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.

 

Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

page: 25
29
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   

iRoyalty
reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK
 


One thing that trips me up about Jesus' burial, why was he buried?

The Romans liked to leave people on crosses until they were just bones, the idea of a cross was so everyone could see what happens to criminals, not as an execution.

This is a genuine question by the way.


they didn't want a pilgrimage site. that's why they entombed him with a giant rock door and guards.

besides, he wasn't used as a warning, like other criminals would be.




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Buttonlip

texastig
No text has been altered, we can see that with the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's the same thing we have today in our Bible and also for the New Testament.


Then please explain why out of my 4 bibles, I have 3 completely different sets of "the ten commandments?" Two are in different order, different wording and one has 12. How is that not altered?



lol!!!

really?

what are they?

are Gutenberg and Jefferson, 2 of them?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   

vethumanbeing

texastig

Buttonlip
Then please explain why out of my 4 bibles, I have 3 completely different sets of "the ten commandments?" Two are in different order, different wording and one has 12. How is that not altered?


What versions of the 4 Bibles do you have?


This is interesting to me Texastig; I also have a number of bibles, the last one given to me for (OF ALL THINGS) a Christmas present; the King James Version, I also have a Christian Science version, a Jehovah Witness version, 'the living bible Catholic version' and a non demominational volume; and the morman thingy. I told my mother; you know what Im going to do with this, compare and contrast with the others (they are all different) dissertations/interpretations of the same metaphors; twisted and manipulated to suit that faiths needs (no surprise there really). I also have the Urantia Book that trumps them all; making 7? if you count it. I could waste the next 20 years of my life exercising a 'comparitive litergy/metaphor/literature curriculum ' using these texts; and one day teach a course to young seminary students at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago/Loyola. I dont have a Gideons though.
edit on 6-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)


why, in Gods name do you people claim to have multiple bibles and still get everything wrong?

they sound like they do you no good.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by dragonridr
 




dragonridr
reply to post by windword
 


Simple it was copied from an earlier source and does mention Jesus. So the Arabic source obviously is different now you could try to argue both men happen to get there text close but that would be one hell of a coincidence.


Nope, it didn't show up until the year 941/942. It is obviously a copy of the forgery.


The work in question is actually a history of the world to the year 941/942 penned by a Christian Arab bishop, Agapius of Hierapolis. His World History preserves, in Arabic translation, a version of the Testimonium minus the most obvious Christian interpolations.




It highly likely they both gave there interpretation of the works of Josephus in latin and translated it.


Josephus manuscripts were written in Greek. They were translated to Latin by Jerome in the 4th century.


Were you aware Josephus mentions christians several times in his writings


Show me, please.

Origen specifically declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. In the edition Origen published by the Benedictines, there is no mention of Jesus by Josephus.

4. It is doubtful that the James of Josephus is the same as James the Just, brother of Jesus. James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus. [5]

5. Hegesippus wrote in 165 - 175 AD about the death of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with the account in Josephus’ writings.

Not An Isolated Occurrence, But A Pattern

There are numerous documented examples from the Old and New Testament of theologians and scribes changing verses that did not convey the meaning they thought correct or best. Several of these are referenced on this web site.

Conclusion

The appeal to Josephus as an extra-Biblical confirmatory source regarding Jesus fails an in depth examination. The Testimonium Flavainum certainly is a partial or complete forgery and the section referring to James is also doubtful in authenticity [11,12,13,14]. Continued Christian references to Josephus as a confirmatory source for the Bible should cease. The changes made to the writings of Josephus are not an isolated occurrence, but represent a pattern of Christian forgeries that are pervasive throughout the centuries. Terming this behavior as “interpolations” and “pseudepigraphical writing” does not deflect what is really occurring; Christians attempting to change history through fraudulent means.
www.trueorigins.us...#/josephus-christianity/4552113072



Now as far as nazarenes your clueless this was a jewish population not a christian population.


Early followers of Jesus were Jews, and Paul was their ringleader, according to Acts.


So you're wrong so trying to say Cornelius Tacitus wasnt taking about christians which by the way at the time were being burned at the stake is stupid.

So your effort to debunk Josephus and Tacitus is nothing more than an attempt to disprove christianity but in history we have to take people at there word not try to interpret it through a filter like your source is trying to do.



If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...


There was already pagan cults that were using the term "Christ" "Chrestus" "Christos" and "Christians" before the advent and after the advent of Jesus. That is a fact! Jesus Christ never existed! Perhaps, there was a Jesus of Nazareth, but he wasn't born of a virgin didn't rise from the dead and didn't die for the sins of the world.




edit on 6-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


do you make this stuff up or just paraphrase from someone else?

write a book. why not?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


And, at the pharisees' urging, they wanted to be able to be certain where his body was to prevent claims of a resurrection--the pharisees were convinced there couldn't be such--much like the naysayers hereon are so arbitrarily and unscientifically so convinced.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   

BO XIAN
reply to post by tsingtao
 


And, at the pharisees' urging, they wanted to be able to be certain where his body was to prevent claims of a resurrection--the pharisees were convinced there couldn't be such--much like the naysayers hereon are so arbitrarily and unscientifically so convinced.


yes, Jesus had a beef with them all along. the bastages!

