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.

 

Jesus Was Not Religious, so why hate Christians because of what religion has done?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 





You're following the Christ, an alleged man who lived, but there is no archeological evidence to support his existence.


Hey, man, I don't mean to interrupt your discussion. But Jesus has been documented to exist by secular and non-secular parties. 9 New Testament authors; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 4 Heretical writers; Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection. And finally, 9 secular sources; Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.

The historical textual evidence for Tiberius Caesar’s existence further evaluates the subject. Tiberius Caesar that reigned during the existence of Jesus had 10 authors that mentions Jesus within 150 years of his life. (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum, and Luke.) To reject Jesus's existence you must also reject the existence of Tiberius Caesar.

Also, ancient writings from Roman historian Tacitus’ (Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes) back up many claims along with Herod the Great’s secretary, Nicolas of Damascus(another historian of Rome), and their 144 books on Roman History.

Here's a link to site regarding Archaeological Evidence.
Archaeological Evidence for Jesus’ Existence
edit on 18-1-2012 by Ravenheart because: bad citation




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Ravenheart
 


All of them written "after" his death. Key word... AFTER.

You'd think a guy walking around healing the blind, turning water to wine, rising from the dead, and being born of a virgin would've been note worthy.

There is no proof of him during his life. Writing about someone isn't proof. Neither is the fact that several authors did so. Do you know how many people have written about Dracula? Dozens. Does it make him any more real than Jesus? No. Both were likely based on real people, yet had their stories greatly exaggerated for various reasons.
That being said. Vlad the Impaler has more historical validity than Jesus Christ.
edit on 18-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Jesus was not recording a movie, events in history aren't usually recorded until AFTER the event has happened.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of history...

And Vlad the Impaler was 1400 years after Jesus, hardly something you can use for your argument.

Early followers of Jesus were heavily persecuted after the resurrection and it took them a short while (40 years or so) to start writing about the events. This is a very short time period compared to other ancient people in history.

There is an undeniable amount of evidence for the historical person of Jesus Christ. Not even the secular scholars of history deny this fact. To do so would be dishonest of them, the evidence is simply over-whelming.

Why you have made no attempts of even looking at the history of the early church but yet wish to attack the creditability of the New testament is something I do not understand. Is your pride really got that much of a hold on you that you can't even be honest with yourself?
edit on 18-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Tiberius Caesar existed parallel to Jesus. However, why would he write about Jesus while he lived? Especially if he had nothing to prove if the man clearly existed before his eyes. I for one don't follow my friends and co-workers around writing about their life just in case they die and for some odd reason a historian needed a burden of proof that unequivocally proved their existence.

Keep in mind, there were no digitized obituaries of the time period to keep a record of deaths like we have today. Everything was written. There were no notebooks to carry around, they had large parchment or papyrus. Not exactly convenient for travel. Even if his disciples wanted to follow Jesus around and document his life it would have been a pretty difficult task. Also, even if Tiberius did not account for Jesus' life until after death, why write about this man at all, especially being a secularist? Tiberius was not a Christian and was a Caesar. What did he have to gain, speculation aside?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Jesus was not recording a movie, events in history aren't usually recorded until AFTER the event has happened.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of history...


Coming from the guy who thinks Noah and the family gave birth to every race on the planet. Okayyyyy.




And Vlad the Impaler was 1400 years after Jesus, hardly something you can use for your argument.


Someone writing a lot of stories about a guy, 2000 years ago or 600 years ago makes no difference. Vlad did some note worthy stuff. People wrote about it. People blog about Criss Angel and his feats are mere mortal parlor tricks. People wrote about the adventures of Jesse James during his life. People put up graffiti on the walls of ancient Rome talking about the battle of Gladiators, yet no one felt the need to put up a sketch or jot something down about Jesus, the miracle man? I don't buy it.


edit on 18-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ravenheart
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Tiberius Caesar existed parallel to Jesus. However, why would he write about Jesus while he lived? Especially if he had nothing to prove if the man clearly existed before his eyes. I for one don't follow my friends and co-workers around writing about their life just in case they die and for some odd reason a historian needed a burden of proof that unequivocally proved their existence.

Keep in mind, there were no digitized obituaries of the time period to keep a record of deaths like we have today. Everything was written. There were no notebooks to carry around, they had large parchment or papyrus. Not exactly convenient for travel. Even if his disciples wanted to follow Jesus around and document his life it would have been a pretty difficult task. Also, even if Tiberius did not account for Jesus' life until after death, why write about this man at all, especially being a secularist? Tiberius was not a Christian and was a Caesar. What did he have to gain, speculation aside?


Your friends and co-workers don't walk around claiming to be the son of god. If they did, I'm sure it would show up on your facebook status.

