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: 51
27
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Dunno, they defeated death. Maybe they should've tried to defeat gravity to. You would think that doing so would be easier than overcoming death but they managed that so..


Hmmm...who defeated death? Not too sure I follow. Is this a biblical reference?

J.




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


The zombies. I was still talking about mat 27:52, responding to your public transport comment.

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Hmmm...who defeated death? Not too sure I follow. Is this a biblical reference?
J.

Aren't there 'people' mentioned in the bible that have ages of 800 years and so?

So...Why aren't we getting 800 years old?

I guess this is what he means...



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kcire
So...Why aren't we getting 800 years old?


Because there was a canopy of water 'orbiting' our Earth or above our atmoshpere, if you will.
This contributed to the flood and also shut out the harmful sun rays which make us die so fast.
No, I did not make this up - many people believe it.

You see, these zombies found a way to restore this layer of water, thereby shutting out the rays which are harmful to the dead. However, the water fell moments later, thus killing off these deadly zombies one last time.

Ok, I made this one up.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


sorry I didn't read you're post because the title means nothing to me. why is that? Because until YOU personally have an experience you'll always be a skeptic regardless of the amount of reading involved or 'data' gathered.

I for one have personally SEEN the scars our LORD on his back. How is that possible you ask??

Simple, it was in a time I was going to take my own life due to clinical deep depression.

U2U me and get the whole story if you're really searching and serious.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


The thing about personal experiences is that they only have meaning to those who experience them.
U2U me and I'll give you personal experiences of Zeus.
But I'm sure you wouldn't care about the experiences that don't verify your belief. You only care about the experiences that do verify your belief.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


sorry I didn't read you're post because the title means nothing to me. why is that? Because until YOU personally have an experience you'll always be a skeptic regardless of the amount of reading involved or 'data' gathered.

I for one have personally SEEN the scars our LORD on his back. How is that possible you ask??

Simple, it was in a time I was going to take my own life due to clinical deep depression.

U2U me and get the whole story if you're really searching and serious.



I commend you for going out on a limb and mentioning your experience which included one of the human senses (sight). I too have had a couple of experiences, which involved sight, touch and hearing, which solidified my belief in God. But these are just stories to those who don't believe, that is why I would never put my experiences out there for the masses to feed on; they are too special to be mocked and it wouldn't change one person's mind anyway.

It's like trying to convince a scientist that you can catch a cold by exposure to cold damp elements; they will argue endlessly that you can't catch a cold this way, because it is a virus.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Not sure about anybody else around here, but if many different manuscripts from over 1500 years ago all made mention of the same person surrounded by the same events, I would have logically conclude that that person existed. The details of that existence might be up for debate, but you quite nicely shown solid eveidence of why it is more rational to believe a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago.


lol, funny how none of them were around the time of his supposed existence huh??? It wasn't until many years after Jesus Christ's supposed death that anything was written about him. Again, the link goes into great detail about that. In fact, I suggest you read that link, because I am sure whatever argument you try to use has already been refuted in that link


You state that NO ONE wrote about him during his life time but acknowledge that the Christians were an arrow in the heel so to speak of the Romans.

Let's see, the main things that survived were the writings of the followers of Christ and for the first 200 years or so, they had to worship practically in secret to avoid being attacked. Could it be that any writings that were coined were destroyed by those that thought the Christians were a blight on Roman power???

This is an absurd argument. Uhh.....there's no reason to believe that Jesus ever lived because.....because..... because.... well it was two thouasnad years ago and there's no eyewitnesses.

laughable. The people that did write about him wrote as if he were a real person, it wasn't even questioned. There are several possible reasons why there TODAY exists little or no written first hand accounts. Let's see there are no first hand accounts of most of the old testament. I know it was made up in the third century.... OR maybe it was passed orally because there weren't many people that could write back then and papyrus was exhorbatantly expensive. Then when more people could read and write and writing materials became more readily available they wrote it down.

If caught with written materials you were going to be stoned (not smoking out) to death, then you might not want written materials yourself.

