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: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
You don't need someone who hasn't met Jesus to prove that somebody existed, because if that was a requirement, then we would have to deny all of history.




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ozzraven
I just leave this here:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"


Yes it is.
When evidence would be expected, and it is repeatedly missing.



Originally posted by ozzraven
¿Why the disciples will be martyrs of a big lie?


There was NO LIE !
No-one here said it was a lie.
Please don't make things up.
Many things are NOT TRUE without being LIES.




Originally posted by ozzraven
The historical Jesus needs not only first hand accounts but common sense over the human behavior too.


Um, what ?


Originally posted by ozzraven
If we use your logic, then anyone would be saying:
"show me first hand accounts of people telling how jesus was a fabricated tale", contemporary witnesses . I wont read any other claim !.


I GAVE some examples up thread of pagans claiming the Gospels were MYTHS, FICTION, LIES, FABRICATED !

You ignored all that of course.


Kap



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Gary Habermas - "Historicity of Resurrection 1 of 11 Apologetics".

www.youtube.com...




[edit on 6/15/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Gary Habermas - "Historicity of Resurrection 1 of 11 Apologetics".
www.youtube.com...
[edit on 6/15/2010 by texastig]


This web page proves you wrong :

www.google.com


Kap



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by texastig
Gary Habermas - "Historicity of Resurrection 1 of 11 Apologetics".
www.youtube.com...
[edit on 6/15/2010 by texastig]


This web page proves you wrong :

www.google.com


Kap


Did you watch the 11 part series?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The OP is right, get over it!

No real evidence for a historical Jesus exists, he is not alone in this belief.

I have never seen his argument disproved anywhere, that is not calling anyone a liar or fool.

Besides I thought it was all about faith anyway?

Get some and don't worry about the facts.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
You don't need someone who hasn't met Jesus to prove that somebody existed, because if that was a requirement, then we would have to deny all of history.


Most of the history books are wrong, or dont tell you the whole truth(especially about the American Indians; etc. ) that's in class rooms and such. History is written by the winners.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISHAMAGI
The OP is right, get over it!

No real evidence for a historical Jesus exists, he is not alone in this belief.

I have never seen his argument disproved anywhere, that is not calling anyone a liar or fool.

Besides I thought it was all about faith anyway?

Get some and don't worry about the facts.


Did you watch the 11 part series?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Did you watch the 11 part series?


That's not how it works. You have to bring the relevant points from the series to this discussion. Telling people to go watch a 2-hour video is not debating.

Besides, from what I can see Kapyong has already covered most of Habermas's points in this thread.

Is there a claim in particular that you want to bring up without wasting 2 hours of everyone's time?

[edit on 20/6/10 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
That's not how it works. You have to bring the relevant points from the series to this discussion. Telling people to go watch a 2-hour video is not debating.


I'm doing that.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Besides, from what I can see Kapyong has already covered most of Habermas's points in this thread.


What do you think of the "minimal facts"?


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Is there a claim in particular that you want to bring up without wasting 2 hours of everyone's time?


Critical scholars concede that Paul wrote 6-8 epistles.
Romans
1&2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
1Thess

G.A. Wells, the historian who argues that Jesus never lived concedes that Paul wrote the above books and Colossians.

Paul met the eyewitnesses of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (New King James Version)
3. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4. and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5. and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

[edit on 6/20/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
That's not how it works. You have to bring the relevant points from the series to this discussion. Telling people to go watch a 2-hour video is not debating.


I'm doing that.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Besides, from what I can see Kapyong has already covered most of Habermas's points in this thread.


What do you think of the "minimal facts"?


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Is there a claim in particular that you want to bring up without wasting 2 hours of everyone's time?


Critical scholars concede that Paul wrote 6-8 epistles.
Romans
1&2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
1Thess

G.A. Wells, the historian who argues that Jesus never lived concedes that Paul wrote the above books and Colossians.

Paul met the eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.




[edit on 6/22/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Bump for mikeboyd


Kap



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by texastig
Paul met the eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


You just DON'T get it.

That is NOT Paul saying :
"I met Peter the eye-witness of Jesus" at all.

You are just ASSUMING what you are trying to prove - that there WAS an eye-witness.

But Paul makes it clear that Peter was NOT an eye-witness to a historical Jesus - he says Peter had a VISION of Jesus just like he did. Paul says he is just as much an apostle as Paul - they both had visions, that's all.

This is NOT have a claim to have met someone who personally met Jesus.

It's merely a claim to have met someone - who is LATER claimed to have met Jesus in a FORGED letter.




Originally posted by texastig
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


The Lord's Brother is a TITLE.
Many NT people are called brothers in the Lord etc.

This is NOT a claim to have met someone who met a historical Jesus at all.

NONE of you can come up with ONE clear example of anyone saying they met Jesus, or anyone who did.

Just CLAIMS and BELIEFS that OTHER people did so.



Kap


[edit on 5-7-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by texastig
Did you watch the 11 part series?


No.

If YOU think it has some evidence, then WHY are you so reluctant to post it?
A youtube video is NOT evidence.

If YOU think there is evidence, then POST it here in text like we all do.

Your refusal to do so tells everyone here it's the same-old same-old.

If you had anything that proved me wrong you be falling over yourself to post it here to show I was wrong.

But no -
all we ever get is the same crap :

I'm right - and the evidence is somewhere else, and I won't post it....


