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: 42
27
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
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]


I know it sounds hypocritical to you but you need to understand something. Only the people claiming to prove God exsists need to play nice. If I say that you are wrong, there is no God, it is ok to be evil because I have noone to answer to later on, then I can call you idiot or whatever I want without tearing apart my point. But anyone that claims they want to prove this being of purity and love exsists, well then using insults and derrision does not exactly coincide with the being you claim to be proving so the argument itself falls apart. I can worship satan or anyone else and be a jerk and still not have it take away from my point. But what is the desire to prove this god? Because he is perfect and wants us all to know his love and truth right? What a good way to prove and spread that love by being an ass right? You do see the difference between someone who claims this god as their argument of choice and someone who is not bound by such rules as to prove the all-loving god, don't you?




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Ugh! This is all stuff I have answered A MILLION times in relevant threads where it was actually on topic in the O&C forum. I'm trying to be nice and respond to everything that is addressed to me but being bombarded with things that have already been answered, are already in their proper forum, and external quotes instead of someone's own words is getting tiring. This is always the way religious threads turn out. You discuss Jesus' divinity and end up discussing the flood, The Old Testament Law, evolution, prophecy, the pagan copy cat hypothesis, etc. I'm not mad- just frustrated. This happens every time and you answer one question to have the answer totally ignored but to be met with 10 more questions to take its place.

The penguin argument (There actually ARE penguins that live in temperate and tropical climates), animals spreading out world wide, plants, getting over the ocean (even though the Bible mentions the land was separated after the flood), the length of time it took Noah to collect the animals, etc. Then we have to resort to the 'fairy tale' insult. Dude, I think I scored black out on my Bingo card from this thread alone. All of your questions are answered in the Bible, in this thread, threads in the O&C forum, or by microevolution.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


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.


If enough water were to come from inside the earth to completely flood it in order to supplement the available surface water, the displacement of mass above the newly emptied out areas would cause the earth to crumble upon itself. It does not jive, it is the perfect "add this so it makes more sense, ok now add this, hmmm that doesnt work, oh add this part, the bible doesnt explain that...i know add this to the story...." Doesnt work that way.

This entire argument keeps changing to better support it's defenses. It was a local flood, well the bible says it was the whole planet, well it was cuz of this, the bible says no, well it was this then. I cannot even believe you all have not just given up on this fairy tale by now but ok, I will help.

How many species of insect are known on the planet. How many new ones are discovered each day. If the only thing that Noah was doing was bug collecting with no sleep or eating or boat making, how long would it physically take him to gather up each of these insects as well as the sustanence each would need to last 40 days?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


hehe Yes I would say that sounds hypocritical BUT I won't worry about getting into it with you. You are entitled to that assessment and I DO agree with you. IMO, what you just said would seem more insulting to an atheist than a Christian or other religious person. What you also basically implied even if you were not aware of it was that religious people have higher standards for themselves while atheists can act like wild animals and toss all civility and 'goodness' aside just because they can get away with it.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Ok guys, it's after midnight, Hubby is calling me to bed, and I am getting argument gang banged by three different members in the same thread and don't have time or energy to keep up ATM. See you guys tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I believe you do not understand some of the problems concerning a flood. Your answers leave much to be desired, or dodge the question all together.



Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


Yet somehow the dinasaur bones survived, huh? Your theory makes no sense. The flood then should have left no record of dinasaurs, especially since they were here far before the flood.


Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


The argument is not that all the species survived to this day. The argument is that there are several species that could not have survived given a flood scenario, which ARE here today. Also, there is absolutely nothing to support microevolution. All the evidence that we have for evolution shows that it takes millions of years for such adaptations. There is evidence for this.


Originally posted by AshleyD
5). Short lived species. Is this website owner for real?


I guess you couldn't come up with anything for this one. There is no answer because the flood did not happen.


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


Again, the argument is not that all the fish survived, it is that if there WAS a flood, then many fish would NOT be here today, due to the mixing of fresh water and salt water as whole. You can not deny this fact, you can only dodge it.


Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


Again, this is not the argument. The argument is that we have plants here today that would NOT have survived such an event. If the flood was real, then these plants would not have survived.


Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


But in the mean time, the animals that require plants to live survived by what means? Again, you dodge the argument.


Originally posted by AshleyD
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.



Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers).[1][2] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[3] Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.


en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


Silly? Then you should be able to disprove them with more than just assumption. Misleading? Then they would not be stating facts.

I really do not wish to continue this pointless debate. Those that look at facts will see the points I make and those that believe the Bible to be the word of God will believe what the Bible states, regardless of facts.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
The penguin argument (There actually ARE penguins that live in temperate and tropical climates), animals spreading out world wide, plants, getting over the ocean (even though the Bible mentions the land was separated after the flood), the length of time it took Noah to collect the animals, etc. Then we have to resort to the 'fairy tale' insult. Dude, I think I scored black out on my Bingo card from this thread alone. All of your questions are answered in the Bible, in this thread, threads in the O&C forum, or by microevolution.