Either those that believe in God are lying to themselves, or those that make laughable attempts to prove atheism are lying to themselves. The only reason to lie to yourself is out of fear. Let's see.....what creates a greater fear..... Death is the end and there is no more? Or death leads to an eternity of judgement.... I would say that the latter is something more fearful....It's much easier to dismiss God if you are capable of lieing to yourself, it's much more comforting to lie to yourself that there is no God, there is no Satan and you can do whatever you want while you're alive with no consequences if you don't get caught by the human authorities.

It is much more fearful to have to admit that there is no avoiding getting caught from an omnipotent God and you will have to answer for the things you know you've done wrong.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 




Either those that believe in God are lying to themselves, or those that make laughable attempts to prove atheism are lying to themselves. The only reason to lie to yourself is out of fear. Let's see.....what creates a greater fear..... Death is the end and there is no more? Or death leads to an eternity of judgement.... I would say that the latter is something more fearful


Or perhaps you are lying to yourself because you have a fear of Allah's judgment? Perhaps it's more comforting to deny the existence of Allah and his punishment in hell?

You see where this is going. Your argument got blown out of water.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Could it be that any writings that were coined were destroyed by those that thought the Christians were a blight on Roman power???


Anything is possible.
The fact is, the only written 'record' of Jesus we do have is over half a century after Jesus' death.
I don't think anyone is stating that it's absolute that Jesus didn't exist, just that there's not enough evidence that he did.
It could just as easily have been a fairy tale created by bored Jews.
They didn't have TV back then after all
.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
This is an absurd argument. Uhh.....there's no reason to believe that Jesus ever lived because.....because..... because.... well it was two thouasnad years ago and there's no eyewitnesses.


That's not the reason. You failed to read the thread.
There's no reason for someone without faith to believe Jesus ever lived for the simple fact that Jesus has as much evidence as Santa Claus.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
laughable. The people that did write about him wrote as if he were a real person, it wasn't even questioned.


What people? Are you referring to the gospels? I could give you a dozen stories that are written as if they were real.
And how do you know "it wasn't even questioned"?
First of all, people were much more likely to accept stories based on hearsay back then, so the idea that "it wasn't even questioned" doesn't help your argument much considering the ignorant masses.
Secondly, those that did or might have questioned would most likely have no way of knowing, just as we have no way of knowing- as the gospels were written well after the fact.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
OR maybe it was passed orally because there weren't many people that could write back then and papyrus was exhorbatantly expensive. Then when more people could read and write and writing materials became more readily available they wrote it down.


Well now that's credibile isn't it?
We must put our trust in the ignorant masses who spread the story by word of mouth until someone decided to write it down.
Odd resemblance to a fable, wouldn't you say?


Originally posted by Masterjaden
Either those that believe in God are lying to themselves, or those that make laughable attempts to prove atheism are lying to themselves. The only reason to lie to yourself is out of fear. Let's see.....what creates a greater fear..... Death is the end and there is no more? Or death leads to an eternity of judgement.... I would say that the latter is something more fearful....


You're wrong. The greatest fear to any living creature is death. The absence of the sole purpose of a living creature.
If I was scared of judgement, as you say, then I would be a Christian. Why would I fool myself if I knew deep down that would mean eternity of suffering? I wouldn't. No one would.
However, why would a living creature believe in an afterlife?
To give their subconscious mind the one thing it seeks and the one thing it knows deep down it will never get. But at a higher level of consciousness, tricking your mind into believing you will live forever is just the placebo your brain needs.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
It's much easier to dismiss God if you are capable of lieing to yourself, it's much more comforting to lie to yourself that there is no God, there is no Satan and you can do whatever you want while you're alive with no consequences if you don't get caught by the human authorities.


I've said many times - I have more morals now than when I was a Christian. The difference is that I don't need a fable to tell me how to live. I choose to live with morals because life's better that way.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
It is much more fearful to have to admit that there is no avoiding getting caught from an omnipotent God and you will have to answer for the things you know you've done wrong.


