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.

 

Did Jesus really exist?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Did Jesus/Yeshua exist? As a mortal human being - Yes. As a Demi-God/son of God/devine being - NO.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by The Djin
 


You seem distressed.



I agree NE

Djin chill out bro, its gonna be ok


Believers aren't your enemy



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
frozen, if you look hard and heavy into this debacle you will find that jesus was not written about til roughly 250 years after supposed death. Now a common man with common sense will know that any politician-hero, will be written about within years of death-acts in life. So it is up to you to decipher, as for me i have a hard time believing that the same man that the roman empire destroyed, then wants to make him a martyr- now he is all of the peoples salvation.


It just doesn't add up, if you know what i mean!



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
frozen, if you look hard and heavy into this debacle you will find that jesus was not written about til roughly 250 years after supposed death.


Paul wrote about Jesus. Paul’s earliest epistles date from the 50s AD.
Whenever these early sources are also derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events, this provides one of the strongest evidences possible. Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs this “the rule of immediacy” and terms it “the best relevant evidence.
When scholars have ancient sources that are both very early and based on eyewitness testimony, they have a combination that is very difficult to dismiss.
www.garyhabermas.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by frozenspark
 


Of course he exists.

The guy shows up with his disciples twice a week and performs magic tricks on my estate. The lawns magically become shorter, the bushes and hedges around my property are suddenly in the shape of animate objects, and he somehow keeps my vegetable garden looking simply divine.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
People say he was a carpenter, but you should see his painting skills!

Seriously though, if he didnt exist, why would so many people be talking about him, writing books about him. Personally, I think he was more than one person, or even just an idea. I think similar to how Milton had to disguise Paradise Lost as a poem, maybe at the the time that the various gospels of this guy and books of so and so were written it was safer to just tell the story of a man, rather than preach controversial religious doctrine.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by The Djin
 


You seem distressed.



I agree NE

Djin chill out bro, its gonna be ok


Believers aren't your enemy






posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


I agree with most everything he said, the vid was done well, too

BUT....



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 





Now a common man with common sense will know that any politician-hero, will be written about within years of death-acts in life


Especially so if he just happened to be able to walk on water, turn it into wine, raise the dead, and feed the hungry thousands with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread.

The bread and the fish is the one that kills me,

POP QUIZ
In the last 2000 years alone how many human beings have starved to death ?

Good question eh ?

Next question -

Why did the omnibenevolent first century David Copperfield not teach his followers (the sheeple) how to do the, make more food trick ?

Answer - 1) He is imaginary 2) It was a trick.

Apologist answer = ( place nonsensical circular reasoning response or scriptural quote here )



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by The Djin
 


I agree with most everything he said, the vid was done well, too

BUT....



Indeed, here's some more enjoy and learn




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


But he discounts my/others ongoing relationship with Christ...

to me he is pointing out the obvious and claiming insight, I dunno?

I'll watch the next thx



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
hello


Originally posted by edmc^2
The fact is, there are records of him and these (however small) establishes his existence.


There are NO records of Jesus. Records are contemporary.
There are NO contemporary references to Jesus at all. Even where we would expect them such as Philo, Justus and Seneca.


Originally posted by edmc^2
Note again, Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote that the Roman emperor Nero ‘fastened the guilt for the burning of Rome on Christians,’ and then Tacitus explained:

“The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”



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.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Suetonius


Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 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...




Originally posted by edmc^2
and Pliny the Younger,


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...



Originally posted by edmc^2
other Roman writers of the time, also made mention of Christ.


You mean LATER writers repeated Christians BELIEFS.
So what?



Originally posted by edmc^2
In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote in Antiquities of the Jews regarding the death of the Christian disciple James. Josephus said in explanation that James was

“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”


The passage(s) in Josephus are corrupted by Christians.


SO, in fact we see there were NO records for Jesus at all.
What we see is BELIEFS and CLAIMS from long afterwards.


G


[edit on 7-9-2010 by Greenfly13]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Hi Texastig
Its amazing that so many people on this site have no clue. There arguing mute points.Most likely a bunch of goofy kids just trying to get a rise out of us serious people. Go figure.


Wow.

You can't tell 'they're' from there'.
You don't know what a 'moot point' is.

