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.

 

Misconceptions about Jesus Chist

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

You have no scholarly facts. Again, it is not false information. Atheist and agnostic scholars believe that Jesus existed because the data is there.


There are only claims of Jesus existing, all of it coming decades after his alleged death. There is no evidence to confirm the existence of Jesus. Period. Fact. There is no way for unbiased historians or scholars to agree to the existence of anything unbacked by evidence.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


There are only claims of Jesus existing, all of it coming decades after his alleged death. There is no evidence to confirm the existence of Jesus. Period. Fact. There is no way for unbiased historians or scholars to agree to the existence of anything unbacked by evidence.


Absolutely!

Remember the Bone Box - supposedly of Jesus brother James? Proven Fake.

That made headlines around the world. If any absolute proof of Jesus is ever found - - every gnat in existence will be buzzing.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
You tell me.
There is no proof - none.


Then you are going against the majority of historical scholars which some are atheists and agnostics.


Originally posted by Annee
There are no writings during the time of Jesus - that indicate he existed. If he caused so much turmoil that he should be executed - - why is there no record of any kind? All writings are many years later.


You don't have to have writings during the time that someone existed to prove that they existed. Paul started writing his epistles in the 50's and some were before the Gospels. That's less than 20 years after Christ died.
There was no early records because Christians were being persecuted. And Saul (Paul) was one of the persecutors of the Christians.


Originally posted by Annee
But there still is no proof of a single man named Jesus or alternate name - - in the official records of that time.


There were Roman documents later about Jesus.



[edit on 8/25/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by texastig

That is not true. Josephus historian Steve Mason stated that he will testify in court that the statements made by Josephus about Jesus are historical.


LOL - - and he will defend this how?

By going back in time in a time machine?

Follow the money.


Follow the data in his books. Josephus and the New Testament 1st Edition and Josephus and the New Testament 2nd Edition.
He is so sure of his data that he would go to court to prove it. Annee, would you go to court to prove a historian wrong?

[edit on 8/25/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
There are only claims of Jesus existing, all of it coming decades after his alleged death. There is no evidence to confirm the existence of Jesus.


Then why do atheist and agnostic scholars believe that He existed?


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Period. Fact. There is no way for unbiased historians or scholars to agree to the existence of anything unbacked by evidence.


That's why unbiased atheist and agnostic scholars use historical evidence that Jesus existed.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
you guys, c'mon....the literary ability of the Bible is off the charts supernatural....nothing comes close babes....it's the only book that addresses the begining of time....and it has the "ONLY" , the only messiah with a promise to return.....



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Then why do atheist and agnostic scholars believe that He existed?





They don't.







That's why unbiased atheist and agnostic scholars use historical evidence that Jesus existed.



There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed.
In fact it's quite the opposite....Jesus is almost completely missing from the historical record.

There are no first hand accounts of Jesus either? Why is this?


Even if he did exist, he was just a man... A Jewish guy... a Rabbi maybe... then someone added the "myth" of the resurrection... and ta da..... we have magical Jesus.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Then why do atheist and agnostic scholars believe that He existed?


Why do others believe he didn't?


That's why unbiased atheist and agnostic scholars use historical evidence that Jesus existed.


There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. If you have some, please provide it, since you'll be an absolute hero to christians everywhere.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Alright guys, calm down. Oh and sorry for the title mess up. I was going to do my first 5 on Jesus Christ which is why that is like that. So sorry. BTW, I understand those who do not believe that Jesus even existed. Maybe a quick show of those who acknowledge Jesus' existence VS those who believe he never existed at all, and those who believe Jesus was a saviour VS those who do not, would be a bit hard to discern. I'm on page 2, so allow me to catch up, but still, it doesn't matter if you believe he was the saviour of mankind or wasn't. I believe in a theory that proposes "God comes in a thousand faces", suggesting that the entity known as "God" came to us in a number of world-wide religions. Hinduism, Judaism, and alot more, may have actually been more that the same story rewritten. I understand that alot of people here are skeptics, others agnostic, some atheists, but please keep and open mind. I hate it when somebody rushes to prove one-side, but doesn't look at evidence from the other.

Example: Jesus never existed.

If you post that up, it is very likely that you probably read SOME parts of the bible, read a post that tries to debunk Jesus, Are a really bad skeptic, haven't done any research, one, or all of the above, so guys: please try to keep an open mind, and this time --- tell me why you feel that way. This time, we'll come to some better conclusions.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
You guys, I think the OP should be commended for being in 12th grade and thinking about something other than music and video games and sex. They've done some research and tried to think outside of the box, which is unusual at that age.

As far as Jesus goes, there is one giant misconception about Him, but I won't go into it, because either you realize it on your own, or it won't make sense.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Here's a scary thought, imagine 2000 years from now, in some new, equally moronic society, people build a religion around these "Twilight" books.

