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: 41
27
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Most? really most? Can you first back that up, and can you also clarify how many of these people ALSO believed this Jesus was the son of God and performed miracles. I cannot help but think you are Foxisizing up the facts here.


He's not 'foxisizing' up the facts. He is actually correct. Someone once asked me the same thing and I posted statistics. MOST scholars and historians acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure. The Christians accept Him for who He claimed to be and the secular historians and scholars differentiate between what is referred to as 'The Historical Jesus' and 'The Jesus of Faith.'

I'm too lazy to look it all up again but I've posted the information on ATS before along with a sample of names of secular scholars who acknowledge Jesus historicity but not His divine claims.


Right, so that is my point. Most scholars agree that a man named Jesus exsisted, but not the Jesus of the bible that walked on water, rose from the dead, performed other such miracles right? So what they believe is that a man had that name at around that time. Ok, a man has that name over at home depot right now, so what does that mean.

You read what I said, how many of them believe this is the Miracle performing Jesus? How many of them believe he was the perfect, divine son of God?

You can pretend that people acknowledging a guy with that name is the same as proof of the son of God if you need that kind of stretch. I prefer not to twist the given facts in order to fit them to my wishes. That is what Fox does.

"Lots of sholars believe a guy named Jesus was around 2000 years ago but NOT that he had any magic powers or was the son of God. So, see, there is proof Jesus lived and the bible is true" That is quiiiiite a stretch.




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
They do not lash out in defensive fear like so many here have.


Ah, the 'fear' accusation. If we ignore the silly questions it's because we don't know the answer but if we answered them with passion it's because we are scared, defensive, or feel threatened that our egg-shell strength in our faith might crack.

Hogwash.

It's because we're trying to wake up those up who are asleep while there is still time. THAT is where the passion... er... 'defensive fear' arises.

Oh well, at least we're not ardently opposing Jesus' existence out of 'defensive fear' that there truly is a God in Heaven.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


Argumentum ad populum.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


The defensive fear speaks to the rude and intolerant attitude put forth by people bent more on being right than to cull other members into their flock. Just reread the thread and tell me that most of the "christians" are truly trying to bring people to the lord and vice-versa. No, they are just being argumentative. I am simply denying ignorance.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


I will totally agree with you. Not on this thread specifically since I haven't kept up with it but you are very right. There is even a saying among Christians: 'Are you trying to win souls or win an argument?'

Still, it is sometimes necessary to refute an argument. Or as as you would say, 'To Deny Ignorance.'

Edit to add: Again, I stopped keeping up with this thread yet it seems there is not only one side in this thread that is displaying such qualities. One non Christians in particular called several people 'idiot' and used an aggressive tone throughout. That looked to me like he was trying to 'cull other members into his flock.' So to bring us back full circle, I believe it is necessary to fight off such disinformation to prevent people from being mislead. If I didn't love or care about people, I wouldn't bother fighting it.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
Skeptics have a billion different views on early christianity/Jesus. but most historians do agree that Jesus lived, read books such as "Historical Jesus" EP Sanders, or Jesus Outside the New Testament etc.

Its interesting that skeptics move from theory to theory, after each one is debunked, as ive noticed in your case.


Hold on, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I admit that the theory of Horus has no bases, but there are still many reasons which I have listed which point to Jesus being fabricated. The majority of these things do not require confirmation from an external source because they are found in the text itself.
Did you read the link I posted? No Christian I've seen has yet to come up with an explanation for that. It is so unlikely that it happened by chance, as stated in the link. Even if it did happen by chance, there are simply far to many reasons to take the Gospels with little credibility. Even aside from the fact that there is no evidence of Jesus from the time, no evidence of some of the extraordinary events from the time, etc.


Originally posted by Boywonder13
Truth Paradox im just wondering if youre sure Jesus didnt exist? what is your view on him


im really interested bro.


