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: 55
29
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 

No I meant the cult.
They commited suicide because they believed a spaceship hidden in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet was going to pick them up.
The point being that people dying for their beliefs doesn't make their beliefs true.


Jimmy Jones (elvis lookalike) and evanglist murderer (you sure he didnt force them into mass suicide by insisting they watch a pirate copy of the movie as "this is truely moviedoms end of the world scenario). Pushed him right over the edge. No, you mean that other one, the cult in Escondido CA (seems like they actually drank the cyanide willingly of their volition); diabolical the power these two evangelicals had over this flock. They had strange pet names Ti and something; claimed they were extraterrestal in origin? Christians dying for their belief systems does not make that system true; just ferverant to the extreme degree and willing to die for it. Brave or foolish? who knows. God should have stopped them; something inherently evil here.
edit on 27-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectral Norm
 





I have already presented it, but we can surely discuss it, if you like. It's alright with me if you want to discount it; however, you cannot expect me to swallow speculation and outright falsehood merely because it is touted as factual. Otherwise, it's pretty well confirmed that, outside of the Bible, there is a lot of evidence that Jesus Christ might have existed.


Jesus "Christ" most definately never existed, however, a person called Jesus the Nazarene may have.

All that I've seen you present are the same citations that have been discussed, ad nauseum.



It is my understanding that the weight of scholarly opinion is that the passages of Tacitus and Suetonius are authentic. But let us, for the moment, leave aside appeal to authority, which really doesn't work for me anyway. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


My argument isn't with the authenticity of these passages, but with identifying them, and the name "Chrestus" and "Chrestian" with followers of Jesus the Nazarene.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I think there probably was an historical person or person(s) which form the nexus of these stories (or to which they were pinned), but he's clearly a composite figure, composed of the stories from other people.

For example - Alexander the Great, The Ptolomies, The Caesars, Karna, Krishna, Buddha, Kabir, Zoroaster, Tukulti-Urta, Dusares, Horus,Perseus, Mithra/Mithras, Theseus, Asclepius, Homer, Helen of Troy, Oedipus, Qi the Abandoned One, Huitzilopochtli & Quetzalcoatl and many more were all were said to have either virgin or miraculous/divine births.

People said they were of virginal or divine origin in order to 'big-note' themselves in those days. It made you, or the person you were telling the story about seem all that more important.

The story of Osiris bears many similarities (resurrected after 3 days), as does Julius Caesar (who was said to have "ascended" when he died).

The authors have clearly borrowed concepts from other contemporary stories and myths. This in turn has been retranslated and distorted through the ages in a kind of badly run, giant & incredibly long-lived game of Chinese Whispers



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

reject
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 


incontrovertible evidence of historicity


This article offers a different take on the "discovery" of the Jonah Ossuary: Earliest Christian Artifact Just Random Squiggles

From the article:


Skeptics are calling the new claim "Rorschach test archaeology." Steve Caruso, a professional translator who analyzes inscriptions on ancient artifacts for antiquity dealers, said Charlesworth's interpretation of the inscription is "more of an exercise in reading tea leaves."

Robert Cargill, assistant professor of classics and religious studies at the University of Iowa, concurs. "One must do some rather strenuous mental gymnastics to arrive at the letters for the name of Jonah in this image, including ignoring lines that are clearly present but do not fitthe desired inscription, joining together lines that are clearly not conjoined, reshaping letters, and eliminating any semblance of linear alignment," Cargill says on his blog.


I'm not sure "incontrovertible" is the correct term here.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


And now for some pictures of a giant tuna fish.

Argue against that you #ers!



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I cannot argue with photos of tuna ... unless ... the differences in perspective are supposed to imply that a fish COULD INDEED swallow a man?

That I can argue with.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


What's that got to do with the price of fish?

The simplest explanation is a Jonah fish symbol.

Convoluted debunker claim is one character is illegible.

From your very own link:

The skeptics also point out that the discovery team's own photos, released before Charlesworth and Tabor began claiming the inscription says "YONAH," clearly show two unconnected lines rather than a backwards L-shape representing "nun." Tabor has since released a different picture of the inscription in which the "nun" appears to be unbroken, and has addressed the controversy thus: "The 'nun' is not broken. There are some white splotches on the ossuary surface in our close up photos and one of them is at the juncture, which might make it look like the line is broken, but it does intersect."


