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 texastig
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
With no evidence confirming the existence of Jesus it makes little sense to assume he existed until proven otherwise.
Then why don't you apply to all of people of ancient history? Why is there a bias against Jesus for?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by texastig
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
With no evidence confirming the existence of Jesus it makes little sense to assume he existed until proven otherwise.
Then why don't you apply to all of people of ancient history? Why is there a bias against Jesus for?
I don't understand your first question.
Still though, with no evidence but a strong desire to believe Jesus actually existed people dream up arguments in favor of the idea of him existing. In the end what matters is that there is no evidence to confirm it.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by texastig
Especially considering the first written accounts of Alexander came 400 years after his death.
Originally posted by texastig
I meant to say why don't you apply the same standards for ancient people like Alexander the Great. Using the same standards, scholars believe that Alexander was historical as was Jesus. If you say that Jesus isn't historical the you have to throw out everyone else in ancient history.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
We don't "throw out" people in ancient history that we have evidence for.
Christians MUST establish the literal existence of Jesus because without it their story is useless. However, there still is no evidence of this and no argument from historians or scholars can overcome this inconvenient fact.
Originally posted by okbmd
" 10. Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping. "
WRONG . The practice of worshipping on Sunday didn't come about until many years later .
" 1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. "
Crucifixion was a form of capital punishment that the Romans employed . It was not unique to the jesus story .
" 5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. "
Originally posted by okbmd
So did that shyster Oral Roberts : He claimed that he was visited by a 900-foot tall jesus that was standing beside the City of Faith tower . This 900-foot jesus demanded that he raise several million dollars for the ministry , otherwise the 900-foot jesus was going to take his life .
[edit on 26-8-2010 by okbmd]
Originally posted by texastig
Then you must apply it to all people of ancient history. The same evidence used to make people believe that Alexander the Great lived is the same evidence that is used that Jesus lived.
[edit on 8/26/2010 by texastig]
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Fine with me: let's apply it to all the people of ancient history.
It doesn't matter to me whether Alexander the Great OR Jesus actually existed. It does, however, matter to christians whether Jesus actually existed. But there is no evidence of this: a sad but true fact for the devout.
Originally posted by texastig
I must respectfully disagree. Why do historians believe that Jesus existed?
Why do they believe that other people of the ancient exist? Because they have historical data. But when it comes to Jesus why do people scrutinize Him more?
The burden of proof rests on those that say that Jesus isn't real.
Originally posted by texastig
Then why do you care about what Christians think? Your not going to convince us that there's no Jesus.
Originally posted by blupblup
Why do some historians believe this you mean?
Originally posted by blupblup
Because I guess they somehow see the Bible as an historical document that has some kind of validity?
Originally posted by blupblup
On the other hand many don't, myself included.... which is why people ask for non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus.
And no "Christos" is not good enough....
Originally posted by blupblup
Much in the same way that Jesus' legend became truth.
There are numerous figures from all over the world and legends from every religion that depict people with the same characteristics as Jesus.....his birth, his other-worldly father and so on.... he is not an original character and certainly not an actual, real historical figure.
Originally posted by blupblup
Really? Do you honestly think that?
You obviously have no clue about "The burden of proof"
Originally posted by blupblup
Prove to me that Unicorns don't exist?
Originally posted by blupblup
Or Santa Claus or any other mythical, made up character.....
Originally posted by blupblup
You can't..... you can't prove a negative or a nonexistence and do you know what? People who don't believe don't need to prove.... the burden does not fall upon their shoulders.... It falls upon the shoulders of those making the claims that he does.
Originally posted by blupblup
Originally posted by texastig
I must respectfully disagree. Why do historians believe that Jesus existed?
Why do some historians believe this you mean?
Because I guess they somehow see the Bible as an historical document that has some kind of validity?
On the other hand many don't, myself included.... which is why people ask for non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus.
And no "Christos" is not good enough....
Why do they believe that other people of the ancient exist? Because they have historical data. But when it comes to Jesus why do people scrutinize Him more?
Because there is evidence that they existed, historians at the time made reference to them and/or wrote in detail about them.
There are documents from the time that talk of them and there are writings from people who knew them at the time.
That's how we know anyone existed.... as for someone like Jesus or Robin Hood.... there is no such evidence.
Robin Hood was a tale/story that Jesters told people for amusement and the stories were written and passed on and so on.... until they became myth and then became "Truth".
Much in the same way that Jesus' legend became truth.
There are numerous figures from all over the world and legends from every religion that depict people with the same characteristics as Jesus.....his birth, his other-worldly father and so on.... he is not an original character and certainly not an actual, real historical figure.
The burden of proof rests on those that say that Jesus isn't real.
Really? Do you honestly think that?
You obviously have no clue about "The burden of proof"
As the poster that you so openly slated said....
Prove to me that Unicorns don't exist?
Or Santa Claus or any other mythical, made up character.....
You can't..... you can't prove a negative or a nonexistence and do you know what? People who don't believe don't need to prove.... the burden does not fall upon their shoulders.... It falls upon the shoulders of those making the claims that he does.
And Biblical passages and opinions from people who have already been proven to be fraudulent, don't count.
[edit on 26/8/10 by blupblup]
Because there is evidence that they existed, historians at the time made reference to them and/or wrote in detail about them.
There are documents from the time that talk of them and there are writings from people who knew them at the time.
Originally posted by texastig
After 2000 years, Christianity is still going and growing strong.