Done wrong?
Like looking at the physical evidence or in this case lack of evidence and making a logical conclusion?
If we were made to base our decisions on logic and to percieve things through a physical medium, then who's fault is it that we do just that?
True judgement is never fun, is it?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
What's this? Another "Jesus never existed, end of story" thread? Okay, please allow this input. Go here for further arguments on BOTH sides of this debate:
www.belowtopsecret.com...



Now, since I put forth at least a noticeable amount of evidence for Jesus on that thread, allow me to do the same here.

"Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence by claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon, etc. However, there sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have nothing."


1. You're right. we're not talking about George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Queen Elizabeth, or Nepoleon. We're talking about someone who was executed 1,975 years ago. So, asking for something "personal" to prove his existence is at best problematic, but I simply do NOT see the same demands to prove the existence of Alexander The Great, Plato, Confuces, or Pharaoh Ramses. You're argument is these people existed, by the same nature of evidence used by Christians to prove the existence of Jesus.

Okay, the only solid proof of their existence is their "John Hancock" on something, fair enough? (And that can be argued, in the right circles.)

2. The second item the debunkers like to hammer on, is the "nonexistence" of Galilee. Especially since Josephus didn't include that town in his audit. Well, to that I say, "Hey, if you can't get the age and date of death correct, when it's your own emperors, what else can you miss?"


[edit on 28-10-2008 by Toelint]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Toelint]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
Somewhere near midway through it - I tried to tell everyone how the undeniable truth can be found in living water, but it's like talking to a wall in here. You guys want to know how concepts turn in to realities but if you don't apply the teachings Jesus brought - you'll always live in the dark. In fact you will die in your sins. Why in the world do you think he urged people to "wake up" and "don't fall asleep"?

Most people want enlightenment but many of you are willfully and almost wantingly choosing to suffer spiritual death (to perish).

One of the keys to opening the gate is to become like a child. In fact he says, that if a person doesn't they can't enter the kingdom. Children have pure intentions, the highest of hopes and a glowing expectancy of what happens next.

The first key is fear of the LORD - it's the beginning of knowledge.



That is pure baloney!

It's this kind of thinking that chokes the intellectual debate in these forums.

Fear God?

Indeed....

Fear Ignorance.


The only thing that is 'bologna" around here is your own feeble mindset, which has somehow made you think that your views are the ones lacking ignorance.Lol Well, you need to wake up and smell the coffee son because as long as there are people like me, who are willing to provide testimony to people like you - the debate is always gonna be on.

Have you ever considered you don't believe in him, only because you haven't experienced him? What would you do if you had-had experiences that prooved to you for a fact he's the real deal?

You know, I was once like you, in that I only knew of him, but if I now said I didn't know him, I would be a liar.

There must be tesimony to move past hearsay.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I'm bumping in here.

Hearsay:

Jesus, even to say when, if he did indeed exist, was hearsay at the time. You can compare this to similiarities of Osama bin Laden (Obama-Biden - lol?) in todays world. Osama exists but there is no physical proof. He doesn't exist. If he did he would be held captive or assassinated. This was the very life of Jesus as well. In contrast there are photos, audio, video and whatever media to prove Osama's existence but truly he doesn't formally exist. He is a fugitive. He lives in exile. A wanted man for crimes and treason. So if Osama were to exist he would be held captive and assassinated. This proves to be in the same footsteps of Jesus. But I was not alive at the time that Christ was supposed to be alive but I live in the days of the non-existent Osama bin Laden. Further I may possibly be living in the days of Obama. I know he is real.

Now if Osama bin Laden is captured and assassinated will there be any evidence? Will the ones that commit the capture and sentence confiscate all the propaganda to go along with it? Will this be the next Vatican? Is there any evidence that Suddam Hussein was real? Were we led to believe that he was executed? Was that him? There are DNA tests but are they real? Was the body real?



Reading about Jesus:

Jesus was gossip of the land. I highly doubt the main population were educated enough to learn and write. People learned from each other and mainly communicated by the word of mouth. Of course there were libraries but people that could most likely read came from wealthy noble families. Many of those libraries were destroyed by war.


Ignorance:

Middle eastern people martyr all their religious leaders parading the streets with posters of them on sticks. They chant in protest. This could be a good example of what the people could of been like back in the day. Wouldn't you of liked to be there for a good ole crucifixtion?