Don't give me the "difficult to document" argument. By then the Jews already had their bible, writing wasn't as exotic as people would have you believe. Scribes traveling around with the romans was common place. These guys followed around the emperor and/or armies writing everything they saw. This is another reason I'm skeptical. The Romans wrote about everything. EVERYTHING. Why wouldn't they have detailed accounts of Christ, his trial, death, and especially the after party spectacle?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 





Your friends and co-workers don't walk around claiming to be the son of god. If they did, I'm sure it would show up on your facebook status. Don't give me the "difficult to document" argument. By then the Jews already had their bible, writing wasn't as exotic as people would have you believe. Scribes traveling around with the romans was common place. These guys followed around the emperor and/or armies writing everything they saw. This is another reason I'm skeptical. The Romans wrote about everything. EVERYTHING. Why wouldn't they have detailed accounts of Christ, his trial, death, and especially the after party spectacle?


I won't argue with you there, if my co-worker was walking around claiming to be God and healing the blind. I would probably write about it. However, the first leg of the Christ journey did have access to scribes as the Roman military did, but Tiberius Caesar was an emperor of Rome whom had 10 authors all accounting for the life, death, and miracles of Christ. Do these not count for "The Romans" that wrote about everything? And their names were; Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum. I took out Luke to provide further proof from a secular point of view.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ravenheart
 




I won't argue with you there, if my co-worker was walking around claiming to be God and healing the blind. I would probably write about it. However, the first leg of the Christ journey did have access to scribes as the Roman military did, but Tiberius Caesar was an emperor of Rome whom had 10 authors all accounting for the life, death, and miracles of Christ. Do these not count for "The Romans" that wrote about everything? And their names were; Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum. I took out Luke to provide further proof from a secular point of view.



Not since they took place decades after the fact. Through the dilution of other outside, pre-existing religious influence, normal over time exaggeration, and just the fact that the story was 2nd hand at minimum means that the story is far from a biographical chronicle of the actual events if they were true at all, and not just writing about a guy because people were talking quite a lot about him by that point. Kinda like Robin Hood. The earliest writings of him were done in 1377, yet he is still unknown as a historical figure.

When the Romans were writing about Christ, they were also knee deep in Mithraism at the same time that Mitraism was talking about last suppers, virgin births, and being the "God of Salvation of man." Don't you think there might've been an overlap? 37AD was the earliest known written account of Roman mithraism though evidence shows it was present in Rome since atleast 60 BCE (+/-). It existed in Persia from around 1,400 BCE (+/-). These writings mentioned Mithra having 12 disciples, being a part of a holy trinity. Since these writings were going on just before the writings of Christ (very close to, in fact), might not there be a conflict of interest as far as the story of Christ is concerned?


edit on 18-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


It would be awesome to sit down and talk to you about these things over coffee, but this is the internet. I'm not really an internet forums kind of person, but I was compelled to jump on this forum. I'm an artist at a game studio and I'm between assignments, but work is catching up to me and I don't think I'll be able to provide the educated responses your questions need. Which sucks. But, this is a great website with sources and proper citations that might answer a lot of your questions. (I Hope) But I wanted to say thanks for being respectful, and I wish you blessings in your search for truth.

CARM | Mithra prove Christianity False?
edit on 18-1-2012 by Ravenheart because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ravenheart
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


It would be awesome to sit down and talk to you about these things over coffee, but this is the internet. I'm not really an internet forums kind of person, but I was compelled to jump on this forum. I'm an artist at a game studio and I'm between assignments, but work is catching up to me and I don't think I'll be able to provide the educated responses your questions need. Which sucks. But, this is a great website with sources and proper citations that might answer a lot of your questions. (I Hope) But I wanted to say thanks for being respectful, and I wish you blessings in your search for truth.

CARM | Mithra prove Christianity False?
edit on 18-1-2012 by Ravenheart because: typo


I do enjoy a good debate, and fate willing, maybe we'll have that cup of joe in this life time. Sorry I was keeping you from your duties. I, too, am an artist. Your work sounds interesting. Perhaps we'll be able to share our passion in the future.
Blessings in your quest as well, and thank you in return for your respectful nature.


edit on 18-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 




Coming from the guy who thinks Noah and the family gave birth to every race on the planet. Okayyyyy.


Yes I trust the Word of God. Unless you can prove that we are not descendants of Noah why should anyone listen to you?



Someone writing a lot of stories about a guy, 2000 years ago or 600 years ago makes no difference. Vlad did some note worthy stuff. People wrote about it. People blog about Criss Angel and his feats are mere mortal parlor tricks. People wrote about the adventures of Jesse James during his life.


1600 years ago makes a huge difference. Even so there is still probably more evidence for Jesus Christ then there is for Vlad the Impaler. Although I am not denying Vlad existed.



People put up graffiti on the walls of ancient Rome talking about the battle of Gladiators, yet no one felt the need to put up a sketch or jot something down about Jesus, the miracle man? I don't buy it.