I highly doubt that he existed. I am not stating this as my truth, but rather what I believe to be the truth. If I saw the truth to be different, then I would be the first one to say so. I'm not 100% sure that he didn't exist, as I've said before. It's simply extremely unlikely that he did. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not only do we not have extraordinary evidence, but we have no evidence from the time. Only years after the fact do people feel the need to write about it. It's possible that people waited years and years to write about these events, but not probable. It's possible that Herod killed all the first born and such an extraordinary event was not recorded, but is very very unlikely. It's possible that, even though Jesus was said to be very popular, he was written by no one at the time, but not probable.
There's many other problems as well. As I stated before, when Jesus is on the Mount of Olives and is praying to God alone, how did anyone record what he said? There was no time for anyone to ask him about what he said between this time and the time he was crucified directly after. There are many insances which are written from an omnipotent view. For example, there's a time when Pilot is questioning Jesus, and somehow the gospels manage to get the whole context of this conversation. How? It's possible, but very unlikely that anyone would ever know the private conversation of two individuals. This is what I mean when I say that it is written as a story and not a historical account. It seems the only logical explanation would be that such things were given through divine revelation, but this only makes sense to a Christian and not someone who is looking for historical fact.

So you can make excuses for all these thing, and there is a very small probability that you are correct, but all of the facts seem to point otherwise. What I'm getting at is that it requires faith to believe in Jesus. Many Christians know this to be true, and yet they are the same ones that state that Christ is historically sound when he simply is not.



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

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


If you can't tell the difference between Superman and Jesus, then I don't think there is much hope for you on an IQ test, if you know what I'm saying.


I understood his point. There are as much evidence of the existence of Jesus as there are for Superman.

So far, not one iota of evidence that Jesus existed in this thread. I'm still waiting.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by TruthParadox
The Bible states that no mountain was visible due to the water. Mount Ararat has an elevation of 16,946 ft. Sorry, it's just not possible.


Truth Paradox- didn't you admit to being an ex Christian? Then how could you possibly not know what the Bible also says about this? It is clearly written that the earth went through MASSIVE upheaval and the 'mountains were raised' during/after the flood. Not to mention the wording of the passage infers tectonic plate shifting. The earth did not have the same elevation levels in antediluvian times. 100% Biblical.


So there were no mountains above 250 feet? I'm sorry, but given any context, there is no way that the whole Earth could be covered in water. Not enough for you? How about this:
The water had to come from somewhere. An understanding of how water evaporates into the air and then takes the form of clouds and rains down to the Earth again would tell you that such an event is not possible. Where was the water before the flood? Before the flood, the Earth was dry, after the flood, the whole Earth is covered in water. So where was the water before the time that it got evaporated into the air and rained down again? This logic would state that the natural state of the Earth is a flooded planet. Such is simply not true.

More:
For such an amount of water to rain down on all the Earth, the WHOLE sky would have to be FILLED with clouds. You couldn't miss it. Yet the Bible states that before the flood there was not a cloud in the sky.

More:
You didn't address that given the measurments of the ark, it would be impossible for all the species on Earth to fit therein. Species that we know to exist today. For these species to exist today, then either God would need to put them there AFTER the flood, in which case there would be no reason for him to tell Noah to put animals in the ark to begin with, OR you would need to support evolution, which could not have happened in the short time between then and now, not to mention there is no proof of this.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
They do not lash out in defensive fear like so many here have.


Ah, the 'fear' accusation. If we ignore the silly questions it's because we don't know the answer but if we answered them with passion it's because we are scared, defensive, or feel threatened that our egg-shell strength in our faith might crack.

Hogwash.

It's because we're trying to wake up those up who are asleep while there is still time. THAT is where the passion... er... 'defensive fear' arises.

Oh well, at least we're not ardently opposing Jesus' existence out of 'defensive fear' that there truly is a God in Heaven.



If the evidence is so crystal clear then please please post it in here! So far, there has been NO evidence. If you are so passionate about waking us up, then be as passionate in finding the evidence and present them to us!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


The water, now is IN the Earth.
Water table, underground seas, etc........



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
I understood his point. There are as much evidence of the existence of Jesus as there are for Superman.


I hope you weren't expecting me to read that with a serious face. If so, my apologies because I didn't.



So far, not one iota of evidence that Jesus existed in this thread. I'm still waiting.


Really? Because I wasn't even keeping up with this thread but saw evidence presented. Not to mention about 3-4 dozen other threads on this very same subject in this forum (if not more).

 



Originally posted by Deaf Alien
If the evidence is so crystal clear then please please post it in here! So far, there has been NO evidence. If you are so passionate about waking us up, then be as passionate in finding the evidence and present them to us!


Everything I have had to say on the subject was stated HERE.

 



Originally posted by TruthParadox
So there were no mountains above 250 feet? I'm sorry, but given any context, there is no way that the whole Earth could be covered in water.Not enough for you? How about this:
The water had to come from somewhere. An understanding of how water evaporates into the air and then takes the form of clouds and rains down to the Earth again would tell you that such an event is not possible. Where was the water before the flood?


