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: 46
27
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
yea no need to be a prick about it




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Hey, Hon. I think what he is trying to get at (but I am not sure) is that if Jesus really was married and had children the the whole family would have been buried in Galilee- not Jerusalem and not just Jesus. As in, this whole scenario would obviously contradict the Gospel accounts so what the Gospel accounts say would be irrelevant regarding contradictions to this supposed family tomb. It wasn't just Jesus in this case but His entire family so they would have all been buried in Galilee eventually. Just speculation, of course. There are many other links debunking this story but that is just the one I knew off the top of my head. Hope that helps.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Like I said, both sides seem to have a bias on the subject. It needs to be studied by someone other than a Christian or an aethiest. Maybe a Buddist? LOL! I am actually of the mind that the historical evidence for both sides of such a topic will never be conclusive. Just for the record, I do not dispute the existance of Jesus, but do have doubts as to his Divinity, for various reasons.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Just for the record, I do not dispute the existance of Jesus, but do have doubts as to his Divinity, for various reasons.


I can totally respect that. Disagree, of course, but that is respectable.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
"As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]"

This is silly. Of course none of the originals exist. This is common in the world of ancient documents.

Do you doubt Homer wrote the Illiad? There is a 400 year time gap between when it was written and the earliest copy we have. There are only about 600 copies in existence.

How about commentaries on the Gallic wars by Caesar? There is a 1000 year time gap and only 10 copies.

How about the Annals by Tacitus? Another 1000 year time gap and only 20 copies.

The earliest copies of New Testament documents have a much shorter time gap (15-45 years) and many more copies (> 5000).



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
It's a great TV show.
But archeologists and historians do NOT agree.
Kapyong.


Not everyone will agree to anything! If you say to 10 people "if i shoot you in the foot it will hurt!" and they say "NOPE - it won't" So you shoot them all in the foot, at least one will want to save face and ego and say "NOPE, it didn't hurt" but he will be saying the following to himself "FFF^$%*&%#^%#&^%$#&"...

That's how humans work.


On March 28, 1980, a construction crew developing an apartment complex in Talpiot, Jerusalem, uncovered a tomb, which archaeologists from the Israeli Antiquities Authority excavated shortly thereafter. Archaeologist Shimon Gibson surveyed the site and drew a layout plan. Scholar L.Y. Rahmani later published "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries" that described 10 ossuaries, or limestone bone boxes, found in the tomb. Scholars know that from 30 B.C. to 70 A.D., many people in Jerusalem would first wrap bodies in shrouds after death. The bodies were then placed in carved rock tombs, where they decomposed for a year before the bones were placed in an ossuary. Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

more...

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah. The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.


Which equated to:

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.


That's not bad odds is it? so basically the chances of it being authentic is 99.83%. That's pretty good really.

Now, where are those people who want to be shot in the foot?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


Eloquently said. Where did you find that source?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by shearder
 


Eloquently said. Where did you find that source?


I have quite a lot of evidence of different bible related "stuff".

This, in particular, can be found here: Link



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I don't even doubt Jesus existed, only I don't think he's the one who was portatrayed to be by some Christians. I think his existence is not less historicaly than Julius Cesar, exempli gratia. However, there's also to say many sources are biased and, besides, Jesus' character seems to be a response to other religions: I mean, he's not the only "God/Man" to be said to have been born without his parents making love, and he's not the only one to claim he's the Son of God(besides, there should be a topic about it, too: I don't think the phrase "Son of God" should be taken literally).



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder

This, in particular, can be found here: Link


i don't think we can count a discover channel tv guide entry as a source....

this is an interesting find in that those who believe, if they accept this tomb as proof that jesus lived, they also have to accept a humanized of jesus, complete with wife and son.

that's why, in 40 pages of thread no one on the religious side tried to use this as evidence even when there seems to be no other evidence.

the discovery channel description aside, i remember watching the show and coming away with the odds being skewed on the other side by the end of it.

you have to believe that the missing ossuary was labelled james, yuo have to believe mary magdelene's real name is maryamne and that jose is the name of jesus' other brother. and that jesus had a son.

the diagram of the way they were all laid out int he tomb has gone missing.

jesus, son of joseph is the only thing concrete. two of the most common names from that period.

there are 92 sources at the bottom of the wiki page.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Do you doubt Homer wrote the Illiad? There is a 400 year time gap between when it was written and the earliest copy we have. There are only about 600 copies in existence.


i don't doubt that SOMEONE wrote down the illiad in published form. but yes, there is dispute that it was created by a single person. it may have had multiple sources and been orally passed down for generations before.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Convex
 


You miss an even bigger point than having to accept a 'humanized' Jesus. They would also have to accept that he did not rise from the dead and accend into 'Heaven', as his bones were in his ossuary.

ED. This would call into question his divinity.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Convex
 


You miss an even bigger point than having to accept a 'humanized' Jesus. They would also have to accept that he did not rise from the dead and accend into 'Heaven', as his bones were in his ossuary.

ED. This would call into question his divinity.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]


I guess much would be called into question. But, the fact that they say it will open a new chapter is very possibly what would stop this in its track. I am Catholic but still have an open mind!!

To Convex:
Take it as you want. You are going to anyway. You can question any site you want. The fact thet the evidence exists is fact. Regardless. Do some homework - find some other sources with this info. They do exist.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Jesus AlexG, you got brass.

I didn't have the balls to take on Jesus for the fear of the religious coming down on me like a ton of holy faeces.

Yea, I read that same article ages ago and found it a good read.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Convex
i don't think we can count a discover channel tv guide entry as a source....


There would the those that would present that the internet itself isnt a source either.

One thing is for sure, long after any opinion by any mortal man in this thread or otherwise is typed or uttered; the Words of Jesus will live on forever.

The Word made flesh, 12 men with a testimony, a crucifixion and a resurrection. A yoke of a way of life, that relieves burden upon ones fellow man, and upon ones own self.

The rise of Christianity has overcome, persecution, heated objection, adverse Dogma, horrific injustice, and unbelievers, for 2 thousand years.
From before the time of Abraham, to the to present time unseen and beyond.


"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore"

Jesus Christ


Peace




[edit on 20-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


Can you prove that? Because otherwise, it's just hearsay, and only supports the title of the thread.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 



Sure he can! It say's so in the Bible! LOL!



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Can you prove that? Because otherwise, it's just hearsay, and only supports the title of the thread.


By definition:

Hearsay: 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

I bring you witness to the existence of Jesus Christ. I did not come to understand what I know from a biblical or textual source, nor human conveyance. It was through direct interaction.

It is part of my direct knowledge and therefore does not qualify as hearsay.

Peace


[edit on 20-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


You left out unprovable, which is what your statement is!



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
You left out unprovable, which is what your statement is!


I dont see the word unprovable..It says hearsay.

peace

[edit on 20-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join