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: 41
29
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Hint: Your "historical" approach has Christianity starting among the same people (the Jews) you proved, conclusively, wouldn't have started it. Last time I checked, you can't logically have it both ways. Sorry about that.




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The Bible is one of the only books that has been preserved so well. Quite possibly the Roman looting and confiscation of the scrolls and parchments may be the only reason that we have the bible today . The Jews would have never shared the Law with the Gentile and if they were not blinded to Jesus we would not have his Gospel either .
Yet you would accept the research and works of some Johnny come lately who sifts through other remaining writings related to the bible and interpreted with his spin on it .



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


MamaJ, I like you a bunch. I'm fortunate, to be able to learn from your sincerely, honest, reply's. I'm happy you're here. And your opinions/views, I value immensely. I have a family member, who I adore. Who has had a NDE from an auto accident. They believe, it was divine. Rather then chemically induced. I however still question their logic/experience. Contributing their reaction to that violent incident, Just the body's way of dealing with the stress and forces of the NDE.

I will take your advice, and do some more reading on consciousness and NDE. I will approach with my mind fully opened.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


The earliest surviving copy of any gospel is dated to the 4th century, an entire 300 years after-the-fact. That happens to be around the same time that Christianity was legalized, "coincidentally".

Are you saying changes couldn't have been made in 300 years? Are you also saying that paper records are in fact reliable contrary to your original post?
edit on 36012121CST363 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Hey 3NL1GHT3N3D1, That's the way I see it too. The Mind/Body, dealing with an unfortunate, deadly, situation. I am open to more conciseness, discussions. Although, I am sure I wont be swayed towards the divine.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Why is there no real proof of his existence outside of biblical reference ?

What do you want ?

His birth certificate ?

If that makes you happy...



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The Bible is not just a Census record or property record . It was preserved with great care and copies made by scribes constantly . That is not to discount the fact that God looked after the bible . As such he likely had Rome take all of the scrolls to Rome . I do know that he preplanned to destroy the Temple and again scatter the Jews before Jesus came to us . The New Testament was taken to Rome but not all copies were confiscated and yet they still agree with the KJV meaning no changes were made from the original text .

You should read into the Talmud which is where the Jews were when Jesus was with us . He made a point to show us the departure from the faith that Judaism had taken . God removed their candlestick for now because of their iniquities and gave it to the Christian . Both will be united at the end .



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The Dead Sea Scrolls is a little older than 300 AD .
edit on 11-1-2014 by SimonPeter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


So paper copies are reliable according to you? You said that they weren't. It doesn't make you wonder why the bible was preserved while history was changed according to you? Why would God not protect the history he made unfold but protect a book? Is history not worth protecting while a book that has justified countless atrocities is worth protecting?

The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing in them from the NT or gospels, I was speaking of the gospels which is the subject of this thread.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The Gospels and their copies were spread all over at the time the Church sought them out .There were many copies in many languages as I remember. The Roman church could not ascertain all of the copies like they could the Scrolls which were centrally located in the Temple . Yet the message in the New Testament and the copies not confiscated match .
This is not the same as tracking single records that never existed or was not worth keeping or destroyed in a fire .



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I apologize for attributing this 'Jesus never existed' statement to you. I was certain enough of it, to say it, but I take your word that I am wrong. I am sorry about that. I honestly believed it came from your post. I may have read one of the responses in your posts which contained it. I always see the western themed avatar you used, when I see your posts. I am familiar with your writing.

There are persons whom I always SnF, when they start a thread. But when the same writer gets into the whole 'Jesus is a myth, a fiction', I am always a little troubled. I honestly believe that the foundational reason for these historical denial promotions are not good.

This is not some mere denial that Jesus said this, or did that, or whether divine, or a heretic. This is cutting a whole new cloth.

I apologize, for the wrong association I made. I was so certain of it that I dismissed the 'let's check first' idea entirely, as I wrote.

# 127



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


So the oldest surviving copies dating to the same time as them being legalized doesn't matter here? I'd consider that a conflict of interest personally, then again I'm on the outside looking in.

