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: 43
27
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
"When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Why do you need proof? What's the point? Would you live your life differently if you had indisputable proof?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


I swear, the next person who accuses me of 'missing the point' is getting put on ignore. lol

No, I understood your point and even said 'I DO agree.' Christians are called to a higher standard- I firmly believe that. Christians were not the ones calling other member 'idiot' in this thread. But your comment's implication was something that always bothered/offended me back before I accepted Christ. As if I couldn't be a good person or had no moral standards if I didn't believe in God. THAT is what I was getting at. I understood what you meant but said I wasn't going to get into that with you.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
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.


I did NOT miss the point and already explained it to you. I am two seconds away from giving up on this conversation because you are not listening to anything that is stated. I already explained this to you.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13

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).


you're missing my point. if the majority of historians were atheists, then you wuold have a valid point. but they're not. i would imagine its the same percentage of christian/non christian in historians as the general public.

my point is, your claim doesn't take into account that most of these historians are also christians.

i don't want to see other peopel making the same claim as you, i want to see poll results or something. i accept its probably true, since most english-speaking historians are also christian and so have a vested belief in the man.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
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.


Nope. I do believe there are some problems/arguments concerning a world wide flood. However, the objections taken from those ex quotes were so silly and contained none of the 'tough' ones. Again, there are some objections that I wouldn't even know how to answer and on which I disagree with flood geologists or at least find their explanation lacking or stretched (like hydraulic sorting). So please don't accuse me of dodging anything again. If that were the case, I'd be totally ignoring you.


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.


Many bones survived- not just dinosaur. How on earth does this contradict the flood account when many flood geologists even believe the massive fossils are actually evidence of a world wide catastrophe? So my theory makes no sense but you believe flesh can survive a year in water? Or what would be more likely to be the remains? Bones. There are fossils of both bones and 'as is' fossils. Bone fossils are not a contradiction but would be very, very likely. I would be more concerned if there were not bone fossils. Then with the fossils that were not already caused by the flood but already in existence- if plants could survive (see below) then I do not see why current fossils would not have.


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.


Nothing to support micro? 'All' evidence we have shows it takes millions of years for adaptations? This is absolutely false (more below). There tons of experiments that show very quick micro/adaptations.


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


LOL! Back at the 'you didn't answer because you didn't know' routine. No, it was because it was so silly. I simply don't see how short lived species would have posed any problem on the ark, especially the species you used as an example and the problem they faced- water. As if there was any shortage of water at this time.


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.


Not going to deny or dodge. That all seems like adaptations to me but you claim 'ALL' micro takes 'millions of years' (scientifically false) so there is no answer you would accept. Heck, evolutionists even try to dodge the Cambrian problem by saying MACRO even sped up during that age to account for the explosion of complex creatures in the fossil record.


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


Me dodge? You are the one who asks a question, gets an answer, then almost as a self defense mechanism just asks more questions- sometimes even the same question after it has already been answered. Sorry, no dice. Noah surely would have taken food supply on the ark and due to the fact a dove came back with an olive branch, that shows me plants were not totally destroyed on the earth and that it was not the case of there being nothing to eat.


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.


Chronology? Sorry, that poses absolutely no contradiction to the flood account especially since it seems obvious many plant species survived the flood. The oldest existing tree appears post flood but you are pointing out a chronology. However, we believe the chronology. We believe the chronology of trees, plants, and animals. We believe they date back to the pre flood era so this objection is silly. There was not another sudden creation- of course they have ancestral roots and can be traced back.

Hope that helps somewhat. In my opinion there are some actual objections to a world wide flood but the above truly poses no problem.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I wonder how many who are not convinced that Jesus existed, ARE convinced that Nero existed?? Do you need some evidence that Nero existed?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
I wonder how many who are not convinced that Jesus existed, ARE convinced that Nero existed?? Do you need some evidence that Nero existed?


yes, i'd need some evidence that nero existed. there are similar problems with nero, no contemproary historical writings about nero that date from less than 50 years after his death.

we do, however, have coins with him on it dating to the period he was supposed to have reigned. we also have inscriptions with his name on it dating to the same, contemporary, period.

anything like that with jesus would be proof enough, for me anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Convex
 


Well are you or aren't you convinced that Nero existed?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by Convex
 


Well are you or aren't you convinced that Nero existed?


yes, i am. we have contemporary evidence that supports it including his image on coins from that time, inscriptions dating to the same period, etc. that constitutes evidence.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I haven't had a chance to read this yet so will wait on comments, but it looks very very interesting. I would challenge others to read this and comment.

mb-soft.com...

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by Convex
 


Well are you or aren't you convinced that Nero existed?


yes, i am. we have contemporary evidence that supports it including his image on coins from that time, inscriptions dating to the same period, etc. that constitutes evidence.


Oh GEEZ. C'mon. So, just because an image of someone is on a coin, that person DID exist? So what about the statues of greek gods? Does that mean they existed? On the other hand, tons of documents, many historians from the time, martys by the thousands, the world being changed for all time, due to Jesus isn't enough for you? Convex you are painting yourself into a corner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most despicable manifestations of human flesh ever to disgrace this planet was Nero Claudius Caesar. Born in A.D. 37, Nero was educated at the feet of the philosopher Seneca (whom he eventually forced to commit suicide). Nero murdered his way to the imperial throne, which he occupied from A.D. 54-68. His life was characterized by debauchery, violence (he caused his own mother to be killed), and extravagance.

