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: 46
29
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Gryphon66
Defcon, are you saying here that the pseudepigraphic texts serve as contemporaneous references to Jesus that are outside the Bible?

Some may, yes.
A good example is the Shepard I mentioned above. Its an early Christian work that was left out of the bible despite many believing is should have been included. The Jews admit that Christ existed, and they didn't even like him, equating him the the “little horn” of Daniel in the Talmud.


Gryphon66
Are you including all the writings of the Gnostics as well?

The problem with Gnostic stuff is that it was Greek mysticism that was trying to gain a foothold in Christianity. Again, go to “Against Heresies”, as that is the definitive modernly existing source on the topic. It was written solely for the purpose of dealing with Gnosticism. Even still, if they are not biblical, and do mention Christ I suppose that they count as books about him outside the Bible.


Gryphon66
I'd have to argue that if even the Councils of the Church noted these as non-canonical or of unlikely authorship at the time then we cannot use them as reliable evidence since they would be forgeries, fabrications or fantasies.

Again, you'd have to look at each work independently, and there are quite a few of them. Some were left out for good reason, others, its more questionable and they had a lot of support to be in the bible. Another good example is the Apocalypse of Peter, which many felt should be canonical, BTW.

Either way, a lot of folks seemed to be writing about Christ, and dying for it, for it to be a fabrication.




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

there were 300 people there, this was not like some backroom conspiracy. Someone would have talked.
First Council of Nicaea



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


300 people who were most likely employed by Constantine. Pay someone enough money and they'll keep quiet about anything, especially if you threaten to kill them if they talk. I'm sure they had no issue with killing all 300 people even if only one person talked. They killed thousands of pagans after the legalization so they weren't shy about murder.

The Bilderberg meeting has been held for nearly 60 years now with over a hundred people at each meeting, yet nothing that is discussed is leaked out. Same thing goes for Nicaea, money talk so those being paid don't have to.
edit on 3701404CST373 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 

Dan Brown claimed that Constantine called the council of Nicaea to “write the first bible”, and do all this nefarious stuff to change/control Christianity. If you look at the link above, you'll see that there is documentation of the minutes as to everything that happened in the council. The only really important thing that it “standardized” was that Christ was God, not a lesser creation or angel sent on God's behalf.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


So far wiki says that the Harrowing of Hell "does not exist in the Greek texts, and is a later addition to the Latin versions".

Will look on.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by defcon5
 


300 people who were most likely employed by Constantine. Pay someone enough money and they'll keep quiet about anything, especially if you threaten to kill them if they talk.


Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250,[21] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[22] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[23] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[24] and Evagrius,[25] Hilary of Poitiers,[26] Jerome[27] Dionysius Exiguus,[28] and Rufinus recorded 318.

Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain. The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons, so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.


The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[31] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[32]

Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends); Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[33] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.[34][35] From foreign places came John, bishop of Persia and India,[36] Theophilus, a Gothic bishop and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt of Georgia.

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Die from Gaul,[33] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   

defcon5
The only really important thing that it “standardized” was that Christ was God, not a lesser creation or angel sent on God's behalf.


So they had a central point that everything had to conform to.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


So while Rome was persecuting all those Christians they allowed the bishops who ran the churches to live? Why is that? If Christianity was enough of a threat to kill thousands of believers across 3 centuries, you'd think they'd go for the ones at the top first.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by daskakik
 


So far wiki says that the Harrowing of Hell "does not exist in the Greek texts, and is a later addition to the Latin versions".

Will look on.

The "Harrowing of Hell" is in the Gospel of Nicodemus that I linked above. Its a very good read BTW, and I really enjoyed it. The specific part about the "Harrowing" is after two dead sons return from the grave (which is mentioned briefly in the Gospel of Luke BTW), and taken to the synagog to recount what they experienced. Around chapter 12.

Link again:
www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   

daskakik
So they had a central point that everything had to conform to.

the only really significant issue was the Arian controversy, which involved the teaching that Christ was not God, but a lesser creation.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Edict of Milan


edit on 1/12/2014 by defcon5 because: Edit the edict from edit.