As far as I'm aware, the NT was only available in Greek. They weren't written in multiple languages as you claim until after they were finalized at Nicaea and ready to be seen by the public.

Again, why would god willingly let man tamper with history but not with a book that would end up being the basis for wars and genocides? If man has free will to alter history they also have the free will to alter the bible. Both were recorded on paper, something you said was unreliable in a previous post.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Read all you can get your hands on regarding Melchezedek and let me know what you think. Reincarnation was pretty much known and taught and is in our ancient texts. When you apply it to Jesus then his story makes sense.

I always wondered why all the drama but then I realized its not drama... its evolution of the soul.

Hermes and Enoch when read as the same soul as jesus.. again... makes so much sense.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


I like you too. Yeah read all you can with an open mind.. see where it takes you. Consciousness is a subject I find really interesting. What we are learning is so fascinating.

I see it as being our gateway.

Nde are so neat to study. All the common ground they share is more than coincidental.

With this is mind think of the body as a vessel. We inhabit a body via the womb. Its no wonder the fluid is called amniotic. Amnesia takes hold and we do not remember any of our memories. Well.. some of us don't while others remember a great deal, especially until the ages of five or six. After that, this world takes over.

Reincarnation of Jesus means he evolved to Christ. The reason he thru Jesus and melchezedek spoke so much about bread is because they wanted to show man's evolution via spirit. You have with one loaf a heel (adam) and at the other end is the crown ( christ). Many pieces in between. The crown is the soul spirits goal.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   

SimonPeter
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The Dead Sea Scrolls is a little older than 300 AD .
edit on 11-1-2014 by SimonPeter because: (no reason given)


True, some scroll fragments date back as far as 250 BCE. But what does that prove? They have to thing to do with either the New Testament or Jesus. Not one fragment. It's all from the Hebrew bible not the Christian.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


So you don't think that the New Testament was read before Nicaea ? Where did all of those Letters and Testaments come from and how did the Roman Church get them . And you don't think that they were transcribed into different languages . Truly they were not compiled as todays NT versions but just as potent . Christianity spread pretty rapidly and text was needed throughout . I am sure that many copies of these writings made and disseminated through out the Middle East and Europe and Africa long before Rome saw the possibilities of using Christianity as a tool of power .
Even the Muslims attest of Jesus .



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


How do we know the copies before the 4th century even resembled the ones legalized? They don't exist anymore.

If man has the free will to change history they have the free will to change the bible. You can't just have it one way or the other.

There was no such thing as a Muslim or the Quran until 300 years after Christianity was legalized so I fail to see how Muslims attesting to Jesus applies here. Muslims don't believe Jesus was god and believe the bible has been corrupted anyways.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You keep hitting on legalized . Who has the authority to legalize the New testament Gospel of Christ . The Vatican . Especially not the Vatican . What you mean is compiled in what we believe to be an order that follows their time line . Legal ?
Do you not think that the copies of the letters and gospels were not prized possessions . Do you not think that they were copied to prevent their loss .
I am sure some copies were lost but enough survived to populate the world . Today It is possible that some of the original text or copies could still be around but you would never get near them .
Surely you don't believe that all matter in all of the Galaxies came from a black hole the size of a period on a piece of paper later to become from nothingness literally ?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
How do we know the copies before the 4th century even resembled the ones legalized? They don't exist anymore.

Fragments still exist, and Irenaeus's works still exist. Irenaeus quoted from almost all the new testament books in “Against Heresies” which was written around 180ad. Irenaeus's teacher was Polycarp, who was a student of John the Apostle. There are other early church fathers who also similarly wrote on various topics, several of whom were also taught directly by the Apostles themselves.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Do you agree that man has free will? If so, then you must also agree that they have the free will to edit the bible just as with history. Is paper documentation reliable or not? You seem to be setting a double standard in that area.

Yet the Roman authorities ended up with the copies that eventually made it into the bible. Do you really think an empire such as Rome would EVER legalize the actual truth? If so, you are naive and biased.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join