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: 43
29
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I never said Paul rewrote or edited the bible, I said that the NT and church doctrine we have today is heavily and almost entirely influenced by Paul's writings. If John spoke out against Paul we would never know it because the Vatican has the authority to release what it wants to release and they have a huge library full of unknown writings that no one is allowed to see.

Again, my theory is that Rome persecuted Christians for 300 hundred years all the while snatching any writings and teachings they could get a hold of, they then only incorporated the ones they felt supported their cause into the bible we have today. As they were persecuting Christians, they had people such as Paul and other Jewish leaders writing letters and epistles to create a Jewish-centric doctrine in the name of Jesus when in reality they were the enemy of Jesus.

Like Jesus said, "many will come in my name", they did and they have succeeded for the most part in changing his teachings through man-made doctrines.




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yet Luther's teachings and doctrine still survive to this day. Nothing of truth in this world survives for very long, TPTB have too many connections and too much power for that to be so. They want to keep us in the dark and they always get what they want, today's world attests to that.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


What connects Iranaeus to John the apostle? Church tradition alone. If you were attempting to subvert and divert a movement, why wouldn't you link your minions to those who walked with Jesus?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:17 AM
link   

defcon5
reply to post by dragonridr
 

You're absolutely correct. I believe that he got into a pretty bitter argument with Peter, and finally Peter had to admit that Paul was correct. I almost pointed this out in the post above, as a matter of fact, because it goes to further point out that the Apostles didn't trust Paul, and so anything he did to undermine Christianity would have been screamed to the highest heavens by the apostles.

The fact that Irenious, who was a second generation disciple of John, was quoting from Paul's works, says that those early patriarchs must have accepted Paul’s writings as part of the early cannon.


Well you're right and wrong and im impressed thats hard to do. Seriously as far as cannons there wasnt really a disagreement. The disagreement was Paul creating a church collecting money and creating shall we say rituals of the church. The apostles believed he was becoming corrupted by greed if you will. You see this in the Incident at Antioch (galatians 2:11 -16) He actually loses to john's agents and he doesn't like it either.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

You realize that they would have had to snag all the copies that existed, and stopped all the “word of mouth” christian teaching to do what you claim, right? And they would have had to have the foresight to do this at least 200 years before the existence of the Holy Roman Empire, Roman Catholic Church, or even Constantine. Its a good conspiracy, but I don't believe that it could have realistically happened that way. Again, if they did have that kind of total control, why didn't they rewrite it to their liking, and left themselves open to attack for violating it later?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

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

Proof DOES in fact exist...

I say that because I have PERSONALLY seen it

Many others have as well.

God has left a witness of Himself for everyone.

Romans 1:20 leaves no doubt that every person who has ever walked the earth has had a clear revelation of God.

ALL of us choose our own destiny.

The Illuminati have been working for over 6,000 years to manipulate the existence of Yahweh/Jesus as a mere myth.

That should be your biggest clue.

Many of your questions are answered in three films I watched recently...

"The Perfect Stranger" is a powerfully fascinating theological debate between someone who is searching for answers and a stranger, who says he’s Jesus:
(Sequel to this film is here BTW)

"The Encounter" is about five strangers who find themselves stranded at a mysterious diner with a man who somehow has all of the answers to their problems.


Melisa: But surely no one would choose that if they knew you really existed?

Jesus: Not so, nobody goes into hell blindfolded. In one way or another, I've revealed myself to everyone.

Melisa: But if they could just see you...

Jesus: Not even that would be enough. Look at satan, he stood before me in the very throne room of God. But he thought the beauty and the power bestowed was somehow earned. Gave himself over to pride. Scratch any sin and just below the surface you'll find pride...
Source



edit on 12-1-2014 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

defcon5
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

You realize that they would have had to snag all the copies that existed, and stopped all the “word of mouth” christian teaching to do what you claim, right? And they would have had to have the foresight to do this at least 200 years before the existence of the Holy Roman Empire, Roman Catholic Church, or even Constantine. Its a good conspiracy, but I don't believe that it could have realistically happened that way. Again, if they did have that kind of total control, why didn't they rewrite it to their liking, and left themselves open to attack for violating it later?


Exactly they were already widely distributed we have proof of that by finding the dead sea scrolls. Very hard to edit a book once its been created. Be like trying to edit moby dick after selling 10000 copies what are you going to do ask for them back? So we know as of 60 AD to late to change anything there only option is to decide what's included in the bible which is done later.
edit on 1/12/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Yet Luther's teachings and doctrine still survive to this day. Nothing of truth in this world survives for very long, TPTB have too many connections and too much power for that to be so.

Oh, believe me the RCC tried like crazy to shut him up, they took him to the Diet of Wormz and tried to make him recant his writings. Luther had an advantage though, first he was protected by a group of German Princes who also had he same concerns about the Church, and he had the German Law on his side. Now add to this that he just happened to be around when the first printing presses came into existence, and the Church was just not able to contain its “viral” spread. Luther, besides writing of Romes abuses, and the first Bible in common language, also unified the German language. The Luther Bible became the “Macmillan Reader” of its time for Germans.

Up until Luther the Church had kept very limited copies of the bible, hand written, and those were only accessible to a very small number of people. It was written in Latin, which required a higher education to read. Owning a personal bible was considered a crime, punishable by being turned over to the inquisitors. Their excuse was that they didn't want heretical copies of the bible floating around, but in reality they just didn't want people to become aware of how liberally they were translating the bible to fit their abuses. It was after Luther's bible came out, at the Council of Trent, that the RCC finally had to select its “canonized” version of the Bible.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Back to the OP original question:

Frankly, there is no proof that 99% of the people of that era existed at all. Their names and individual histories are erased by time, as will be yours eventually.