In A.D. 64, a terrible fire broke out in Rome. It was strongly believed that Nero deliberately torched the city in order to justify building a more splendid one. At any rate, the conflagration raged out of control for more than a week, substantially destroying about 70% of the area. As a consequence of this tragedy, and the widespread belief in Nero’s complicity, the emperor became the brunt of intense criticism. The ruler seized upon a plan. Due to the fact that Roman sentiment was hostile toward Christianity, the emperor would blame the followers of Jesus for this crime. Thus did he, and in A.D. 64, a fierce persecution was launched against the saints in Rome.

www.christiancourier.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Convex, why don't you campaign to have all the historical textbooks replace the word "Jesus Christ" with "Joe Blow"?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

Oh GEEZ. C'mon. So, just because an image of someone is on a coin, that person DID exist? So what about the statues of greek gods? Does that mean they existed?


yes, it does. without the coins and the inscriptions we would only have a bunch of historians writing 50 years later who claimed he existed as a living being, who did specific non-supernatural things in the country they lived in.

without the contemporary evidence we're left with the same lack as with jesus.

if we had the same evidence of a historical Zeus (lots of documents from 100 years after he was supposed to have lived and died AND contemporary evidence of writers, artisans, etc mentioning him as still living) i would believe he existed too.

i probably wouldn't believe all the god-like abilities though.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Convex, why don't you campaign to have all the historical textbooks replace the word "Jesus Christ" with "Joe Blow"?


?? why would i do that? im fact i believe there was a historical jesus. i just acknowledge the lack of evidence. it doesn't shake my beliefs, unlike many people on this thread.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I did NOT miss the point and already explained it to you. I am two seconds away from giving up on this conversation because you are not listening to anything that is stated. I already explained this to you.


I am listening.
You said:


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.


So you pretty much just whisk it away by saying that the continents didn't form till after the flood.

Then, at the end of my statement, I said:


Originally posted by AshleyD
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.


What I'm saying is that, if I wanted to, I could make up a theory for why the sky is blue with no factual evidence whatsoever. The sky is blue because the light from venus refracts off the moon and illuminates the sky to give a blueish glow. Now you are saying "What the Heck?". This is how I view your arguments on how these things could have been. You simply create something to support the story, but you have nothing to support the explanation.

You think that the Earth was one big continent during this time and that's how the animals got where they are today. Fine. Do you have anything to back this claim? Because it is widely considered a fact that continental drift has been happening for millions of years. To state that continental drift happened in a period of hundreds of years or less (which seems to be what you suggest), is ludacris if you have any understanding of plate tectonics. I have to agree with the experts on this one.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Bombeni

Oh GEEZ. C'mon. So, just because an image of someone is on a coin, that person DID exist? So what about the statues of greek gods? Does that mean they existed?


yes, it does. without the coins and the inscriptions we would only have a bunch of historians writing 50 years later who claimed he existed as a living being, who did specific non-supernatural things in the country they lived in.

without the contemporary evidence we're left with the same lack as with jesus.

if we had the same evidence of a historical Zeus (lots of documents from 100 years after he was supposed to have lived and died AND contemporary evidence of writers, artisans, etc mentioning him as still living) i would believe he existed too.

i probably wouldn't believe all the god-like abilities though.


What are you talking about man??? Those coins are couple thousand years old. How can you say today that they weren't cast in the image of the coin-makers son? You are saying the only dif between proof of Jesus and proof of Nero is a coin??? But of course the shroud is phony. The letters and written docs of historians from that time are phony. Let's see you get out of this one.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
I haven't had a chance to read this yet so will wait on comments, but it looks very very interesting. I would challenge others to read this and comment.

mb-soft.com...


its from the text appendix of the acts of pilate, a known forgery that dates no earlier than the middle ages.

what about it exactly is relevant to this thread?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by Bombeni
Convex, why don't you campaign to have all the historical textbooks replace the word "Jesus Christ" with "Joe Blow"?


?? why would i do that? im fact i believe there was a historical jesus. i just acknowledge the lack of evidence. it doesn't shake my beliefs, unlike many people on this thread.


Now you've really lost me. Did you ever have a dog in this fight or what?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
You are saying the only dif between proof of Jesus and proof of Nero is a coin??? But of course the shroud is phony. The letters and written docs of historians from that time are phony. Let's see you get out of this one.


you're grasping here.

both jesus and nero have historians writing about them as real, existing people a hundred or so years after they were supposed to have died and no documents from the time they lived. that alone isn't direct evidence, you're right. i never said they were phony, just not direct evidence.

but from nero's time we have nero's name and face on coins and inscriptions to nero dating from the time of his life. this IS contemporary evidence, yes. i don't understand why this is so shocking to you. if we had the same for jesus, that would be proof enough.

what's the shocking thing about this? its what we've been saying for 30+ pages on this thread!!!



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join