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.
Originally posted by Liberty1
The question posed at the start of this thread has NOT been properly addressed here.
A few skeptics such as myself are still trying to find a historic account of Jesus. Can we please address that? Can we please not gloss over that with another 4000 words praising Jesus? Pretty please.
OT - I sincerely appreciate your knowledge on the subject. It is nice to see a religious person who actually has some knowledge. But I have to say the length of your posts are not conducive to this debate. You could be more effective by being more efficient. Otherwise it's just a lecture....or a book.
No offense intended, please don't take it that way. I just want to get to the root of the question.
We keep hearing over and over how it either doesn't matter if he existed or not, or how barbarous the world would be without him. No one is even touching the possibility that he didn't exist and we are currently living the scenario of a world where Jesus wasn't born.
Come on now guys: Can someone please show me some historic records of Jesus?
This idea that the Jesus story was fabricated whole-cloth is all the more unbelievable when you consider that the Christian message began in Jerusalem/Israel in AD 30 or 33, the very location and time Jesus was purported to have lived and died. Does it make sense to think that the disciples could get away with preaching about a man named Jesus to Jesus' neighbors and contemporaries if He never existed? It is preposterous to think that the people of Palestine would not have objected to the disciples' claims if they had not known of Jesus and the events surrounding His life. A fabricated story about a Jewish faith-healer who rose from dead in Israel might have worked had the message began in Rome some 1400 miles removed from the actual events, but not in Jerusalem. A fabricated story about a Jewish faith-healer who rose from the dead might have even worked in Jerusalem had the apostles' claimed the events transpired hundreds of years before their time. But it is unreasonable to think that a story about a Jewish faith-healer who rose from the dead in your back yard a few weeks ago could have taken root and flourished in Jerusalem/Israel had Jesus not existed, and the events surrounding Jesus' life had not been known by the disciples' contemporaries
Originally posted by OldThinker
Here's a source for your review... www.apostolic.net...
well yes ... except the coins, statues, first hand account written while he was alive several second hand accounts writen not to long after, a bunch of third foruth and fith hand accounts too ... so yes historians do believe in him seemingly with a whole lot more evidence then you know of
Consider Alexander the Great. The two earliest biographies of his life were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after his death and yet no historian believes that he did not exist or that the biographies are legend
Why treat Jesus differently? Why do new standards of historical inquiry need to be adopted when it comes to Jesus?
can you prove that or is it personal opinion?.. no proof you opinion ok next
This idea that the Jesus story was fabricated whole-cloth is all the more unbelievable when you consider that the Christian message began in Jerusalem/Israel in AD 30 or 33,
can you prove the disciples existed? could it be they could have preached about a hundred other gods before after and during this, if they had never existed(and by which i mean had no proof of) ..yes yes happens all the time sorry
the very location and time Jesus was purported to have lived and died. Does it make sense to think that the disciples could get away with preaching about a man named Jesus to Jesus' neighbors and contemporaries if He never existed?
why? have you ever beleived somthing someone told you and didnt see/experience for your self? yes yes you did your points faulty
It is preposterous to think that the people of Palestine would not have objected to the disciples' claims if they had not known of Jesus and the events surrounding His life.
geography has nothign to do with belief wrong conclusion drawn from your opinion again. infact the romans would be more likley to beleive it would just be another god to them .. wait didnt romans accept jesus as just one of the many gods long before constanitine made an official ruling .. why yes they did, they worshipped jesus and thier other gods as well
A fabricated story about a Jewish faith-healer who rose from dead in Israel might have worked had the message began in Rome some 1400 miles removed from the actual events, but not in Jerusalem.
Web sites:
Tekton Apologetics - JP Holding: Among many other things, contains a demolition job on the Jesus Mythologists so total and complete you even end up feeling sorry for them. www.tektonics.org...
excellent point .. can you show they are accurate descriptions of how events happened? ..what do you mean you beleive them so you didnt think youd need to prove your point ...... so if you cant prove they were accurate or when they were actually made youve just wasted your time writting it and mine for reading it .. now say sorry
1. Authorship and date are important; but equally important, if not more so, is whether what is in the Gospels is true. Regardless of who wrote the Gospels and when, if they reflect reality correctly, then it points to their being written by eyewitnesses, or having eyewitnesses as their source. Thus, even if the traditional authorship and earliest dates are disproved - and it is my contention that the arguments against them are inadequate - it matters very little, we may surmise, who wrote them and when.
....stop telling me the world is round im sick of hearing it and i renounce your maths and pictures from space
Critical arguments about authorship and date of the Gospels revolve around the same data, and have revolved around it, for the past 2 million years. Well, not exactly 2 million; that's hyperbole to make the point which IS true: That is, with very, VERY few exceptions, critics and skeptics have used the same arguments against the traditional data over and over and over to the point of nausea
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Hey OT, why didn't you list the negative aspects of christianity in your OP as well?
Originally posted by OldThinker
I am biased...
Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Good Wolf
how about hitler the buddist, shaved head and saffron robes ... deffinaltey WW2 would have gone very differently
Originally posted by calihan123
God is simple. God is existence in itself. We are god. Life is god.
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by calihan123
God is simple. God is existence in itself. We are god. Life is god.
calihan, Thank you for your thoughts here...
Why do you believe this?
"Simple?"
OT curious...
Originally posted by Epsillion70
Think about it... how simple is the idea.
"Love your neighbour as you love yourself"
Mark 12:31
It is only the ego mind that try's to complicate things and say.
I will only love those who only love me first etc
en.wikipedia.org...
Confucian version of the Golden Rule: one must always treat others just as one would want others to treat oneself.