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Nicea created a singular Christianity; of this there is no doubt; read the Wikipedia link if nothing else. There were great disputes among every diocese, bishopric , and church before Nicea, and many afterward for that matter.

Is the divinity of Jesus not ... vital to the very nature of the Church? How about the date of Easter being changed from the way the Jewish churches calculated it (based on Passover) to the way that had become standard in Rome? Easter is pretty basic I would think to the practice of Christianity.

Jews and Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure. No one here has ever challenged that, but that is also yet another red herring tossed into the pot. The question of the topic is the lack of undisputed actual evidence outside the Bible and contemporaneous with the life of Jesus, and that question has been answered--there is none.

That fact has little to NOTHING to do with whether someone believes in Jesus. If you want to believe, then believe. Faith is, after all, the substance of things that are only hoped for and the evidence of the invisible, per the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Faith doesn't need facts or logic or evidence or proof. That's why this discussion is not an attack on anyone's faith, but is rather a question of evidence. At least, from my perspective.

Your mileage may vary.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yes, they stopped the persecution of Christians and any other religion then promptly began the persecutions once again after Nicaea. They weren't men of their word obviously. Seems as though they made deals that only benefited themselves.

I'll concede that they stopped the Christian persecutions but their actions afterwards do not speak well for them. If they could kill thousands of people based on not converting, they could lie about what happened at Nicaea.
edit on 3701404CST373 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Gryphon66
The question of the topic is the lack of undisputed actual evidence outside the Bible and contemporaneous with the life of Jesus, and that question has been answered--there is none.

EVERYTHING can be disputed, there is little that's really fact, so if that's the criteria here its rather slanted. When you get a topic like this, where there is a vested interest by certain groups to dispute it, they will always find an excuse to. It's like asking to prove that the Sphinx was built by the Egyptians, that climate change is/isn't man-made, or the argument over who really owns Israel. Then to make matters worse, you had the Sanhedrin running around trying to put a stop the the earliest Christians as they considered it to be heresy, so there was a lot of evidence they probably covered up. That was followed by the Roman Destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad, which killed off most of the inhabitants/witnesses.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Well, if your statement is that very little can known to be factual, why have your posts to this been so full of certainty?

I have no vested interest to dispute anything nor am I part of a "No Historical Jesus Society." A member here posted a question topic and I've responded to it. That's what I've seen some others do. Many if not most of the folks on the negative side of the debate have even said "Jesus may have existed."

Seems that if there is a group with something at stake here it would seem to be a small minority of a certain subset of professed Christians who are so flustered by anything that they perceive as critical to their beliefs in any way that they have to do anything to remove that which offends EVEN when we have said here in this discussion time after time that faith and evidence are not the same. These musings are not against or counter to Christians, but a review of the pro-Jesus comments here will reveal a definite antipathy toward an imagined group of persecutors of which, honestly, there are none.

So, I agree with you Defcon ... little can be proven to be factual if the rules of evidence are carefully and scrupulously used. Look at the legal system for goodness sake! Science and mathematics are two of the few human endeavors that can even address the question of certainty, and yet, there remains dispute in those fields.

Little can be proven to be factual, so you either take things on faith, or, if you're of a different turn of mind, you do your best to find the most reliable evidence possible free of traditions, emotions and wishful thinking and draw the best conclusions from it you can.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





You've been mislead christianity never involved reincarnation where you got this from was a man named Origen of Alexandria. He was a gnostic bishop with the church. He believed that christ's resurrection proved reincarnation.He would draw together let us just say unrelated scripture to make his point. Most of his ideas actually came from greek wisdom as he called it. Basically what he meant was greek mythology. This started a major debate in christianity from about 250 to 553 AD. Mostly the Gnostic community who believed in reincarnation. The debate was ended in the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and Origen was finally officially condemned. Bottom line is this was an attempt to bring greek mythology in to Christianity and it failed.


This is the problem communicating via text, assumptions are made.

I never once said Christianity as a whole believes in reincarnation and I understand Origen's role.

It's more along the lines there were so many beliefs and for that reason they combined beliefs for the sake of ONE religion.

