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: 30
29
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Why do you call it 'drivel'? He makes very good sense to me.


I call 'em like I see em Wild. When anyone in this day and age
judges any ancient book, scripture or written account. That
is proclaimed to be non fiction. How can anyone say it isn't ?

It's Krazy and not believable at all to think they could possibly
know that as a fact. I'd feel pretty ignorant to consider that he
could possibly know what he's talking about, because he wasn't
there. That's not to say that he couldn't possibly be correct.
But if I said that king Leonidas never existed and the battle of
Thermopolaye was a myth. I'd put myself in the same situation
as anyone who spouts krazy crap. I'd be lying or writing what
amounts to drivel. The Bible isn't called God's book of Fables.
Ur was thought to be a myth. Troy etc, but the
deeper we dig.

And by the record alone, you non believers
should be a nervous wreck everyday. Because archeaologists
only dig up more and more confirmation. So yeah total drivel
to be polite.




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock
 



Besides, with all the plot holes in the bible, you can create mounds of interpretations and rationalizations to explain them away. Still doesn't make anything true. Actually it's even worse. If you were to look at the bible as a piece of literature, it would be one of the worst written books of all time. Plot holes, inconsistency, one dimensional characters, abrupt stylistic changes, and that is just off the top of my head.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



Personally I never saw the book as a piece of literature so I cant get hung up on style or dimension of characters.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


And why not? Skepticism calls for proof, which we have been asking for throughout this thread and despite what bo xian seem to claim, hasn't been provided and the proof that has been provided has been debunked.

Contrary to what Christians seem to think (probably because they believe a bunch of myths), doubt will create REAL believers if the claims that are made are substantiated and backed up with solid evidence. If Christian claims held up to science and archeology time and again (instead of small tidbits that can be easily explained away or just outright debunked), the atheist movement wouldn't be growing at the rate it is. But instead Christians like to rely on repeating the same tired unlogical claims again and again.

Jesus, if he existed, wasn't the son of God, wasn't born of a virgin, didn't perform miracles, probably wasn't a virgin himself (heck he was probably married to Marry M who the early church decreed was a prostitute, way to go church in hiding inconvenient evidence), he certainly wasn't resurrected after three days being dead, and he didn't ascend into heaven afterwards without dying a second time. What is more likely is that he was a wise person who probably studied Buddhism and introduced some foreign concepts to the Middle East that rang well with a bunch of Hebrew people who started following him around. Testimony to his deeds was probably blown WAY out of proportion (then a lot of it was just straight up made up by the RCC) in a large version of the telephone game and as a result, Jesus went from modest preacher to superstar to Godhood thanks to gullible people.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Logarock

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock
 



Besides, with all the plot holes in the bible, you can create mounds of interpretations and rationalizations to explain them away. Still doesn't make anything true. Actually it's even worse. If you were to look at the bible as a piece of literature, it would be one of the worst written books of all time. Plot holes, inconsistency, one dimensional characters, abrupt stylistic changes, and that is just off the top of my head.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



Personally I never saw the book as a piece of literature so I cant get hung up on style or dimension of characters.



You said it yourself, it is a book, it is a piece of literature. Whether you think it is non-fiction or fiction is irrelevant. It is a collection of stories written down on paper. But don't take my word on it, here is dictionary.com's definition:

literature

1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.


I'd say that the bible falls into that definition.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Oops I gotta chime in. Jesus was the birth of a virgin...Ha Ha... anyways If he had any influence on anything a book or writings, sayings or whatever, He was the first and original con man that ever existed.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





by the Blood of The Lamb and the word of our testimony NOW BECAUSE we walk and talk with Him daily. He IS ALIVE IN OUR LIVES. He is our Friend, Brother, Joint Heir, Lord actively now. Knowing Him in tangible literal daily terms is what keeps us going in this sin infested puss pocket of a corrupted planet.


You want to claim that this ^^ isn't mythology and is "truth? LOL!

Jesus, if he existed, was not a lamb and his blood is long gone! You do understand that, right? Your religion is based on mythology and symbolism that is NOT based in reality!


Are you saying that the use of symbols does not communicate another level of truth? Do you even know why he was called "the Lamb"? Are you wanting to be taken seriously in a discussion on this subject without even this basic understanding?

You sound like one of those nuts that go down to the police station and claim the "saw the whole thing" just for some sort of thrill when they were not even there.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Why do you call it 'drivel'? He makes very good sense to me.


I call 'em like I see em Wild. When anyone in this day and age
judges any ancient book, scripture or written account. That
is proclaimed to be non fiction. How can anyone say it isn't ?


The bible claims that it is non-fiction. If I wrote a story tomorrow about space goats conquering galaxies and within it I wrote that this story is true, would you believe that testimony? There is as much proof of space goats conquering the galaxies as for many of the things mentioned in the bible.