But you attack OTHERS for having 'no clue' ?
What a laugh.

G



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Quite simply there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus (by any name). Strange given how anal retentive Romans are about record keeping. What also tips this off to me, is that the dying and reborn Demigod is a common moteif in Indo-European culture (where Christianity grew strong). Baldur, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Mabon, etc. These mythological beings predate JC by 100's of years. The Catholic church came up with a dozy of an explanation. Plagiarism by anticipation. Satan knew JC was coming and set up these fake Messiahs to confuse the weak of will.

SO no there is no evidence Jesus Christ existed.

So what? My gods (yes folks I'm a Neopagan Druid) have no evidence that science can prove (or disprove HA), and I cope just fine. The Morrigan, Lugh, and Dagda (for example) are very real to me.


Originally posted by frozenspark
I recently got into a debate with some folks who argued that Jesus did not exist. Their main argument was that NO contemporary historian recorded anything about Jesus, while my argument was that his ministry was very short and Christianity began as a small cult that only after a century or so began to spread to the point where historians took notice. Add to that the fact that Rome completely burned Jerusalem and the places where Jesus was said to have taught completely to the ground in 70 AD or so, and slaughtered everyone who might have had any recollection of the real Christ.

They also used Acharya S and the website www.jesusneverexisted.com... as the basis of their argument.


What do ATSers think about this subject? My belief is that early Christianity was supressed until Constantine decided to hijack it (much to the early Christians - Gnostics disagreement) and turn in into the plague that was and still is responsible for so many wars and deaths. After Rome bastardized Christianity, things like heresy and dogma were birthed. Christianity was changed from a humanitarian belief to a totalitarian religion.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
hello,


Originally posted by texastig
That is very true. Even the atheists believe the historicity of Jesus.
Jeffery Jay Lowder of ‘Internet Infidels’: "


Pardon?
You said you had a list of NT SCHOLARS, including agnostics and atheists, that agreed Jesus existed.

Lowder is NOT an NT scholar.



Originally posted by texastig
www.infidels.org...
"On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'."
G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).


G.A. Wells is not an NT scholar.
Nor is he an atheist or agnostic, AFAIK.



Originally posted by texastig
Norman Perrin (Skeptical New Testament Scholar)


Norman Perrin is 40 years dead, he was a member of the DIVINITY school at Chicago U. His very JOB depended on believing Jesus existed.
He was not an atheist or agnostic AFAIK.


So, your big list of atheist and agnostic NT scholars,
actually turns out to be 3 people - one an atheist non-scholar, one scholar of German, one NT scholar from 40 years ago who worked in a Divinity school.

So far your 'list' is a complete failure.

So where IS that list of agnostic and atheist NT scholars you promised, tex ?


G



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
Why did Joseph and Mary go to Bethelem for? For the census of
course! That was when Jesus was born.


The census story is clearly non-historical fiction.
There was no such census till years later.

And -
no census required a person to travel to the home of their ancestors - everyone has many ancestors from many places.


G



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Paul wrote about Jesus. Paul’s earliest epistles date from the 50s AD.
Whenever these early sources are also derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events, this provides one of the strongest evidences possible.


There were no eye-witnesses to any events.

Paul says specifically he got his knowledge about the spiritual Christ from scripture and revelation, but NOT FROM ANY MAN.

The consensus of modern NT scholars agree that NOT ONE single book of the NT was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus, or witnessed any of the alleged 'events'.



G



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
Pardon?
You said you had a list of NT SCHOLARS, including agnostics and atheists, that agreed Jesus existed.
Lowder is NOT an NT scholar.


I never said that Lowder was an NT scholar. But I do have my list of scholars that I've found.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
G.A. Wells is not an NT scholar.
Nor is he an atheist or agnostic, AFAIK.


I never said that.


Originally posted by Greenfly13
Norman Perrin is 40 years dead, he was a member of the DIVINITY school at Chicago U. His very JOB depended on believing Jesus existed.
He was not an atheist or agnostic AFAIK.


Doesn't matter if he's dead. He was a skeptical New Testament scholar.
Norman was a NT critic of the University of Chicago.

Historian Gary Habermas says:
Even more skeptical scholars often grant the grounds for the appearances. Norman Perrin concluded, "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based."