2 women were witness to His resurrection/empty tomb.

back then, no one would have used a woman's testimony as truth.

mary M. and i forget. lol!



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   

tsingtao
lol!!!

really?

what are they?

are Gutenberg and Jefferson, 2 of them?


What are they????
They are bibles. Not sure what you are asking.

King James, New American, Berkely, and the living bible. is that what you are asking? You know how many versions of the bible there are??????
edit on 7-1-2014 by Buttonlip because: to clarify what I think was being asked



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   

BO XIAN
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I'm convinced that a significant chunk of the naysayers' persons are also at least unconsciously terrified of Jesus and Christianity.



This is the most arrogant thing I have ever read about Christianity. We do not all believe in your book of myths but many of us have read it. How proud would you Jesus be of your conceit? There is nothing to be terrified of. There is just also nothing to back up your book of walking dead and talking snakes. It really is that simple.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

BO XIAN
reply to post by tsingtao
 


And, at the pharisees' urging, they wanted to be able to be certain where his body was to prevent claims of a resurrection--the pharisees were convinced there couldn't be such--much like the naysayers hereon are so arbitrarily and unscientifically so convinced.


Science has yet to provide talking snakes, talking bushes, zombies, and Noah' great flood. In fact science actually disproves all these things so far. Can you show otherwise?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

vethumanbeing
This is interesting to me Texastig; I also have a number of bibles, the last one given to me for (OF ALL THINGS) a Christmas present; the King James Version, I also have a Christian Science version, a Jehovah Witness version, 'the living bible Catholic version' and a non demominational volume; and the morman thingy. I told my mother; you know what Im going to do with this, compare and contrast with the others (they are all different) dissertations/interpretations of the same metaphors; twisted and manipulated to suit that faiths needs (no surprise there really). I also have the Urantia Book that trumps them all; making 7? if you count it. I could waste the next 20 years of my life exercising a 'comparitive litergy/metaphor/literature curriculum ' using these texts; and one day teach a course to young seminary students at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago/Loyola. I dont have a Gideons though.


1. Keep the KJV.
2. Throw out the Christian Science version because Christian Science is neither Christian nor Science.
3.Throw out the JW's New World Translation because they purposely translated the Bible incorrectly i.e. John 1:1 and other verses about the Deity of Christ and they never named the translators in the front of their bible and they keep changing it.
4.Throw out the Living Bible Catholic because it's not a translation but a paraphrase.
5. I've never heard of a non denominational volume.
6. Throw out the Book of Mormon it's just a big lie with no historical evidence to back it. Joesph Smith was the only one to have supposedly seen Jesus and God and he was by himself with no other witnesses.
7. I've never heard of the Urantia Book.
8. For the Gideon's Bible, the common Bible version they use is the NASB.
You sure have alot of books.
See Galatians 1:8, the devil was already trying to pervert the Word of God in Paul's time.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

texastig

6. Throw out the Book of Mormon it's just a big lie with no historical evidence to back it. Joesph Smith was the only one to have supposedly seen Jesus and God and he was by himself with no other witnesses.


What makes a modern day prophet less credible than say Moses? There weren't any witnesses when Moses saw the burning bush, yet Abrahamic religions take that story as truth. But Joseph Smith who comes up with a story like he did, is just ridiculous (probably because it doesn't jive with your worldview). In all, both accounts are ridiculous, and it is intellectually dishonest to discount one as wrong and the other as true all because one has been ingrained in humanities' psyche for thousands of years.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
I don't really care about the person, I care about Jesus' message, and it was and is beautiful and profound, one path to enlightenment/salvation. Idol worship serves no one. Whether or not he lived the message ascribed to him is one to me that makes sense and seems to be the best way to live your life, but this of course is just my own opinion.

Namaste



I'm no biblelogist . but



Idol worship serves no one

Unless its idol worhip of him?




The Prince of Peace comes to bring division

10:34-36 - "Never think I have come to bring peace upon the earth. No, I have not come to bring peace but a sword! For I have come to set a man against his own father, a daughter against her own mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be those who live in his own house.

10:37-39 - "Anyone who puts his love for father or mother above his love for me does not deserve to be mine, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and neither is the man who refuses to take up his cross and follow my way. The man who has found his own life will lose it, but the man who has lost it for my sake will find it.

10:40 - "Whoever welcomes you, welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me is welcoming the one who sent me.

10:41-42 - "Whoever welcomes a prophet just because he is a prophet will get a prophet's reward. And whoever welcomes a good man just because he is a good man will get a good man's reward. Believe me, anyone who gives even a drink of water to one of these little ones, just because he is my disciple, will by no means lose his reward."


I'm not sure I see that as beautiful and profound but to each own.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

IkNOwSTuff

PlanetXisHERE
I don't really care about the person, I care about Jesus' message, and it was and is beautiful and profound, one path to enlightenment/salvation. Idol worship serves no one. Whether or not he lived the message ascribed to him is one to me that makes sense and seems to be the best way to live your life, but this of course is just my own opinion.

