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: 45
27
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


It's a spiritual battle, IMO.




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
There are enough documents from His time, and documents written by people who actually KNEW Him on a personal level, to sink a battleship.


please point me to them. i haven't seen them yet on this thread.

the closes mentioned is Paul and he only met jesus "after" his death.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Convex]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Just want to add this before I have to go: Why is it, Jesus Christ is the only historical person that anyone, ANYONE, questions existing ?? People don't question Nero, Hitler, Pilate, Caesar, George Washington, Jack The Ripper --- just sweet, kind, merciful, loving, generous, Jesus.


didn't we just discuss nero? don't we have video of hitler? i think there is more than enough evidence of washington's existence including contemporary documents and stuff actually written BY HIM.

jack the ripper is a fictional name, but someone killed all those whores.

jesus happens to be the only one amongst those you listed who don't have any direct evidence of his existence.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

It's a spiritual battle, IMO.


with no leg to stand on, you would HAVE to believe that wouldn't you?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bombeni
There are enough documents from His time,


There are NO contemporary documents which mention Jesus.



Originally posted by Bombeni
and documents written by people who actually KNEW Him on a personal level, to sink a battleship.


There are NO documents written by anyone who ever met Jesus.


Kapyong



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
OK, I'll admit that I have NOT read all 45 pages of this thread, so if this is a repeat, I apologize. I'm about to PO both sides of this argument. There is evidence of Jesus' existance! They found his tomb, and his remains, outside of Jerusalem under an apartment building back in 1988 I believe. The family tomb contained, among others, his mother, his wife, Mara of Magdela (Mary Magdeline), his brother, James, and his 12 (aprox.) year old son. Although, due to Jewish tradition, the remains were reburied in an unmarked grave outside of Jerusalem, the ossuaries (bone boxes) are in the custody of the Israeli Department of Antiquities. James Cameron produced a documentary about this, for which he was villified, and the Christian Right made sure that it fell into obscurity. It is still available, for any with a truly open mind who are interested in checking it out and making up their own minds on the subject. Here's a link to the Official Site:

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

OK, Christian Soldiers, tear me apart, like Lions at the Collesium!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Convex
 


I wouldn't 'HAVE' to but I do. For various Biblical and observational reasons. In some cases I believe there are honest truth searches wanting to get to the bottom of things and on the other hand it appears that some willfully deny His existence for comfort's sake. You don't have to agree but that is my conclusion on the matter. I'll be happy to expound on my line of reasoning if you wish. I can back it up somewhat- it's not pulled out of my behind. Promise.


[edit on 9/18/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

In some cases I believe there are honest truth searches wanting to get to the bottom of things and on the other hand it appears that some willfully deny His existence for comfort's sake.


agreed. the problem comes into play when you think you can tell the difference based on tone of a text post. i've been labelled a skeptic in this thread several times, even after saying i believe jesus existed. there is a stink of desperation on them when that happens.

in order to tell the difference between the two types you list a person has to let go of their knee-jerk reactions to their beliefs being questioned.

you will find very few "honest truth seekers" on the other side of the coin, by the way.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
There is evidence of Jesus' existance! They found his tomb, and his remains, outside of Jerusalem under an apartment building back in 1988 I believe. The family tomb contained, among others, his mother, his wife, Mara of Magdela (Mary Magdeline), his brother, James, and his 12 (aprox.) year old son. Although, due to Jewish tradition, the remains were reburied in an unmarked grave outside of Jerusalem, the ossuaries (bone boxes) are in the custody of the Israeli Department of Antiquities. James Cameron produced a documentary about this, for which he was villified, and the Christian Right made sure that it fell into obscurity. It is still available, for any with a truly open mind who are interested in checking it out and making up their own minds on the subject. Here's a link to the Official Site:
The Lost Tomb of Jesus
OK, Christian Soldiers, tear me apart, like Lions at the Collesium!


It's a great TV show.

But archeologists and historians do NOT agree.


Kapyong.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Really? I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, btw. Got a source I can check out?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex
agreed. the problem comes into play when you think you can tell the difference based on tone of a text post.


My scope was extended past what I see on this thread or even ATS when dealing with this subject. What I specifically had in mind were the 'scholars' of the Murdoch and Graves ilk who blatantly lie about the facts, evidence, and origins. Although surely it applies to some ATS members too but I can't be the judge of that. It's definitely a perception I get, though.


you will find very few "honest truth seekers" on the other side of the coin, by the way.


I can totally agree with that.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Really? I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, btw. Got a source I can check out?


LOL. I was going to ignore your post since you accused me of being a close minded Christian on another thread but since you asked, here is something I accidentally found the other day while looking for information regarding the ongoing thread about the Lazarus and company tomb:

www.tektonics.org...

Of course there are more but that is one I stumbled upon and knew where to find it. Yes, that tomb was pretty much debunked.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Convex it wouldn't matter. You won't accept the shroud which I don't know either if it is Him, but what, from 2,000 years ago could possibly change the mind of a non-believer?? You are saying a coin, a picture, a paper maybe with the alleged signature of Jesus, any of these things would change you from a non-believer to a believer??