I know that some penguins live in temperate and tropical climates. Again you miss the point I was making. There are penguins in the south. They did not teleport there. So then we can assume that they made a journey from Mount Ararat to southern regions. The problem is that they could not have swam across the ocean. They are not the only animals that have this problem, as mentioned in my previous post. I'm SURE you have your own theory about how this could have been. However, there is no logical bases for any assumptions that 'support' the story of Noah.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

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


You won't see it. Even if you tried. Even if Jesus walked up to you and gave it to you himself. You have closed your mind and it appears many remain that way. So you just sit there and wait



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


hehe Yes I would say that sounds hypocritical BUT I won't worry about getting into it with you. You are entitled to that assessment and I DO agree with you. IMO, what you just said would seem more insulting to an atheist than a Christian or other religious person. What you also basically implied even if you were not aware of it was that religious people have higher standards for themselves while atheists can act like wild animals and toss all civility and 'goodness' aside just because they can get away with it.


Apparently you missed the point altogether. I am not saying it is ok for either sde to act like an ass. I am simply stating that an atheist being an ass does not belie his point. A christian being an ass, DOES. It has nothing to do with higher and lower standards. I am simply stating that if I want to argue that there is no goodly god and no precious heaven, that even if I am less than civil about it, that does nothing to detract from my argument. But for someone to angrily and hatefully try to prove this perfect being of love, well that is just plain silly.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


If you want a full and detailed account of the ENTIRE LIFE OF JESUS, then look in the urantia book...his entire life from birth -death is in there, even the stuff that was not in the bible...

urantiabook.org...

www.urantia.org...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

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


You won't see it. Even if you tried. Even if Jesus walked up to you and gave it to you himself. You have closed your mind and it appears many remain that way. So you just sit there and wait


Can you get Jesuss to come to my place? That would totally do it for me. I am not closed minded at all. If Jesus were to appear and do one cool trick, not a chris angel, david blaine trick either, I mean a really cool one like rasing the dead. I would believe in a second. It is amazing how some of you can say, "Look here is proof of Jesus. This lake was written about in the bible so it must all be true. What, that is not good enough? Well then even if God came and washed your car with his magic you would not believe."

That is quite a leap in logic my friend. If you do not see the vast grey area between the historical account of an actual body of water and Jesus coming to my home, then that explains why it would be pointless to carry on with you any farther.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Can you get Jesuss to come to my place? That would totally do it for me. I am not closed minded at all. If Jesus were to appear and do one cool trick...


That figures.

Here you are referring to him as someone who will just pop over and do "tricks" then you will believe? Like what trick? Play Frisbee - run and catch it? Or more like um, fetch with a ball? Perhaps you could train him to do other cool stuff huh?

Do all you dudes go to the same school?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Everything I have had to say on the subject was stated HERE.


even though you could have simply posted the URL in this thread, i went and tracked it down.

there is not much new there that wasn't in this thread, but i'll bite.

pliny, josephus,
talked to existing chrisitans proving only that the belief system was in place by that time. same for clements and ignatius who were early christians (obviously). there's no doubt that christians existed at that time and they all probably believed the story of jesus. this really isn't under dispute as far as i know.

tacitus was discussed above in this thread. again, not a contemporay of jesus possibly using pliny or josephus as his source (both put pilate in the wrong rank). if he used a document as a source, we don't have any document. plus early christians in mentioning christian related materials don't mention him, which possibly means that section of annals (unfinished when he died) might have been added later.

thallus was talking abuot EVENTS in the bible, not jesus directly.

BAR-SERAPION's and the talmud's passages are too ambiguious to be relevent.

i consider the bible sources as more important than any of the above.


however JUSTIN MARTYR is the most interesting citing and i hadn't heard of him before. he speaks of a document (according to your web page) that he presumably has seen which registered the birth of jesus.

this gives us hope that such a document will turn up, although no other sources as far as i know cite it.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

P.S. Also explain how 3 single men repopulate anything.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by MorningStar8741]


PS, there were 8 people on the Ark.
Noah+Wife
3 sons
3 sons wifes




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

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.


Thanks for answering! you can believe what you want about the existence of Jesus. but the historical consensus is that he indeed did exist. How many people on this forum are first rank historians?
im guessing not many. Im not one, im sayign that right now



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
the historical consensus is that he indeed did exist.


first of all, please present a source.

second, how can you seperate a historical perspective and a personal religious belief? many historians are christians, tand they, like you, will "believe" he existed despite the lack of evidence of his existence.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

Can someone help MorningStar8741 get the point? Anyone?


nope, seems like no one can. we all apparently believe you were stating that because a person described actual places that it "proves" everything else they said.

if that isn't what you meant, you'll have to climb down and tell us what you actually meant in simple terms so all us simpletons can understand.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Boywonder13
the historical consensus is that he indeed did exist.


first of all, please present a source.



"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." - Robert E. Van Voorst "Jesus outside the New Testament"

"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. " - Graham Stanton (chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University)

"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man. " - Secular Historian, Micheal Grant.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Boywonder13
the historical consensus is that he indeed did exist.


second, how can you seperate a historical perspective and a personal religious belief? many historians are christians, tand they, like you, will "believe" he existed despite the lack of evidence of his existence.



I could say the same for atheists,skeptics,. They will "believe" he didnt exist, because God doesnt exist or, i dont like Christians, or it seems like fairy tale, or just want to discredit christianity (as seen in the silly Horus similarities that have circulated the internet).

Skeptics, and atheists have biases also.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Double Post


[edit on 18-9-2008 by Boywonder13]




top topics



 
27
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join