One skeptical writer, Norman Perrin
www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Norman Perrin (1920-1976) who was a student of Bultmann and J. Jeremias. N. Perrin represents for us the epitome of skepticism.
webcache.googleusercontent.com...:9mzyDquzinYJ:www.drsamlam.com/images/uploads/historicalJesus.PPT+Norman+Perrin+skeptical+scholar& cd=32&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a



Originally posted by Greenfly13
So far your 'list' is a complete failure.
So where IS that list of agnostic and atheist NT scholars you promised, tex ?


Hogwash dude. You failed to correctly read my post "as usual".
I've got a limited/running list on my computer but I want you to wait for Historian Gary Habermas's list. He's going to get his list published. We talked about it through email.

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.





[edit on 9/7/2010 by texastig]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenfly13
hello


Originally posted by edmc^2
The fact is, there are records of him and these (however small) establishes his existence.


There are NO records of Jesus. Records are contemporary.
There are NO contemporary references to Jesus at all. Even where we would expect them such as Philo, Justus and Seneca.


Originally posted by edmc^2
Note again, Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote that the Roman emperor Nero ‘fastened the guilt for the burning of Rome on Christians,’ and then Tacitus explained:

“The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”



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.....

G

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Greenfly13]


I'm surprised Greenfly, with your knowledge of history, you seem to lack accuracy in your statements. For example I noticed this statement:

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used....."

Can I ask you this? Was Pontius Pilate Governor of Judea when Jesus was alive?

If so, was he then the "procurator" of Judea during Jesus' trial? If that's the case would it be also correct that Tacitus uses the term "procurator" instead of just prefect?

Because Pilate has the authority not just to govern but also to argue the law (and preside over a hearing during Jesus' interrogation). So in this capacity he is also considered not just a "prefect" (an official appointed by the magistrate) but also a "procurator".


Correct?


this is just one of the things that are incorrect in your statements.

ty,
edmc2

uneed to make sure your info are correct Greenfly - just my .2c.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 





But he discounts my/others ongoing relationship with Christ...


Let us examine your/others relationship with jesus/yahwhe

You are commanded to both love and fear another man, you may make the claim that he is more than a man therefore the love you are commanded give, may or may not be somehow different to the love you give your wife or your child.

You are commanded to love this man above all else, therefore the love you are commanded to develop must be greater than the love you developed for your wife or the love you instinctively have for your child.

The loving relationship you have with your child is unconditional ie you cannot not love your child (or at the least it is very unlikely) any less and you ask nothing in return and would not deny the child love in order to have the child comply with your will.

The man that you are commanded to love more than your child or spouse is invisible and vocally mute, in order for you to experience any awaerness of this man you must look around you and make assumptions about events objects , and inner emotions and attach a label to them as the love of this man.


Unlike the love you have for your child, the love you claim to receive from this invisible man is conditional for example, should you choose for whatever reason to consume blood this invisible man will not love you any more.

At a given time allotted by this invisible man he will assess you and your actions and thoughts. Should your actions and thoughts be contrary to that of the will of the invisible man or for whatever reason fail to love the invisible man you are commanded to love, he will then torture you for all eternity as a punishment for non compliance with no chance of parole.


It is fair to say that no decent moral human being would torture their child for one minute let alone for the rest of its' existence, we have a tendency to find this type of behavior completely repugnant.

Likewise, we find it equally repugnant to attempt to use coercion, threat and emotional torment to have the love we believe we have for other people reciprocated.

Should we visited a shelter for women that have suffered domestic violence, one of the more repeated complaints is that of men using emotional threats such as the denial of love in order to make the woman comply and somehow force the woman to love in return.

Often the woman stays with the man because she is under the misguided belief that should she not stay and love the man she will somehow suffer loss and suffer insecurity etc.

We label this type of relationship as "Abusive" where the (most often but not always) man is emotionally and sometimes physically abusing the woman to have her comply to his warped sense of love.

The invisible man called jesus and yahwhe that you claim to have a "loving" relationship with displays (according to alleged eye witnesses ) no different behavior than the abuser in a domestic violence case.

What makes matters worse and far more horrifically repugnant is that this relationship is more akin to an arranged marriage whereby the wife (ie you) has not even met the groom (and never will) and is under instruction to be married and love the husband.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join