Oh man, imagine the commandments; Thou shalt not eat garlic....

Ewwwwww.... On the bright side, we will all be dead...oh well.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IKnowKungFu
Here's a scary thought, imagine 2000 years from now, in some new, equally moronic society, people build a religion around these "Twilight" books.

Oh man, imagine the commandments; Thou shalt not eat garlic....

Ewwwwww.... On the bright side, we will all be dead...oh well.


Loves It!

Sometimes these threads just need posts like yours.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
They don't.


Yes, they do.


Originally posted by blupblup
There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed.
In fact it's quite the opposite....Jesus is almost completely missing from the historical record.


There is historical data and that comes from the people from your side which are atheist and agnostic scholars.
There over 17 ancient "non-Christian" sources for Jesus.


Originally posted by blupblup
There are no first hand accounts of Jesus either? Why is this?


There's many first hand accounts. You have John, Peter and Paul.


Originally posted by blupblup
Even if he did exist, he was just a man... A Jewish guy... a Rabbi maybe... then someone added the "myth" of the resurrection... and ta da..... we have magical Jesus.


Michael Licona writes:
"In a survey of French, German, and English sources that touch on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus written between 1975-2005, Dr. Gary Habermas discovered that of those scholars making a pronouncement of historical, nonhistorical, or unknown, approximately 75 percent awarded historicity, concluding that Jesus rose from the dead in either a bodily or nonbodily sense. Habermas further discovered that approximately 75 percent of those awarding historicity also held that Jesus rose bodily. This is a huge change from the scholarly consensus of the two decades prior to 1975."



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Annee
You tell me.
There is no proof - none.


Then you are going against the majority of historical scholars which some are atheists and agnostics.



Actually - I think you are interpreting what you want to believe.

Speculation and absolute fact are not the same thing.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
First of all, those who do not understand the concept of Christ really should look into it.

1: God is the spiritual embodiment of good. Is he a Man? NO. Is he a woman? NO. Is he half-and-half like milk? NO.

"He's a man and a woman." - In terms of all God-head religions NO. He is MAN and WOMAN not A MAN and A WOMAN.

2: Think of God like the A state of matter. He encompasses all other states of matter and can obviously switch between them. God can become anything. You can say that everything just evolved by chance. If it did, we would've been here twice.

"Lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice" - If there were no God, and Dinosaurs AND humans evolved from fish...well that just doesn't make musch sense, and is the hardest of the two theories to believe.

3: Atheists and Agnostics aren't brothers. Atheists do not believe in God. Agnostics are basically UNDECIDED. I would never debate God with an Agnostic person, which is why I threw that totally unneeded comment there on the 2nd page. Atheists on the other hand claim that they've gather information in numerous sources. Yet its a 0.000000001% chance that you'll find an Atheist that has read the books that were taken out of the KJV. My conclusion - I'm okay with your choice, but don't run around saying he didn't exist if you only read the KJ bible. I don't even go to church. I don't listen to priests. I'm not Catholic, or any other "Church of Christ", just a normal guy who does normal things, but understands that the bible isn't something you just "pick up and read on Sundays".



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'm not going to edit the above post.

4: (Addition)

Why can't JOHN, PETER, and PAUL be considered first-hand accounts? Because their names are too generic? What if, hypothetically, someone discovers a skeleton, with the name "Leonardo De L'Amico" and the future-men say "Well, that can't be real", just because they have names like Kloxoreath Heroyut? Is it because their are no other things in the world that suggest Jesus is real? Where did you read this? Please, if you are debunking, as you are doing now, please provide your sources.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by mr10k]

[edit on 25-8-2010 by mr10k]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 




Do you know what..... I don't care.
I don't even know why I involved myself in this thread to be honest.


There are people that believe and people that don't.


There is ZERO.... yes Zero Non-biblical evidence that the person that we now call Jesus ever existed.... you can cite any old bollocks you like... the simple fact is that there is no evidence.

There were around 40 historians writing in the first 2 centuries.... why did almost all leave out this magical man?
Was he really that uninteresting that people did not wish to write about him?

Or was it because the whole "Hoax" was jazzed up years later to perpetuate the myth?

Anyway, Have fun....




[edit on 25/8/10 by blupblup]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

There were Roman documents later about Jesus.



Show me.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k

1: God is the spiritual embodiment of good. Is he a Man? NO. Is he a woman? NO. Is he half-and-half like milk? NO.

"He's a man and a woman." - In terms of all God-head religions NO. He is MAN and WOMAN not A MAN and A WOMAN.



When and where did you meet "God" to have been able to reach such a positive identification into this gender information?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
you guys, c'mon....the literary ability of the Bible is off the charts supernatural....nothing comes close babes....it's the only book that addresses the begining of time....and it has the "ONLY" , the only messiah with a promise to return.....

It isn't the only book that claims to know the beginning of time.
And it isn't the only book that claims to have a messiah.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join