It's Krazy and not believable at all to think they could possibly
know that as a fact. I'd feel pretty ignorant to consider that he
could possibly know what he's talking about, because he wasn't
there. That's not to say that he couldn't possibly be correct.
But if I said that king Leonidas never existed and the battle of
Thermopolaye was a myth. I'd put myself in the same situation
as anyone who spouts krazy crap. I'd be lying or writing what
amounts to drivel. The Bible isn't called God's book of Fables.
Ur was thought to be a myth. Troy etc, but the
deeper we dig.


Yea because after compiling a bunch of myths (or stealing myths from other religions), the early Christians would have converted SOOOO many people by labeling the bible "God's Book of Fables."


And by the record alone, you non believers
should be a nervous wreck everyday. Because archeaologists
only dig up more and more confirmation. So yeah total drivel
to be polite.


Oh? So because the bible mentions places or things that actually exist then ALL of it is true? Apparently you've never heard of this genre of fiction: historical fiction


Historical fiction tells a story that is set in the past. That setting is drawn from history, and often contains historical persons, but the main characters tend to be fictional. Writers of stories in this genre work to portray the manners and social conditions of the persons or time(s) presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity.[1] Historical fiction is found in books, magazines,[2] art, television programming, film, theater, video games and other media.It is also featured in theatrical plays.


I bolded the sentence of relevance.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


When anyone in this day and age
judges any ancient book, scripture or written account. That
is proclaimed to be non fiction. How can anyone say it isn't ?


By discovering forgeries, the glaring lack of evidence of the stated occurrences, and general common sense.







posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





It is scheduled to get worse. AT some point, it will be a crime to claim that Jesus is Lord and maybe even that He existed.

It's easy to see a certain cadre from here cheering that day. But not cheering too many years thereafter.



Hell I cheer for it myself. But, I'm a little demented with my fascinations
for adventure.:



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



And by the record alone, you non believers
should be a nervous wreck everyday. Because archeaologists
only dig up more and more confirmation. So yeah total drivel
to be polite.

Kindly exclude me from "you non believers" - I am an agnostic, with major doubts about the Bible as being accurate or 'true.'

I don't see "more and more confirmation" being dug up, either - and, my friend, I look for the stuff.

But, it'd be great if you could link us all to the daily "more and more confirmation" being dug up!



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Dr1Akula
The wikipedia says that besides the new testament which half of it has been writen by Paul himself there are no other sources of his life, So his story only comes from himself, how credible is that? Couldn't he made that all up, Where can we judge the credibility of that person?
every single thing we know about Jesus and the apostles life story comes only from them. where is the proof that they told us the truth?


Your a doctor and your using wikipedia?
Paul's story doesn't come from himself. The book of Acts is a source for Paul. The good thing is when he was Saul of Tarsus, Jesus met him on the road to Damascus. We have enemy attestation from him and how his life was changed 180 degrees.
Fact: The majority of Historians agree that Paul the Apostle was a real person and wrote at least 7 of his epistles which includes the book of Romans, which states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Then it states that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Then it states if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead we will saved.
His 7 epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic.


Dr1Akula
So my point still stands.
(They only wrote about jesus,they weren't respectable writers of their time that wrote many other documents of various subjects (among the gospells), so we can judge their writing character and so on their credibility. They came out of nowhere and they only wrote one supernatural story about a person, that none else had ever met, or heard about.
Everything we know about Jesus first come out of this suspecious group of people. (the apostles) No other historical evidence or archeological finds.)


Your point is on sinking sand. Who says that they should write other documents? Will you hold that to the other authors of ancient books?
Writing one book has nothing to do with credibility.
You had Luke who was a doctor who could read and write. You had Matthew who knew how to read and write because he was a tax collector who then turned to Christ. Early Church Fathers agree that the names of those who wrote the Gospels were correct.
Suspicious people? There is no basis for that.


Dr1Akula
Dr. Gary Habermas main source was the new testament and early christian accounts, no independent sources.


Wrong, he has cataloged non-Christian sources and I would highly recommend that you read the below article from Gary.
Ancient Non-Christian Sources
www.garyhabermas.com...


Dr1Akula
Beside that he is an evangelical Christian apologist, Deeply religious who dedicated his life on trying to prove Jesus resurrection.
So do the majority of the scholars you are reffering to, they are christians (biased towards the subject) and they take the new testament as historic fact, but dont forget the title of the thread.


He was close to being a Buddhist, he spent 10 years searching. The many Historical proofs of Jesus brought him over.
Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and says Jesus is real and the disciples believed that they saw Jesus, are you going to call him biased?
There's only a few scholars who don't believe in the real Jesus and they are on the fringe.


Dr1Akula
'' Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing other than biblical references''


See my comment above about non-Christian sources.


Dr1Akula
So yes if I first believe in Jesus as the son of God, then I can believe he resurrected, so I can assume the new testament is a reliable book of history. But If I am a skeptic ''third person viewer'' I need more proofs than a single Book (New testament) writen in parts by a few friends who obviously ( to me ) made up stories of unbelievable claims.


The New Testament is a reliable book of history. See the following:
By Ron Rhodes
"By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity."

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."

Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:
"No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible."
Paul the Apostle was not friends with the other Apostles when he was Saul of Tarsus. Paul received the Gospel straight from Jesus then three years later he goes and sees Peter and James and they have the same Gospel which Paul had which proves that Jesus is real because it is multiply attested by two sources.