Again, I thought you said you were an ex-Christian? Yikes. What does the Bible say where the water came from? That 'the great springs of the earth broke forth.' It was not just rain water. Underground water deposits also flooded the earth. Again we're back at tectonic plate movement that also formed the mountains, mentioned above. It all jives. I also strongly believe the oceans are larger now than they were in antediluvian times. Then of course all the underground water deposits that exist today.



You didn't address that given the measurments of the ark, it would be impossible for all the species on Earth to fit therein. Species that we know to exist today. For these species to exist today, then either God would need to put them there AFTER the flood, in which case there would be no reason for him to tell Noah to put animals in the ark to begin with, OR you would need to support evolution, which could not have happened in the short time between then and now, not to mention there is no proof of this.


Let me show you a little image I made:



[edit on 9/17/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


The water, now is IN the Earth.
Water table, underground seas, etc........


So the water that covered the WHOLE EARTH went away in a matter of months (I forget the exact timeline in the Bible). If the whole Earth was covered in water, even high enough to cover every mountain, it would take YEARS AND YEARS... AND YEARS for the water to receed.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Again, I thought you said you were an ex-Christian? Yikes. Apparently one that never took the time to study the Bible- or possibly even casually read it. What does it say? That 'the great springs of the earth broke forth.' It was NOT just rain water. Very, very basic knowledge. Underground water deposits also flooded the earth. Again we're back at tectonic plate movement that also formed the mountains, mentioned above. It all jives. I also strongly believe the oceans are larger now than they were in antediluvian times.


I admit it has been a long time since I read the story of Noah. When I read it as a Christian, I knew that it was impossible to explain by science, just as the baskets full of bread story is impossible to explain by science. I'm suprised that you do not take that stance, but rather insist that it is scientifically sound. Ok, if you want to go that route then fine.



How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.



Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?



Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.



How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.




How did so many plants survive being submerged in brackish water for so long? Again, many plants are quite sensitive to conditions. Take some of your household plants and leave them submerged in the bath or a pond for a year and see how they do.



How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.



How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.



How could more than a handful of species survive in a devastated habitat? The Flood would have destroyed the food and shelter which most species need to survive.



How did predators survive? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?



Then, after the waters subside (where to?) there are still more problems with the story. What happened to all the corpses of the countless numbers of animals and humans that died? Surely there would have been terrible plague and disease caused by all that rotting meat.



If you honestly think that you can support such an event using science, then you are fighting a loosing battle.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Let me show you a little image I made:




Microevolution. Very nice. So first, these animals had to survive in the real world in order to evolve. So, after setting the animals free, the preditors immediantly pounce on their prey. Those that are not prey face a greater danger. It seems that the flood waters which covered all the Earth also managed to destroy much of their sustenance, the plant life. So let's take Mr. and Mrs. Penguin. Alone atop Mount Ararat. Poor guys. They not only have to survive in a habitat that is not their own, but they have to make a long and perilous journey to the south. I suppose Noah couldn't give them a lift. So they set out on their journey. Noah gave them a supply of fish which would last them a week or two, but they had no idea of how long it would take to get where they were going. It would seem that their journey was longer than they had anticipated. Poor guys never made it. It seems that, since the flood destroyed the fish that the penguins eat, they died of starvation.

I marvel that someone can shun facts in order to believe such a fairy tale. There are many animals which are exclusive to continents. Did Noah seek all of these animals out (a task which would take years upon years to do, and would be impossible unless you were superman), or did they come on their own? If they came on their own, then how did they get past oceans? Did God seperate the sea so they could cross it? Or do you believe that the world was one big continent back then (for which we have evidence to prove otherwise)?


www.abarnett.demon.co.uk...


Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them.
# How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
# How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
# How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
# How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
# How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?
As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialised) food supply?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
There is no proof of that. thats just skeptics trying to explain away everything cuz it doesnt fit with their world view.


i'm sorry where did i ever say i didn't believe jesus existed? why would you label me a skeptic just becuase its true we have no evidence of jesus existing? this sort of black and white, good vs evil mentality is only keeping you ignorant. its not doing you any good at all.