It really wouldn't take much for me to believe. If there was just one person, just ONE person, that wrote about Jesus during the time he lived, then that would be infinitely more historically believable than the gospels. The fact is that we do NOT have a concrete record of the man. If there was even one scribe that wrote a letter to another saying something to the effect of "Beware, this guy Jesus is brainwashing the people, and he will be in your town next, he could cause an uprising." or anything to that effect, I would have no reason to doubt it. I don't know what else to say. It's fine for you to believe in Jesus, and I can never take away your faith. I just don't understand why Christians think that all people should accept Jesus as fact when we really have no historical record of him. Accept him on faith or accept him because you believe the gospels are accurate, but do not expect all to do the same. I'm not ignorant, I've looked into all the arguments I've seen presented and none of them are evidence for a historical Jesus.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I am only in search of the truth, no matter if it opposes my beliefs or not. I always have an open mind.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni
Just want to add this before I have to go: Why is it, Jesus Christ is the only historical person that anyone, ANYONE, questions existing ?? People don't question Nero, Hitler, Pilate, Caesar, George Washington, Jack The Ripper --- just sweet, kind, merciful, loving, generous, Jesus.

Well it's been real.


That's not at all true. Historians question the existence of Robin Hood for example. From what I understand, his situation is similar to Jesus'. We have a story, but no real evidence to back it.
Ever hear of King Arthur? His existence is also widely debated.
I've heard your perspective from just about every Christian debating in this and other threads. You've been raised, through Christianity, to believe that if someone questions your faith that it is some kind of personal attack. The reason the subject of Jesus' existence is so heated is because, unlike Robin Hood or King Arthur, people believe he was the son of God and believe he did miracles.
Take King Arthur. Many people believe he was a real person, yet NO ONE (that I've seen) buys into the magic/fairy tale elements. Jesus, on the other hand, is a completely different story, as the whole BASES for his story IS the supernatural elements, and many who believe in Jesus also believe in this.
Take it for what you will, but it is no personal attack or an attack on your faith. We both have the same goal. We both come here to present the truth as we see it.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
what about that first century tomb of christians found?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

isnt that closer evidence that jesus existed?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparksgordon
what about that first century tomb of christians found?


we covered this one page before this one. in my opinion its only (maybe) proof that christians existed that early.

i say maybe because all we really have is a name and a cross symbol etching. the name was so common (even with son of joseph being 1 in 790 or 1 in 70 for the period according to some estimates) all we're left with is a cross of indeterminate age and meaning. the cross wasn't really used by christians until the 2nd century, the fish was used instead. however the cross predates christianity in other uses.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


After looking at the link you provided, I'd have to say that although there are some points that need further investigation, some just don't hold true. One of the points the author makes is that "I would also relate this to the point that Jesus' family would not be buried in Jerusalem, but in Galilee." I used Google Earth and was able to determine that the distance is too great for Jesus to be entombed in Galilee or Nazareth, as it would have taken three days to get the body to the site of the tomb. Also, the passage in Matthew 27 concerning the entombment of Jesus suggests that he was entombed the day of his death, as per Jewish tradition. Tradition of that time required burial by sunset. Also, his father's (Joseph) family was from Bethlehem, not Galilee. I would have to say that both Jacobovici and Holding are both coming from a baised point of view, and the validity of this find needs to be verified by someone with no bias on the subject, which would be difficult.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by AshleyD
 


After looking at the link you provided, I'd have to say that although there are some points that need further investigation, some just don't hold true. One of the points the author makes is that "I would also relate this to the point that Jesus' family would not be buried in Jerusalem, but in Galilee." I used Google Earth and was able to determine that the distance is too great for Jesus to be entombed in Galilee or Nazareth, as it would have taken three days to get the body to the site of the tomb. Also, the passage in Matthew 27 concerning the entombment of Jesus suggests that he was entombed the day of his death, as per Jewish tradition. Tradition of that time required burial by sunset. Also, his father's (Joseph) family was from Bethlehem, not Galilee. I would have to say that both Jacobovici and Holding are both coming from a baised point of view, and the validity of this find needs to be verified by someone with no bias on the subject, which would be difficult.



Jesus didnt have a tomb...well he did but he came back to life.
i wasnt suggesting that that was jesus' tomb. its just some christ followers. but dont you think they could have bore whitness to jesus' crucifiction?? i mean mabye these where the first people to use the cross as the symbol?

sorry about spelling



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparksgordon
Jesus didnt have a tomb...well he did but he came back to life.
i wasnt suggesting that that was jesus' tomb. its just some christ followers. but dont you think they could have bore whitness to jesus' crucifiction?? i mean mabye these where the first people to use the cross as the symbol?


there are two different tombs being discussed in the last 3 pages. this is what happens when you only read the last page of a 40+ page thread. the discussion you quoted above is about the suppoed tomb of jesus' family, that the james cameron documentary made famous.

my response was to your "early christian" tomb.




top topics



 
27
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join