Kap


[edit on 5-7-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
is it me or do people forget about Pontius Pilate?

if i missed his name in this thread, forgive me!



he was real and documented, no?

or is his role in jesus life a "story" also?

maybe coz he didn't write about the trial in his auto-biography?

just confused as to whom ya'll mean, who MET historical Jesus.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
That is NOT Paul saying :
"I met Peter the eye-witness of Jesus" at all.
You are just ASSUMING what you are trying to prove - that there WAS an eye-witness.


It is a fact that Paul seen Peter and James. Then fourteen years later he goes back to seem them again and then John is with them.


Originally posted by Kapyong
But Paul makes it clear that Peter was NOT an eye-witness to a historical Jesus - he says Peter had a VISION of Jesus just like he did. Paul says he is just as much an apostle as Paul - they both had visions, that's all.


Have you read the Bible? Peter was with Jesus for almost His whole ministry.


Originally posted by Kapyong
This is NOT have a claim to have met someone who personally met Jesus.
It's merely a claim to have met someone - who is LATER claimed to have met Jesus in a FORGED letter.


Then I guess that 99% of critical scholars are wrong which I doubt.


Originally posted by Kapyong
The Lord's Brother is a TITLE.
Many NT people are called brothers in the Lord etc.


That's James the brother of Jesus whom Jesus and James had the same mother.


Originally posted by Kapyong
This is NOT a claim to have met someone who met a historical Jesus at all.
NONE of you can come up with ONE clear example of anyone saying they met Jesus, or anyone who did.


Critical scholars believe that Paul wrote 6-8 epistles. Paul met Jesus disciples on more than one occasion. Paul had first hand testimony from
Jesus disciples.
Do you want to go and tell all of those critical scholars that they are wrong?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
No.
If YOU think it has some evidence, then WHY are you so reluctant to post it?
A youtube video is NOT evidence.


The Youtube video by Gary Habermas proves that Paul seen the disciples of Christ and talked with them. He explains the evidence that no one has yet to contradict because 99% of critical scholars believe in the same thing.
I'm sure you watch TV and believe things on it.
I think your afraid of watching Gary Habermas because it will turn your world upside down then you'll have no where to run from your sins.


Originally posted by Kapyong
If YOU think there is evidence, then POST it here in text like we all do.
Your refusal to do so tells everyone here it's the same-old same-old.
If you had anything that proved me wrong you be falling over yourself to post it here to show I was wrong.
But no -
all we ever get is the same crap :
I'm right - and the evidence is somewhere else, and I won't post it....


Gary Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics.

The minimal facts approach is a powerful method of offering evidence that the resurrection was a historical event. Instead of assuming that the New Testament is divinely inspired, it only allows well attested evidence that the majority of scholars accept, and then works from this base. That way, if someone attacks the sources you are using, you know that they are out of step, not only with conservative scholars, but also skeptical scholars.

The minimal facts method only uses sources which are multiply attested, and agreed to by a majority of scholars (ranging from atheist to conservative). This requires that they have one or more of the following criteria which are relevant to textual criticism:

1. Multiple sources - If two or more sources attest to the same fact, it is more likely authentic
2. Enemy attestation - If the writers enemies corroborate a given fact, it is more likely authentic
3. Principle of embarrassment - If the text embarrasses the writer, it is more likely authentic
4. Eyewitness testimony - First hand accounts are to be preferred
5. Early testimony - an early account is more likely accurate than a later one

Having first established the well attested facts, the approach then argues that the best explanation of these agreed to facts is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.
-John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

As skeptical historian Michael Grant says "The historian... cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb", because using standard historical criteria, "the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.
-Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992), p. 176.

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.
-Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 8.

Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.
-Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 136.

Kap, when you research over 2,000 sources like Gary Habermas did, you will find the evidence for Christ being real is overwhelming.



[edit on 7/6/2010 by texastig]

[edit on 7/6/2010 by texastig]

[edit on 7/6/2010 by texastig]

[edit on 7/6/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Baird T. Spalding claimed to have met Jesus and travelled with him through the Himalayas at the end of the nineteenth century, along with a bunch of other enlightened beings.

He wrote 'Life and teachings of the masters of the far east' in the first part of the twentieth century, describing his experiences during an 'American scientific expedition' to India and Tibet.

But I guess this isn't the kind of 'authentic claim' you are looking for


Furthermore I've got no opinion concerning this topic, just pointing to an extraordinary claim from a different angle. For which there's no western scientific evidence to back it up.

Peace.


[edit on 6/7/10 by Movhisattva]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Movhisattva
Baird T. Spalding claimed to have met Jesus and travelled with him through the Himalayas at the end of the nineteenth century, along with a bunch of other enlightened beings.

He wrote 'Life and teachings of the masters of the far east' in the first part of the twentieth century, describing his experiences during an 'American scientific expedition' to India and Tibet.

But I guess this isn't the kind of 'authentic claim' you are looking for


Furthermore I've got no opinion concerning this topic, just pointing to an extraordinary claim from a different angle. For which there's no western scientific evidence to back it up.

Peace.


[edit on 6/7/10 by Movhisattva]


I thought Jesus was in Heaven building the New Jerusalem.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 



is it me or do people forget about Pontius Pilate?

if i missed his name in this thread, forgive me!

he was real and documented, no?

or is his role in jesus life a "story" also? is it me or do people forget about Pontius Pilate?


Both King Edward I and William Wallace were actual historical figures. Does that mean that Braveheart isn't a work of fiction?

Nicolas Flamel was an actual historical figure. Is Harry Potter real?

Queen Victoria, real. Sherlock Holmes, not so much.

Hitler made an appearance in the fictional Indiana Jones series.

I'm sure you know that historical figures are represented in works of fiction all the time. It doesn't make the fiction itself any more real.



[edit on 6/7/10 by ConspiracyNut23]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join