Whether or not people accept it or not, greek mythology is in Christianity. The root hasn't died.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
For the seeker who seeks the soul of Jesus outside Biblical texts, he will most certainly find plenty.

For the seeker who is biased already, he will seek to prove himself right. You won't see the entity anywhere much less believe all these accounts are him. It's all fabricated.

From NDE, to dreams, to gifts such as medium-ship, art, music, and so on there is proof of not only the afterlife but Jesus himself. There are thousands of accounts who were not believers, who are now because of the "experience" of Jesus.

It stands to reason that an atheist believing in nothing would not experience the divine much less Jesus.

Why do Muslims not experience Muhammad? Why do they experience Jesus?

If you are one who has never experienced Jesus, the light, or the spiritual essence, then it's not meant for you. It's that simple.

We are not here idling around, hanging out in one lifetime with no purpose.

Each and every thing on this Earth has a purpose. Everything evolves and has seasons of life and death.

Jesus may not be real to you, he may have been some one who sprang up out of nowhere to control the masses through religion, however his story in my opinion is so much more than that.

When we look deep inside our self, we can relate to his-story. His story becomes our own.

Believing in Jesus does not make me a Christian. I have my own philosophy as I feel he did too.

Love your neighbor and the father. What comes around must go around, so be aware of Karma.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Why is everyone so obsessed by the Right Religion and not by what is Teached in it.

It says, You should love your neighbour as yourself : That Counts for everyone on earth, no matter how their religion is named.
(islam,budhist or insert here whichever religion are you having a hate for)

There is no Proof that Jesus has existed in the past, because he IS still here. Past is irrelevant and should not be of any concern.
And that he is still arround is proveable.Be open-minded:
Ask him to enter your dreams, and he will be there. And be ready to ask him everything what you want to know.


defcon5

daskakik
So they had a central point that everything had to conform to.

the only really significant issue was the Arian controversy, which involved the teaching that Christ was not God, but a lesser creation.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

Edict of Milan


edit on 1/12/2014 by defcon5 because: Edit the edict from edit.



My answer on this is:

He is indeed not a God himself, but beeing created by god, he is the son of god, like everyone of us is (that counts male aswell as females too)

edit on 12/1/2014 by Hombre because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 




The problem with Gnostic stuff is that it was Greek mysticism that was trying to gain a foothold in Christianity.


Is there any greater example of Greek mysticism taking a foothold in Christianity than John's Logos? Even the title "Christ" originates from the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 



The soul of Jesus has not been under discussion.

Unless extraordinary care is taken, seekers of any stripe will carefully select that which confirms their existing bias: we unsurprisingly call that confirmation bias. Its certainly in full evidence in many; it is the human condition.

If the meaning of the term proof is used poetically or metaphorically it can mean anything a person desires. If it is used to mean conclusive evidence, the meaning is more narrow and useful.

Providing anecdotal info, I have never met an atheist who believes in "nothing" ... at best, that would be a nihilist, and that's not even correct of them. Many self-described atheists I know are extraordinarily self-aware, knowledgeable, bright and most of all honest. These are not traits that I have commonly observed in some other philosophical orientations, although I also know Christians who are self-aware, knowledgeable, bright and honest.

Our problems arise in those who do not share those qualities, yes?



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by defcon5
 




The problem with Gnostic stuff is that it was Greek mysticism that was trying to gain a foothold in Christianity.


Is there any greater example of Greek mysticism taking a foothold in Christianity than John's Logos? Even the title "Christ" originates from the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries.



Bringing The Incarnate Word into this is hardly convenient particularly when we note that the greatest modern trove of evidence confirming much of the Gospels and New Testament was found all wrapped up with the writings of those heretical Gnostics and Hermeticists, much less that the earliest formulations about the Father and the Son, injunctions to turn away from the things of this world to spiritual things, and even an emphasis on the primacy of inward conviction and knowing seem to have originated with the Gnostic Christians. The Orthodox Christians won and so they get to say what's what, that is until we don't agree with them either or when it's not conducive to our argument.

(
)

edit on 10Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:39:58 -060014p102014166 by Gryphon66 because: Desnarkified.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join