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.

 

Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Later reports DO constitute historical evidence, kapyong. Not all evidence needs to be written and contemporary for it to be valid. Especially considering the oral tradition of record-keeping amongst the ancient Jews. You seem to think that the Jews were all literate and had access to writing materials, and that the absence of this constitutes an absence of Jesus Christ altogether. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! That is a faulty methodology, and is not how true scholarship works.

The vast majority of historians accept that there was a person in history called Jesus Christ, who is the founder of Christian religion. You don't.

I certainly know who I would tend to believe...




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
bump for texastig...



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
wow, just wow... I just spent the last hour reading this thred and must say, Kapyong you know your stuff! I am completely amazed at the total lack of common sense it takes for some of these people to get a simple concept.
I also understand what you mean that is so elusive to grasp for some of these people... For someone to be as big of an icon as to be a founder of a religion (and preach AGAINST religion) and not one person save and protect atleast ONE piece of eye-witness evidence to his existance...Or a book written by him perhaps? That is unless the people in those days thought he was a nutter for claiming to be the son of God, well, I suppose thats another story...
People can believe what they want, I can.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I wish I'd read a certain book when it came out some years back. It does a scholarly and convincing job of proving beyond much reasonable doubt that Jesus never existed and Christianity plageurized many earlier gnostic teachings.

The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke


Acharya S is also recommended reading



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by westlink
wow, just wow... I just spent the last hour reading this thred and must say, Kapyong you know your stuff! I am completely amazed at the total lack of common sense it takes for some of these people to get a simple concept.
I also understand what you mean that is so elusive to grasp for some of these people... For someone to be as big of an icon as to be a founder of a religion (and preach AGAINST religion) and not one person save and protect atleast ONE piece of eye-witness evidence to his existance...Or a book written by him perhaps? That is unless the people in those days thought he was a nutter for claiming to be the son of God, well, I suppose thats another story...
People can believe what they want, I can.


Hey thanks :-)

I wonder if a certain Your Typical believer will read this...


Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I don't think a person who was made up could have that kind of influence. I do however think Jesus was far different from how he is portrayed in the Gospels in some ways.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
There's your problem -
You need to understand what 1 Cor 15:8 says before stating false claims like that.
It has NOTHING about Paul meeting a historical Jesus - probably why you failed to quote it :
"...and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born"
The Risen Christ APPEARED to Paul in a vision, YEARS after the alleged crucifixion.
Do you really seriously claim this refers to a historical Jesus?
Because that's not what Christians generally believe at all.
thanks,
K.


Saul was alive when Jesus was alive.
Dr. Gary Habermas writes:
Ancient historian Paul Maier asserts that: “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”
So, let’s set the date of Jesus’ death as being 30 AD. Then ask the question: what sources are closest to the event?
* 30 A.D. Jesus is crucified.
* 31-35 A.D. Paul receives the early creed from Peter, John and James in Jerusalem which is: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Paul received this creed within five-six years of the crucifixion. Paul verified this creed twice with eyewitnesses, Peter, John and James, in Galatians 1:11-24 and Galatians 2:1-10.





[edit on 6/10/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I think there were a lot of Jesus types hanging around in those days , there are a few still knocking about still especially in the States.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Yes, it appears I do know something you don't.
The fact that modern NT scholars agree they are all forgeries.
K.


Do you have a reference for that?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I've always felt that if you want to go look for evidence of why God DOESN'T exist then you're in luck.

The world is full of it. (evidence that is
)

But God doesn't ask us investigate the evidence AGAINST him and then if it's not strong enough go ahead and believe in him.

God asks you to open your self to him - and he'll do the rest.

Oh - there is this from Wikipedia (sorry, VERY minimal research done here):



There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (circa AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus". Gnosis.org Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome." (Acts of the Apostles 18:1-2) has been conjectured to refer to the expulsion at the times of these "persistent disturbances".


There actually is quite a bit of sketchy information on the historical Jesus here:
Wikipeida



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
Yes, it appears I do know something you don't.
The fact that modern NT scholars agree they are all forgeries.
K.


Do you have a reference for that?


Any modern NT Introduction will confirm that,
such as :
www.amazon.com...

or

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276202771&sr=1-2

Various online references also :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Not one of the NT books were written by anyone who met Jesus.

James, Peter, John, Jude - all forged by OTHER people.


Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.



JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
oll.libertyfund.org...


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.


Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Roark
Later reports DO constitute historical evidence, kapyong.


