Did Jesus actually walk this earth? Did he actually exist?

reply to post by makinho21

---

you may have done some home work .but you failed the test.

all these Jesus never existed doctrines. are just crap designed to suck in the willing. people who if they could would will him out of existence. i guess people like you. try as you may you won't. because you can't.the truth lives forever and lies die w/ the ones who tell them.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

---

Im sorry did I miss something???

What test

I'm sure that 99% of ATSers aren't full time ancient historians. Are you that 1%

reply to post by KRISKALI777

---

What I have to you is HI, and thank you.


And thank you again.

reply to post by KRISKALI777

---

no body talkin to you. but thats right you're sorry
but you are the expert on percentiles right?

[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

---

Ahhhhh. If "Nobody' is writting to me, why did you answer?

reply to post by KRISKALI777

---

simply to inform you the post was not addressed to you guy>anything else?
you people think your clever? your worried and you know it. sorry bout your luck. i just love to rain on these little charades.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]

not all of jesus' teachings were really all that great... i mean he did say something to the effect of "dont worry about tomorrow. god will provide for you. dont prepare for tomorrow." in his sermon on the mount

It seems that you haven't done YOUR homework on these so called mentions of christ by early historians et al. Tacitus writes this in circa 115 CE which by your reckoning would be over 80 years after the death of christ. Tacitus also refers to Pilate as procurator and not prefect. It seems that Tacitus wrote this paragraph based on earlier writings which may or may not be spurious or bias.

All in all not a very good paragraph to base your "jesus was real" theory on. In fact none of the historical mentions of christ (they mainly mention christians and not jesus) are very good to base a "jesus is real" theory on.


G

reply to post by shihulud

---

i'm out of school pal i don't do homework any more . fyi i was citing scholarly hist. are you joking. shall i pain you w/ more? what is it
shihaload? its not a theory.




[edit on 26-6-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

---

Go for it, see what you can do. As I say you need to do better checks on your "scholarly history"

I have debated this nonsense for years, and better people than you have tried and failed.

G

reply to post by randyvs

---

Actually, if you care to take notice there are more people on this thread than a mere 2!
And at any rate you probably haven't a clue- but if you'd like to speak (or argue ) in private 1-on-1: see that button that says U2U!; use it!
And why on Earth would or should I worry about the likes of you

reply to post by randyvs

---

I'm missing your point I think...the whole POINT of my link is that there doesn't exist ONE first-hand witness account of Jesus and his life WRITTEN as a contemporary document, as in at the same time. Yes good job, you found Tacitus' example, which every pseudo-Christian historian uses as evidence, which was written 20+ years later. So your point is what? That the writer of my link is correct in his research? He even mentions Tacitus. Nothing better than hearsay and that doesn't cut it.

reply to post by shihulud

---

hahaha so true. I think the truly funny thing is he obviously did not read through my link and acted without really reading the info he posted. I'm sure he just remembered the same ol' "bulletpointers" handed out to these Born-agains to deal with soulless infidels like myself and googled Tacitus. Tacitus wrote that book Circa 116 C.E. - 40 or so years after the first Gospel came into existence. No wonder he actually makes comment of Pilate and Jesus' execution. I find it funny, though, that most people don't understand Christ/Christo/Chrestus was not a name. It's a title, and it was passed around many many times back then. It was rather fashionable to call oneself the new Christo. Who doesn't want to be a savior of the Jews?

reply to post by randyvs

---

you really need to relax buddy. I know acceptance is hard, but there's no need to get angry

reply to post by makinho21

---

Hi makinho....Unfortunately, history is seldomly object; i.e: you dont normally get both sides. I think this will be the let-down for yourself. In that regard most everything recorded as history colud be viewed as heresay.
Major disruptive (for good or bad )changes are normally the stuff of history; the mundane stuff (not politically viable) just gets glanced over.
Funny how most of the stuff we call history has a political edge in it somewhere; except for maybe history of the Visual arts.....ah, but this has been used as political medium also.
The only thing I've been able to find as objective in relation to the bible lyes in the Old testament and the ritual and history of Freemasonry.
This can be said for the whole Catholic Church History perse. This is why the Masonic ritulas have a Hermetic content which can be traced to ancient Egypt; as alternative to the naratitive of the Old Testament, being contemporary with the Hebrews.
Then we jump to the rennaissance, where we have the different representations of historical events between the Catholic Church and its evolution; and the Knights Templar.
Sorry for waffling-on; just trying to make my point clear.

reply to post by makinho21

---

k that was really all.that there are scholars who accept this as an historical record that proves somebody at that time lived and his name was Jesus Christ thats it.nothing more to say here.

reply to post by KRISKALI777

---

so maybe his next thread should read,Did Geoge Washington really exist.

reply to post by randyvs

---

Well it may as well. Did Jesus exist? I think that there was a man whom is representative of these stories.
Problem being that there has been that many mutations of the story (like Japanese Whispers); noone is really sure what the F.
There is normally 3 camps :1) those that are open, but want proof,
2) the brainwashed that will believe anything; their faith is their foundation
3) those that don't care at all; incredibly (for some) there are humans that have never heard of Jesus/bible and never will. And the crushing blow is : it will not make one iota of difference to their existence

None of us are right or wrong here randy....we are all searching; some of us need a leg-up at times! Will you help a brother/sister in need
I dont claim to know squat; I enjoy debate. I enjoy more when somebody can present me with undoubtable facts and evidence to give me a new point of veiw.....Epithanies are welcome

Here's what I've always wondered assuming Jesus didn't exist. Alright, so religion was pretty much the thing back then. I mean they didn't have total control, but the Jewish Pharisees (Jewish political party) pretty much needed to give you permission to do anything. Kind of like our government now.

Assuming Jesus didn't exist I always wondered how these apostles, if you will, could write the stories they wrote or even tell the stories and go around preaching against the Pharisees and nobody ended up crucified?

I mean they would pretty much be the worst heretics of all time right? I mean if they went around saying that stuff about Jesus you'd think somebody would have got hung.

Anyway, here's my question. If Jesus wasn't crucified, who was? Let's go through the roman records of who got crucified and see what we can find. I'm just having a bit of problem finding them. Is there a translated source? So far me and my friends haven't been able to Google them up very well. If someone could help me find them that would be great.

Read this and then tell me that He didn't exist.
"The devil and Karen Kingston"
hbcdelivers.s439.sureserver.com...

Thanks,
TT