Namaste


Worshiping Jesus, praying towards a cross IS idol worship


Jesus was Gods policeman.

Riding a flaming motorcycle and doing miracles.

I prefer my version.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Buttonlip
 


At some point . . . with blazing clarity and emphatic detail . . . such assertions will be proven horribly askew to totally wrong.

However, that's God's gig. He has the power, the means and the plan.

Until then, I've learned the hard way that it's GENERALLY folly to try and teach some critters to sing. It only annoys the critters and is terminally frustrating.

So go ahead and enjoy your illusions of the saintliness of the Religion of Scientism and all it's askew doctrines and dogmas.

Just be prepared to not enjoy the empty bag such perspectives will be left with . . . or will it be a bag of horribly smelly goo?

.


edit on 7/1/2014 by BO XIAN because: typo



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Biigs

IkNOwSTuff

PlanetXisHERE
I don't really care about the person, I care about Jesus' message, and it was and is beautiful and profound, one path to enlightenment/salvation. Idol worship serves no one. Whether or not he lived the message ascribed to him is one to me that makes sense and seems to be the best way to live your life, but this of course is just my own opinion.

Namaste


Worshiping Jesus, praying towards a cross IS idol worship


Jesus was Gods policeman.

Riding a flaming motorcycle and doing miracles.

I prefer my version.


LMAO

now thats an idol I would happily worship



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Buttonlip
 



I gather that you, personally, have NEVER been the least bit

afraid of being wrong.

Yet, you fiercely assail other notions as arrogant.

Fascinating.

The Book declares that the reverential awe/fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Some folks never approach the front gate to the lane to the porch to the screen door of wisdom. But then, they probably don't think they need wisdom . . . being so omniscient and all within their own little world.

Of course, that wouldn't dare to be called arrogant.

LOLOLOL.

Some things might be arrogant . . . unless they are a correct description of objective reality.

Time will tell.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

BO XIAN
reply to post by Buttonlip
 


At some point . . . with blazing clarity and emphatic detail . . . such assertions will be proven horribly askew to totally wrong.

However, that's God's gig. He has the power, the means and the plan.

Until then, I've learned the hard way that it's GENERALLY folly to try and teach some critters to sing. It only annoys the critters and is terminally frustrating.

So go ahead and enjoy your illusions of the saintliness of the Religion of Scientism and all it's askew doctrines and dogmas.

Just be prepared to not enjoy the empty bag such perspectives will be left with . . . or will it be a bag of horribly smelly goo?

.


edit on 7/1/2014 by BO XIAN because: typo


There you go again with that "Religion of Scientism" crap again. One has to wonder how you think computers work. Surely you are aware that electrical theory is science. I guess you still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth is the center of the galaxy, because all the people saying otherwise are scientists. Does God keep everyone on Earth from flying away into the depths of space? I mean gravity is a concept defined and analyzed by science as well.

No wait, YOU can pick and choose which science is credible based on this ridiculous concept of "religion of scientism." If it doesn't agree with your world view, then it MUST be bunk and anyone who agrees otherwise just worships a different religion. You really need to expand your world view though. Not everyone thinks in terms of worship and blind faith like you do. Certainly not science which has the scientific method to COMPLETELY debunk this whole stupid "religion of scientism." (I refuse to not put that term in quotes because it is so intellectually insulting that it needs them)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


My proof

take a close look at this picture of a sunset taken July 25 / 2013 after I said a Prayer for God to deliver us "of" evil. (online on another forum, timestamped - an hour before this pic was taken 20 miles from me by someone I don't even know)

You don't have to believe as is your free-will to or not, however, making blanket statements that absence of proof is proof of absence might sit well with those who are void of belief but to those of us who have no doubts the statement is nothing but opinion.

Finding God isn't as difficult as you make it, it is as easy as seeking with a true heart.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

anoncoholic
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


My proof

take a close look at this picture of a sunset taken July 25 / 2013 after I said a Prayer for God to deliver us "of" evil. (online on another forum, timestamped - an hour before this pic was taken 20 miles from me by someone I don't even know)

You don't have to believe as is your free-will to or not, however, making blanket statements that absence of proof is proof of absence might sit well with those who are void of belief but to those of us who have no doubts the statement is nothing but opinion.

Finding God isn't as difficult as you make it, it is as easy as seeking with a true heart.


I guess I should point out that while people can see faces in clouds I have never seen a cloud formation portray an entire theme right down to ground level where if you look, you can see the lake of fire



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Buttonlip

BO XIAN
reply to post by tsingtao
 


And, at the pharisees' urging, they wanted to be able to be certain where his body was to prevent claims of a resurrection--the pharisees were convinced there couldn't be such--much like the naysayers hereon are so arbitrarily and unscientifically so convinced.


Science has yet to provide talking snakes, talking bushes, zombies, and Noah' great flood. In fact science actually disproves all these things so far. Can you show otherwise?


can science explain that pic? Can science explain what is contained within its pixels?

There is more to that picture than meets the eye...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join