How many people were crucified? They all met the same fate.





The Rebellion:

So let us join together and kick down the doors to the Vatican! Together we can end this tyranny. Thousands of us can make a difference in this world. We will parade Jesus from the basement all the way to NASA! The plans to the death star will be ours. We shall destroy the moon! Then we shall destroy Mars! And then. . . nothing shall stand in our way . . . not even the alien grays with their big eyes and big brains.

DAMN THEM! DAMN THEM ALL IN THE NAME OF ENLIL!!!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
 


I once thought I "knew" him, like you hint at. I was christian for more than 10 years. In retrospect, all I was doing was reinforcing belief in the Jesus figure until it was indistinguishable from fact. Combine that with some many subjective experiences that most of which are explained away as psychological.

It is all baloney.

The thing that everyone needs to ask themselves is "Why do I believe what I believe?"

For me it was indoctrination. I'm having none of that.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Does it really matter whether he existed or not?

The message is what really matters, and I don't see anything wrong with what is written in the New Testament, It's full of wisdom, and has helped alot of people who lost hope in their lives.
I agree.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, eh? If by encountering words, communities of like-minded people or specifically-worded guidance my life is improved, then that is all the proof I need. If my life and life experience isn't enhanced, why would I care whether or not so-and-so walked the planet. I don't care because I am moving on in my search for true guidance.

My understanding is that the person Jesus never asked to be made into a deity or mini-deity. That task was undertaken by those who had their own motives and agendas after his death (assuming he existed as a historical figure).

Time and energy spent on 'proving' his existence is better spent on improving my life and the life of others however that is accomplished.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by argilla11
 


Hate to be the one to point this out to you but this thread wasn't about whether or not Jesus actually existed, we may never know. The point is that all of our current evidence on this figure is hearsay.

At this point, that is all we can be sure of.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


Perhaps due to the fact that many people claimed to be the messiah, as this was quite common in Israel at the time. I would assume that many of these nutcases had followers, and that many of them claimed to have performed miracles. I find it unreasonable to demand that scribes and historians at that time should invest time and effort to record such occurrences. Most of these false messiah figures ended their lives being stoned and forgotten. Jesus of Nazareth is a different matter. His followers expanded in numbers and quickly spread out into the whole of the Roman Empire forming congregations. This made them become a threat to the Roman Empire, which is why the scribes and historians got interested in writing about Jesus and their followers.
Why did it take decades for the manuscripts that mention Jesus to appear? -Because it took decades for the followers to be regarded as a political threat to the Roman Empire.
The same mechanism is valid in the news media even today, since nothing reaches the attention of the media before it has stirred a certain level of interest.




[edit on 29-10-2008 by norskie]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by norskie]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by norskie
 


Yes well the bible and nobeliefs.com (below) talk about this.


WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?


So what for you claim, norskie, to be accurate, then the bible's account has to be rubbish.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Wow, 51 pages and counting.

To the believers, no evidence is necessary. To the nonbelievers, no evidence is possible.

One point I want to make clear is that not all of us who are certain Jesus is everything He said He is, are products of indoctrination. Some of us actually love Him and have a personal relationship with Him, and not because someone told us we have to.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


quote: So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him? end of quote.

Good point. One of several explanations could be that documents WERE written, but that they didn't survive the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. Documents written by the Jewish scribes would most likely have been stored in the temple, and as we know, the temple was completely destroyed. Documents stored elsewhere in Jerusalem would also have been subject to destruction since the whole city was turned into rubble. The destruction of Jerusalem and most likely also the rest of Israel was so great that it resulted in the diaspora. Also keep in mind that the gospel didn't really catch on among the Jews. Jews that converted to the new faith were few and far between and even though the bible claims that Jesus was well known doesn't mean he was well known in a positive sense. Maybe most people regarded him as a fraud or as a nutcase and found it uneccessary to write about him and his followers. But manuscripts that mentiones Jesus do appear among Roman and Greek scribes when the christian faith was regarded as a possible political threat to the emperor and Rome.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join