However, the existence of Jesus is one of the most proven facts written in history. He is no more a legend than Buddha, Mohammed, or Julius Caesar. As a matter of fact, we have proven manuscript evidence of Jesus written during the lifetimes of the original Apostles. This type of incredible evidence does not exist for anyone or anything else in antiquity.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


They accomplished the snagging of documents and stopping the word of mouth with the persecutions. There are thousands upon thousands of classified documents within the Vatican library, who knows what is contained within them? No one is allowed to see them. For an organization that claims to be open with the truth, they sure do have a lot to hide.

How can you be so sure they didn't rewrite it? The miracles that Jesus performed are pagan in origin and Revelation is an entirely pagan piece of writing. Rome was a pagan empire before legalizing Christianity and they were also very good at religious diffusion and had Dionysian Imitatio at their disposal.

Those who run this world are very patient with their plans, sometimes taking hundreds of years to unfold their plans. They do this to keep the world perpetually blind to the actual truth. There is absolutely no way an empire as corrupt as Rome would EVER legalize and let the real truth spread as they did with Christianity.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
What connects Iranaeus to John the apostle? Church tradition alone. If you were attempting to subvert and divert a movement, why wouldn't you link your minions to those who walked with Jesus?

Polycarp:
en.wikipedia.org...
But there were others such as Clement and Ignatius.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with the NT, it consists entirely of OT scripture. The persecution of Christians for 300 years would be a great way for them to collect and/or destroy these widely distributed writings.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The Pauline Epistles are considered to be among the oldest extant writings contained in the Bible with copies dating from the early second century but attested in other writings in the last first century. They are older than the Gospels. Modern scholarship does not believe that all were written by the same author, and yet, these fourteen (14 books) Epistles comprise approximately half of the New Testament (27 books) on their own. That is one reason it could easily be said that the Pauline Author had a greater effect on the creation of Christianity than anyone else, including Jesus of Nazareth.

If one were to use the reasonable starting point of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE to argue that the Roman Government suborned the various cults of Christianity, eliminated everything that didn't serve the purpose of central governance,and standardized them all into the singular form that served as the core of and the basis for what grew to become Christianity over the next 1200 years, it's fairly easy to see what Luther rebelled against, and in fact, that "fabrication" in various ways was a big part of his argument against Rome.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


And Polycarp was a part of the church, the same one that supported the Christian persecutors Saul's writings.

Again, why couldn't or wouldn't they fabricate a link between early church fathers and the apostles? The only record keeping they had in those days was paper, something that could easily be destroyed and/or edited.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Jim Scott
Back to the OP original question:

Frankly, there is no proof that 99% of the people of that era existed at all. Their names and individual histories are erased by time, as will be yours eventually.

However, the existence of Jesus is one of the most proven facts written in history. He is no more a legend than Buddha, Mohammed, or Julius Caesar. As a matter of fact, we have proven manuscript evidence of Jesus written during the lifetimes of the original Apostles. This type of incredible evidence does not exist for anyone or anything else in antiquity.


Well true there isn't eyewitness testimony for many famous people in history.The problem is people often put agenda above facts and there is people that will say anything and believe anything if they believe something to be true. But You know what i think is funny even people that hate christianity must admit the impact it has had on society otherwise they wouldn't be trying to disprove it. Im more practical i believe people can believe in whatever they like and let the chips fall where they may. I have a cousin who became a priest guess that makes me the black sheep since i dont believe in christ. But i have no problem with his beliefs though i think he still holds out hope of converting me someday you wouldnt believe the discussions we have about scriptures he hates it when i start quoting the Quran.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Murgatroid
Proof DOES in fact exist...

I say that because I have PERSONALLY seen it.

It isn't proof unless you can show it to others.

Can you do that?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

You understand that we are talking hundreds of years before there was a Vatican Library, or even a Vatican for that matter. There is zero doubt that the RCC injected TONS of pagan stuff into Christianity, that's why they say their religion is based on “the bible and tradition”. Tradition here equals pagan traditions. I could give you quite a long list of Pagan stuff they interjected, even the Pope himself is the Pontifex Maximus (the head of the Roman Pagan College of Pontiffs), Nuns are the old “vestal virgins”, etc... However, none of this stuff is in the Bible, and considering that Rome was canonizing pagan traditions, and supposedly had the ability to rewrite the bible, why didn't they biblically justify those traditions? These same things that came back to bite them in the ass later because of Protestant reformers?

BTW, on a side note, I'm curious to know what information you have on Revelation being pagan in origin. I know that various people, including Luther, were not overly fond of it. Irenious did mention it in one of his works, and commented on who he believed the antichrist could be.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 




This type of incredible evidence does not exist for anyone or anything else in antiquity.


Not even the Roman emperors? There is more historical basis for Nero or Caesar than there is for Jesus. I personally believe Jesus could have existed, but to say no one in antiquity is more documented than Jesus is totally untrue.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Then why is he a saint of the Orthodox Church as well?
The Orthodox church claims to be the oldest, the original Catholic church before the Roman Catholic Church.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


The pagan miracles (water into wine, walking on water, resurrection, etc.) are clues that pagan Rome edited the bible to include its traditions and myths into the story of Jesus. The Eucharist and last supper are entirely pagan in origin deriving from the pagan gods Dionysus and Mithras mythos.

All you need to do is read Revelation to see its pagan influence. Stars and constellations are mentioned heavily in it. No way do I believe the apostle John wrote that book, the tone and style is entirely at odds with the tone and style his gospel and epistles. It only takes a bit of common sense and objectivity to see it in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join