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 Kapyong
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
Originally posted by Kapyong
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
Originally posted by Kapyong
* the claimed evidence is very weak
Originally posted by Kapyong
suspect
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Kapyong
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
Certainly there is, and to borrow your word: "BUT" the details are not specific enough for you to believe.
Originally posted by saint4God
I can respect that as an ex-agnostic myself. Lots of personal interpretation in your research, why is that?
Originally posted by Kapyong
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
Originally posted by saint4God
There is, the problem is in trying to share it. I hope your evidence arrives soon and would be glad to help if you're seeking to obtain it.
Originally posted by Kapyong
* the claimed evidence is very weak
Originally posted by saint4God
I was thinking the same about your "but"s.
Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Have you researched Tiberius, or Pontious Pilate, who were in communication about Jesus?Something else you might want to check into.
Originally posted by Kapyong
No there isn't.
There are NO records of JESUS.
Originally posted by Kapyong
All we have is 2nd century records of Christians who believed in Jesus.
Originally posted by Kapyong
I showed the alleged 'evidence' is all LATE - it's evidence for Christians believing in Jesus.
Originally posted by Kapyong
It's all clear and present facts that anyone can check.
But you didn't bother of course.
Originally posted by Kapyong
No personal interpretation.
Originally posted by Kapyong
What?
Originally posted by Kapyong
So, you are not interested in discussing the evidence?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Kapyong
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
Certainly there is, and to borrow your word: "BUT" the details are not specific enough for you to believe. I can respect that as an ex-agnostic myself. Lots of personal interpretation in your research, why is that?
Originally posted by Kapyong
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
There is, the problem is in trying to share it. I hope your evidence arrives soon and would be glad to help if you're seeking to obtain it.
Originally posted by Kapyong
* the claimed evidence is very weak
I was thinking the same about your "but"s.
Originally posted by Kapyong
suspect
And will continue to be suspect until you obtain your proof. Again, that's something I can relate to but is by no means the fault of Jesus.
[edit on 22-4-2010 by saint4God]
J. P. Holding
Further, we may point out again, as Wilson has, that if there were any hint that Jesus was a mythical figure, we would expect that the Talmuds would aim some polemics in that fertile direction. As it is, there are no such statements; and it strains credulity to say that the authors of the Talmud would have simply taken Christians' word for Jesus' existence if evidence existed to the contrary (and it would have existed, had that truly been the case -- there would be "holes" in the historical record big enough to drive a Borg cube through).
The anger and distaste expressed in the Talmud for Christianity leads to a solid inference that any useful information against it would have been taken up as a weapon. Therefore, they may be taken as an independent and reliable witness for the mere fact of Jesus' existence, while not necessarily that for actions and sayings of Jesus. And of course, just because they are polemic, this does not automatically mean that they are not independent.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Kapyong
All we have is 2nd century records of Christians who believed in Jesus.
Alright, I suppose we haven't spoken before then, so let's start with the most basic of source material:
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." - 2 Peter 1:15-17
"Main Entry: eye·wit·ness
: one who sees an occurrence or an object; especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen" - www.merriam-webster.com...
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-packaged for the needs of the early Church.
Originally posted by saint4God
Alright, I suppose we haven't spoken before then, so let's start with the most basic of source material:
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." - 2 Peter 1:15-17