They MIGHT or they might not.
Even immediate reports can be false.




Originally posted by Roark
Not all evidence needs to be written and contemporary for it to be valid.


Glad we agree.
But the alleged "evidence" is fantasy and religious beliefs.




Originally posted by Roark
Especially considering the oral tradition of record-keeping amongst the ancient Jews.


This alleged "oral tradition" FAILED time and time again:

It FAILED to record the Lord's Prayer - allegedly taught by JESUS HIMSELF - but Christian oral tradition couldn't remember it right, and now there are like 1/2 a dozen different versions.

It FAILED to record the names of the apostles - now we have different lists which don't agree.

It FAILED to record what happened on Easter SUnday - now we have 4 totally different versions.

The evidence is clear -
it was myth and belief, not history.



Originally posted by Roark
You seem to think that the Jews were all literate and had access to writing materials, and that the absence of this constitutes an absence of Jesus Christ altogether. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! That is a faulty methodology, and is not how true scholarship works.


I think NO SUCH thing.

I just pointed out that even with a couple of DOZEN Christian writings, NOT ONE contains a claim to have met a historical Jesus.



Originally posted by Roark
The vast majority of historians accept that there was a person in history called Jesus Christ, who is the founder of Christian religion. You don't.


The vast majority of them are faithful Christians working in Christian establishments and whose job, friends and reputation DEPENDS on believing.

The most BIASED sample one could find anywhere.



Originally posted by Roark
I certainly know who I would tend to believe...


BELIEVE what you like.
I'm interested in the facts.

NOT ONE Christian writing contains a claim to have personally met Jesus (or Mary or Joseph or Lazarus etc.)


Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Donnie Darko
I don't think a person who was made up could have that kind of influence.


Jesus HIMSELF had NO influence on ANYONE.
Not ONE Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus.

There is NO historical evidence for him at all.
All we have is a vast body of evidence for BELIEF.


Jesus himself left NO mark on the world at all.
NONE.


Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   


Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?


God 7 pages of this crap on something that could have been settled in one post.

so
Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?
Many people but none of them told the truth, there is not one verrified account of jesus outside the bible end of story.
2 things here.
1. Christians need to get over it, it does not disprove christ.
2. If Christians want to believe let them believe, i have not heard of anyone being converted via internet forum.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Gday,



Originally posted by texastig
Saul was alive when Jesus was alive.


Does Paul say that?
NO.

Paul never met Jesus, and never claimed to have met Jesus.
He said he had a VISION.

Then OTHER people told stories about Paul's conversion - completely DIFFERENT stories.



Originally posted by texastig
Paul received this creed within five-six years of the crucifixion. Paul verified this creed twice with eyewitnesses, Peter, John and James, in Galatians 1:11-24 and Galatians 2:1-10.


Paul specifically says he got his knowledge of Jesus from NO MAN.

There were NO eye-witnesses.
There are NO claims to be an eye-witness.

Peter, James, John - all FORGED by people who never met Jesus.


Kap



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by zaiger
so
Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?
Many people but ...


Wrong.
Have you ever READ the Bible?

There is NOT ONE claim to have personally met a historical Jesus at all.

Which is why you didn't quote even a single one.


Kap



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


K:

If you're looking for some kind of water tight evidence of a historical figure from back in a time where roughly 75% of the people were illiterate I think you're being a little obtuse.

We could find holes in just about every historical character from 2000 years ago if we tried. Especially one that was as nomadic as Jesus.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by Kapyong
 

K:
If you're looking for some kind of water tight evidence of a historical figure from back in a time where roughly 75% of the people were illiterate I think you're being a little obtuse.


Nothing to do with "watertight evidence".

It's the bizarre fact that NOT ONE CHRISTIAN claimed to have met Jesus.

A god-man who started a religion, with numerous early books by believers - and NOT ONE ever met him !

What does ILLITERATE have to do with it ?!
We HAVE many books from Christians.




Originally posted by gncnew
We could find holes in just about every historical character from 2000 years ago if we tried. Especially one that was as nomadic as Jesus.


It's not about hole.
It's about the total LACK of evidence.

We have a great deal of evidence for many people of that period.
What does "nomadic" have to do with it?

We DO have writings from early Christians.
NONE of them has a claim to have met Jesus.


Kap



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
People are still trying to argue this...? Now that I think about it, the posts are no longer defending the fact that there is NO evidence, but the REASON why there is no evidence. Funny how that changed...



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join