Originally posted by Boywonder13
EVERYTHING ABOUT JESUS MUST BE FAKE, HEARSAY, UNRELIABLE, EVEN NON CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS ARE ALL FRAUDS TOO! is the basic motto it seems.


sigh


Originally posted by Boywonder13
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.


i have already read this page, thanks. it offers nothing new to this discussion.

1) the annals were unfinished when tacitus died leaving doubt on the sources he used

2) no early post-tacitus christian writings mention tacitus as being relevent to the religion leading to a possible later addition to the annals.

and maybe it wasn't josephus but pliny he sourced! does it matter? its still IS NOT first hand contemporay evidence of jesus and so is irrelevant to this discussion.

if josephus isn't neither is tacitus. maybe tacitus based what he wrote on some roman document, but unless that turns up its still NOT relevant.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Really? Because I wasn't even keeping up with this thread but saw evidence presented.



i must have missed it too. please enlighten all of us. unless you mean the fact that people wrote about places that existed therefore jesus must have existed, or people writing hundreds of years after jesus died after talking to christians, or the faked pontius pilate letter, or the fact that the story is SO compelling that it MUST be proof, or that geez, who would die for something that's fake? or how could so many stories be written abuot a fake person? THAT's proof...

have i missed any "proofs" put forth in this thread? if so, please, show me. i tried to keep up but its possible i missed a few pages.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
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.


AH ok. If that's what you believe:

"Your Honor, let me state evidence!"

Yes, you are right. It sounds correct - in context.

"What did you do?"
"I stated evidence!"

Yeah i see now how it can be the same.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


lol This always amuses me. Answer a couple off topic questions and get bombarded with ten more. It never ends. (Although I totally understand you were not the one who introduced this topic into the thread so I mean no offense. I know you weren't the one that started this tangent). This will be brief:

1). Where did the waters subside to: As already mentioned, underground (there is evidence of this) and into the oceans (as many believe are larger now... also already mentioned).

2). What happened to all the corpses of humans and animals that would have caused diseases by lying around:
A). Buried under the massive upheaval already mentioned. It wasn't just a rain. It was a massive restructuring of the earth's topography.
B). As one of the external quotes tried to use plants as an argument, I would like to say- look what happens to dead bodies after a year of being in water. Decomposition.

3). Predators: There is possible Biblical inference animals (And even humans) were herbivores pre-flood. Others who disagree with this believe they ate fish. Because the Bible makes no mention of this we don't know either way but there was food and it would not have been impossible for carnivores to have had a sufficient food supply.

4). Species/Habitat. As already mentioned, I do believe in microevolution. I also do not believe it takes the length of time evolutionists claim for species to make adaptations. There is also extinction. We do not believe that all creatures that survived the flood exist to this day. It's a sad consequence of the fall.

5). Short lived species. Is this website owner for real?

6). How did all the fish survive? I don't believe they did and nothing in the Bible claims they did.

7). Plants. This is another objection that reminds me of those old posters with a cracked, fried egg and a slice of bacon that reads, 'This is your brain on drugs with a side order of bacon.' Plants can be rather resilient in water. Not all species necessarily survived the flood either and, again, nothing in the Bible says they did. The focus was on humans and land animals- not fish and plants. If plants can grow through concrete and brick then I'm sure they'll do fine for the most part in water. Even after severe destruction they would bounce back eventually, especially as the population began to grow and spread out.

8). Sea Floor Evidence. Many flood geologists do believe there is evidence in the sea floor so I have to say either this objection is silly, the author of that site is not being intellectually honest, or truly is ignorant of the facts.

9). FAQ Ice Age/Ice Caps.

10). Tree Rings. The author claims tree ring dating goes back 10,000 years. I need to see evidence of this. To my knowledge, the oldest dating is approximately 4,500 years old- not 10,000. In fact, the oldest one post dates the flood era so I need more information as to what this person is referring to.

I have to be honest- those objections were very silly and or misleading in my opinion. There are much better arguments out there against a world wide flood that I wouldn't even know how to answer. Those arguments were pretty simple minded.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Convex
 


I'm not going to lie but I don't want to insult anyone either, especially my Christians brothers and sisters. But I saw some of those things you mention and have to be honest and say I consider those things 'bad' or anecdotal evidence. The stuff I consider solid I already linked to.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Yay!!!!! You can prove a place exsists now that used to exsist a long time ago. Congratulations. Now if only someone could prove Jesus as well, now that would really be something.


Dejavu...

Can someone help MorningStar8741 get the point? Anyone?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join