Dr1Akula
You see scientific historical facts should be rock solid proof to anyone, regardless the religion, nationality etc. and not only to the believers. If we had those fact there would be no need for a debate.


Then there would be no to choose between believing God or rejecting Him.


Dr1Akula
If someone (generally speaking) believe so easily a person who claims to have seen Jesus the son of God, what stops that man to also believe in Mohamed, Thor, Shiva, Osiris, Anubis, Dionysous etc.
People of (also) no credibility have claimed to see their miracles too. See the resemblance?


Very good question. You have to dig into the facts about each one. What sets Jesus apart from all of them is that He rose from the dead.


Dr1Akula
That could also happen if he was just a creation of fiction, Belief is all that you need.
If someone believes in a deity, it motivates him, and changes his life. Cause the person feels more secure and his subconscious rests from the ultimate questions,(where we come from?, whats the meaning to our lifes? what happens after death?) All people subconsciously feel deeply insecure about these questions and many hold on tight to a religion which answers it.
It is so plain and simple that all religions just sell peace of mind...
But that is the problem, having got the answers you stop searching for the truth, Because each religion gives you one of their own...


I say we need facts with belief but that's my opinion. It would be logical because you don't want to get deceived.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I'm an agnostic too, but I've gotten so tired of explaining that to these guys that I've just given up and let them call me whatever they want. I guess in the Christian mindset, you either believe firmly that God exists or you believe firmly that he doesn't exist, no inbetween.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

Logarock

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock
 



Besides, with all the plot holes in the bible, you can create mounds of interpretations and rationalizations to explain them away. Still doesn't make anything true. Actually it's even worse. If you were to look at the bible as a piece of literature, it would be one of the worst written books of all time. Plot holes, inconsistency, one dimensional characters, abrupt stylistic changes, and that is just off the top of my head.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



Personally I never saw the book as a piece of literature so I cant get hung up on style or dimension of characters.



You said it yourself, it is a book, it is a piece of literature. Whether you think it is non-fiction or fiction is irrelevant. It is a collection of stories written down on paper. But don't take my word on it, here is dictionary.com's definition:

literature

1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.


I'd say that the bible falls into that definition.



You were attempting to place the bible under the more narrow definition of higher literary style and technique. You were not using the broad definition of literature as shown in definition 2 and 3 which are not definitions of literary style, charter development and the like.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I'm saying that you are spouting mythological symbolism about "The Blood of The Lamb", and that Jesus is "ALIVE", as some kind of irrefutable truth.

Jesus, if he existed, and his blood are long gone. Mythological bloody symbolism is mythological bloody symbolism.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I'm an agnostic too, but I've gotten so tired of explaining that to these guys that I've just given up and let them call me whatever they want. I guess in the Christian mindset, you either believe firmly that God exists or you believe firmly that he doesn't exist.



Well that's fair enough considering that on the other side of the coin christians are being called illiterate, lacking scholarly virtue, never really pondering anything they believe with any depth, ect. and much worse.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Oh the bible fits the first definition just fine and let me tell you, it really is a terrible piece of literature as I've explained before. It makes so little sense, Christians cannot even agree on which parts to take literally and which points to take metaphorically or allegorically.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I'll be damned. The list of examples doesn't
seem to include the Bible. So your point is basically men tell lies.

Excuse me, but I'm not floored by that.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Kindly exclude me from "you non believers" - I


My bad Wild. I humbly apologize.

And I say more and more because it certainly isn't less and less.
edit on 8-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by Logarock
 


I'm saying that you are spouting mythological symbolism about "The Blood of The Lamb", and that Jesus is "ALIVE", as some kind of irrefutable truth.

Jesus, if he existed, and his blood are long gone. Mythological bloody symbolism is mythological bloody symbolism.



Its the implications that trouble you. The implications of the Son of God being a slaughtered Lamb as a sin bearer for humanity......it has very unnerving implications. Just thinking about it forces a changing perspective of God, the world and mankind, of reality as we see it.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Logarock

Krazysh0t
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I'm an agnostic too, but I've gotten so tired of explaining that to these guys that I've just given up and let them call me whatever they want. I guess in the Christian mindset, you either believe firmly that God exists or you believe firmly that he doesn't exist.



Well that's fair enough considering that on the other side of the coin christians are being called illiterate, lacking scholarly virtue, never really pondering anything they believe with any depth, ect. and much worse.


What you just described were a bunch of ad hominem attacks. What I described is people ascribing beliefs to someone else. You know kind of like how a political debate always involves some yahoo making the assumption that if you are against them then you are for the opposite party (ie: if against a democrat the opposition HAS to be republican and vice versa). I've also grown tired of telling people that I'm Libertarian and neither of those things as well. Of course the root of this has to do with the idea of duality and people having a hard time wrapping their heads around more than two mentalities: good or evil, conservative or liberal, atheist or theist. Middle ground tends to blow people's minds so they just pigeonhole the person into the opposing position as themselves and call it a day.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join