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 all2human
My two cents..zeitgeist was more factually true than the bible ever was..
Originally posted by all2human
Show me some proof Jesus actually existed and i will be a believer..
Originally posted by The GUT
Originally posted by all2human
Show me some proof Jesus actually existed and i will be a believer..
Really? 'Cause that would be awesome and I would be willing to bring some pretty convincing evidence to the table.
What would you consider "proof?"
Originally posted by all2human
Show me some proof Jesus actually existed and i will be a believer..
LOL, some very selective reading you've got going on there as even Christian New Testament scholars disagree with you:
DN: For Christian believers, there is no doubt that Jesus existed. Is there a strong argument for an historical Jesus, though, having lived sometime around the first century A.D.?
RH: Yes, I think there is. The evidence comes from the Bible itself, but not in the way you might suppose.
DN: Please explain.
RH: Certain details of Jesus' life simply don't fit with idealized notions of a Messiah. He's baptized by John the Baptist, a lesser figure according to the Gospels. He addresses women in his teachings and through his actions. He's from a backwater. These are aspects that seem to speak to the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.
DN: But Jesus is said to have been born of a poor family in Nazareth, and he conducted much of his ministry at the Sea of Galilee?
RH: Precisely. There is no reason why Jesus should have come from Nazareth, which was never mentioned in the prophecies, or that he should have begun his work at the Sea of Galilee. These are just two of the incongruities that did not conform to the preexisting beliefs about the Messiah. It is therefore likely that Jesus actually did exist, since there is no reason for these mismatches.
That's just a cheap hand-waving dismissal - the fact remains that in those blogs or whatever are posted credible evidence from primary sources and scholar commentary on them - you obviously didn't actually read anything you merely skimmed for something to compalin about to dismiss it all, which further demonstrates your severe biases and lack of objectivity.
.
Thanks for that inadvertent admission of just how biased your really are. If Acharya S isn't allowed to defend her own work then, you are just another anti-Acharya bigot with zero interest in fairness or objectivity or the truth of the matter whatever that may be. So, we can obviously ignore you as you are not any sort of reliable source to take seriously.
Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms.
A couple responses to critics:
Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1' truthbeknown.com...
Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1 www.freethoughtnation.com...
Humm, are you really that daft or are you pathologically dishonest? All you needed to do was actually read everything else below that comment, which is what that post was all about, which you either didn't read or are lying about it. Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1 www.freethoughtnation.com... Is that what religion has done to you - made you pathologically dishonest? Sure seems like it.
Accusing me of being Acharya just shows how utterly pathetic some of you here are.
So, we can obviously ignore you as you are not any sort of reliable source to take seriously.
I just happen to be a former saved, baptized Christian of many, many years who had the integrity, character and objectivity to actually read her work and her sources
Originally posted by GoldenKnight
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by GoldenKnight
What if you were presented with incontrovertible evidence, which could be verified let us say from a whole host of angles and perspectives, what WOULD you do then..? Let's just say, hypothetically, that not only can the historical Jesus be proven a real person (as encountered in the Gospels), but the framing of his life and work, laid down in history in such a way that there are actual vectors by which it can be verified and authenticated when winding the tape back from now to then? Would anything convince you? Or are you on a holy terror born of hatred.?