mentions Mt. Ararat which is a real location.
6) Romeo & Juliet - makes mention of historicaly sound places and people.
7) Jesus - makes mention of historically sound places. Derived from the story of Horus, as seen by the obvious similarities.

I'm sure you will not define this as archeological. The key point is that a location does not prove a story to be true. Whether that location has been buried or not does not affect the logic I use.



Originally posted by shearder

According to you, this proves their existence.
Nope, according to you, if there is evidence that proves what was written in the bible exists, and i believe it (obvious), then fables are also true. Those were not my words - deal with it.


I never said that fables are true. Reading comprehension, much? I was stating the exact opposite. Fables are NOT true, just as the existence of Jesus is NOT true. Again you miss my point. You're only evidence of Jesus existence is only evidence of places mentioned in the New Testament. As stated above, I can do the same for any fable or story, which proves that this is not evidence.

Is it possible that Jesus existed? Yes, it's possible. However, there is no archeological evidence to support this, no matter how much you wish there was.


Originally posted by shearder

You can't seem to comprehend that the people writting the fables in their day would make stories BASED on places. You can't seem to grasp that if you were consistent in this 'logic', you would also believe in Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus (the North Pole exists, so he must as well), the pink unicorn of death, Hercules, etc.

Santa Clause was real
- do some research then add it to your book of fables.


No, Santa Claus was not real. Saint Nicholas was. Santa Claus lives in the North Pole and gives presents to all the good little boys and girls (sorry, you are not on his list). Saint Nicholas is considered historicaly accurate, however. Not Santa Claus.


Originally posted by shearder
Soon we will prove the pink unicorn of death exists!!! (oh for those that didn't get it - that was a joke
)


She DOES exist. You simply do not have the faith to see her.


Originally posted by shearder
How is it that you cannot grasp that places that are proven to exist - as mentioned in the bible, in MANY cases, have Jesus as the subject?


You never disappoint. There are many stories which make mention of historicaly accurate places and throw non historical people in the mix to make it seem more real. Don't take my word for it, just read a few books. If you knew anything about history you would know this to be true. It is quiet apparent that you do not.



Originally posted by shearder
Coincidence? Or, do you think they all sat around a table - the authors that is - and threw names into a hat and then pulled out "Jesus" then all agreed to visit places and make up stories which include that name?


Wow.
This says more about your 'understanding' about history and the formation of the gospels than I'm sure you would have liked to make public.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


I think you might be wrong about the murderous statment.

The Only entity on this planet capable of tending the flocks and harvesting the seed,
Is so arrogant, as to assume, that We can define designate and be so audacious, as to know What or who GOD is!!
This entity(Man) Spends his existance, trying to prove or disprove the existance of what he construes to be a GOD.
He lies,steals,kills and worse,to prove his GODs
existance.
He lies,steals,kills and worse,to prove his GOD
is the only One True God.
He lies,steals,kills and worse,to prove that his GOD is, more powerful, more loving, more forgiving
and more Olympian, than the other guys GOD
All the while he destroys the very gift of being the caregivers of the Earth.


"Religon" Is the winner of most murderous



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
OK let me add this - for fun - the fact that Noah's Ark was found probably also means that it doesn't mean Noah existed - right?

Now that is the logic being used. Get the point?


Um, no. The ark has NOT been found. You have no evidence.

Also, even if Noah's ark is found some day, it doesn't mean that the Noah of the Bible existed. Why?
Because what he did was impossible. You can't gather hundreds of thousands of different species and put them on an ark. The ark would have to be big enough. The measurments given in the Bible would not contain all the species we see today, which would of had to have been on the ark in order to survive.
Also, the whole Earth could not have been covered with water.
It's a ridiculous claim, although I wouldn't expect any less from you.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Not that I believe everything I read but...Noah's Ark.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

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.


How do u know Tacitus was talking to Christians for his info...


There is no proof of that. thats just skeptics trying to explain away everything cuz it doesnt fit with their world view.

EVERYTHING ABOUT JESUS MUST BE FAKE, HEARSAY, UNRELIABLE, EVEN NON CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS ARE ALL FRAUDS TOO! is the basic motto it seems.

Read this:
www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

Don't just eat up the skeptics view, if ur really want to know things u have to look at both sides.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Also, even if Noah's ark is found some day, it doesn't mean that the Noah of the Bible existed. Why?



Over Skeptical-Ness.


Originally posted by TruthParadox

Because what he did was impossible. You can't gather hundreds of thousands of different species and put them on an ark. The ark would have to be big enough. The measurments given in the Bible would not contain all the species we see today, which would of had to have been on the ark in order to survive.
Also, the whole Earth could not have been covered with water.
It's a ridiculous claim, although I wouldn't expect any less from you.



Ever heard that it was a "Local Flood"....DOIH

December 25th is a tradition. Whole Earth flood is a tradition.
it was most likely a Local Flood that occured, making it plausible.

Lack of research ftloose.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join