How do you know they didn't?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
The problem that you and many others have is, you believe that if someone "understands" the bible, that there is no way they would be able to be anything but a Christian, and that's just not the case. We do understand the bible. We just don't agree with it. We may agree with the moral teachings, but that doen't mean we have to accept Christ, or the stories portrayed by the authors of the bible as literal truth. As I've said, these morals have existed for thousands upon thousands of years, and they are endemic to civilization, and just because Christ adopted these ideas, doesn't make them Christian.



edit on 18-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)


Following the Moral teaching of Christ is the only true requirement for me to call you brother. Although I still hold to the faith that God has more to show you if you would believe that Jesus is THE Son of God. Not just a son of God. With love and prayer for you and for all.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
double post
edit on 18-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Yes I trust the Word of God. Unless you can prove that we are not descendants of Noah why should anyone listen to you?


Again, you're the one with the improbable claim. You show the evidence.



1600 years ago makes a huge difference. Even so there is still probably more evidence for Jesus Christ then there is for Vlad the Impaler. Although I am not denying Vlad existed.


You're joking, right? Vlad's home by itself is more proof than Christ ever had for his existence.



How do you know they didn't?


I don't. Neither do you. However, no proof of something usually proves something is nonexistent... not the other way around.



edit on 18-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Following the Moral teaching of Christ is the only true requirement for me to call you brother. Although I still hold to the faith that God has more to show you if you would believe that Jesus is THE Son of God. Not just a son of God. With love and prayer for you and for all.


That's what you believe, and I respect that. I only ask that you respect that other people think differently.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
"Don't hate christians because of what religion has done"? Isn't that like saying "don't hate the player, hate the game?" What a cop out.

Christianity has a lot to answer for. Should christians be held accountable for that? 50/50. Perhaps if christians today make more of an effort to be less like the narrow minded power hungry christians that were responsible for the Cruisades, than other people might treat them with less disdain. What you put out there is what you get back and I've seen christians do some very petty, evil, nasty, hateful, vindictive stuff. In the name of god no less.

People did that. Christian people both as individuals and religeous zealots. 50/50.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
"Don't hate christians because of what religion has done"? Isn't that like saying "don't hate the player, hate the game?" What a cop out.

Christianity has a lot to answer for. Should christians be held accountable for that? 50/50. Perhaps if christians today make more of an effort to be less like the narrow minded power hungry christians that were responsible for the Cruisades, than other people might treat them with less disdain. What you put out there is what you get back and I've seen christians do some very petty, evil, nasty, hateful, vindictive stuff. In the name of god no less.

People did that. Christian people both as individuals and religeous zealots. 50/50.


I just ask you to consider this. A Christian by definition is a disciple and follower of Christ. So if someone is doing something outside of love are they a Christian? Anyone can claim to be anything but that does not make it so.

If I tell you I am a vegan but go to the steakhouse every night for Prime Rib am I a vegan?

So when someone is truly a Christian they may take offence with being lumped into the group of those who claim they are Christian but are not.

It is those who claim to follow Christ but do those things that have a lot to answer for. But they will have God as their judge so I try not to concern myself with them.

Personally I don’t have an issue with your statements because I am comfortable with my faith and the truth. I was just pointing this out for those who are more sensitive towards these things.



edit on 18-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





Being willing to die on the cross, proving both that he loved the father enough to be subject to crucifixion and also that he loved his enemy enough to forgive them on the cross. This kind of love is perfect, a love that all of us should aspire to but one that none of us are likely to perfect.



Some problems with that reasoning.... Jesus was not exactly "willing to die on the cross", because he did ask for "the cup to be taken away" before his arrest. Yes, he submitted to Gods will, but at the same time was looking for a way out.

Secondly, Jesus never suggested that the law would be done with once he gets nailed to the cross. Instead he said, that those who preach against the law would be "lowest in the kingdom of heaven". So this christian idea that the law is done with goes against what Jesus taught.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

. . .those who preach against the law would be "lowest in the kingdom of heaven"

When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he meant that he came to reinterpret the law, so he was renewing a correct understanding of a fundamental, universal law, so in effect was the new lawgiver. When he spoke of these words not passing away, he meant his own, this was the law of this new age he was bringing about.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


You seem to have a very poor understanding of history..


Respectfully, and without malice, neither do you, sir. You refuse to even look at the history or your religion, your book, and your faith. Take a look here:
Post Reply
and here:
Post Reply
This is real, documented history here, talking about Ancient Sumer. And written long before any Christian church came along and stole the stories for it's own ends.

Hebrew Language Origins

From The Alpha and the Omega - Chapter Three

What the Maries Really Found in Iraq

edit on 1/19/12 by autowrench because: To Add Content



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join