I don't even have to say that his disciples were very simple folk.

You would probably say even if it were a Jonah fish it doesn't necessarily mean its Christian, right?

How about these then?


He wrote: “[This catacomb] on the Mount of Olives belonged apparently to one of the earliest [families] which joined the new religion [of Christianity]. In this group of sarcophagi [coffins], some of which have the Christian symbol [cross marks] and some have not, we are, so to speak, [witnessing the] actual unfolding of Christianity.”

Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century AD. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.



Above the inscription, on the same coffin, the Greek letters Chi and Rho were unmistakeably inscribed together, written as a monogram. According to Prof. Jack Finegan of the Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, who also studied the inscription, this particular monogram was used frequently in Antioch (44AD) and Rome in the first century and was a well known designation for those who were among the first non-Jewish Christians



Also found in the same area was another monogram inscription comprised of the Greek letters Iota, Chi, and Beta, which is translated: "Jesus Christ the helper [or redeemer]."


No evidence?

yeah, right...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


That's pretty neat.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Wow, that IS convincing evidence.

Except ...

There is no evidence that "early Christians" used the Cross as a symbol of Christ.

The first attestations of using the cross alone as a Christian symbol date to the 5th century. (Source

Think about it. Assume you're in the time frame you're imagining.

Would you use the death instrument of your beloved Teacher as his symbol to honor Him?

Roman crucifixion was a horrible way to die.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Additional references for use of "the cross" as a Christian symbol:

"The cross has been the universally acknowledged symbol of the Christian faith from a very early period, probably as early as the late second century." (That is, 180 - 190 CE - G66)

Christianity: An Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, pg. 320

"The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century."

Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik, pg. 715

ETC.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Gryphon66
Additional references for use of "the cross" as a Christian symbol:

"The cross has been the universally acknowledged symbol of the Christian faith from a very early period, probably as early as the late second century." (That is, 180 - 190 CE - G66)

Christianity: An Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, pg. 320

"The "extensive adoption" of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century."

Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik, pg. 715

ETC.
If the 1st century invocation of Christ along with the use of the cross in stone doesn't suit you as evidence...wow, you really are just a debunker.

Does your failed debunking logic even understand what you just quoted?

Just because it was "universally acknowledged" and "extensively adopted" at later dates doesn't mean it was not used by earlier 1st century Christians when they were just starting out and they were still a persecuted few (as evidenced by archaeology), does it?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


The word "debunker" is not magical. It doesn't just make the facts go away. I am not "debunking" anything.

The facts of early Christian symbolism are well-known. The scholarship is considerable.

The "cross" was not used in the first century. Fish, anchors, a bit later the chi-rho ... but not crosses.

You're merely trying to muddy the water here. The facts are clear.

The first century ossuaries may be early Christian, but the scratches on the outside don't prove it.


reject

Just because it was "universally acknowledged" and "extensively adopted" at later dates doesn't mean it was not used by earlier 1st century Christians when they were just starting out and they were still a persecuted few (as evidenced by archaeology), does it?


You're merely playing "what if" games here. You're making an assumption based on your belief. Do you have any physical evidence, perhaps the archeology you mention, that demonstrates the use of the Cross as a Christian symbol before the end of the 2nd century.

If not, you can always just state that you "believe it to be true," that your "heart tells you it is," instead of pretending that there's physical evidence for baseless claims.




edit on 19Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:40:38 -060014p072014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yeah.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


I do believe that any usage of cross symbolism in the 1st century would be in regard to Julius Caesar's death and subsequent deification. Caesar's effigy was placed on a cross, and coins were minted comemorating "his" cross.







In short, the coin says "Clemency", and it celebrated Caesar's benevolence, forgiveness and generosity.

So you see, the cross doesn't represent Christianity during the 1st century.




edit on 26-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by reject
 


The word "debunker" is not magical. It doesn't just make the facts go away. I am not "debunking" anything.

The facts of early Christian symbolism are well-known. The scholarship is considerable.

The "cross" was not used in the first century. Fish, anchors, a bit later the chi-rho ... but not crosses.


are you serious?



Galatians 6:14


14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.


Gryphon66
reply to post by reject
 


You're merely trying to muddy the water here. The facts are clear.

The first century ossuaries may be early Christian, but the scratches on the outside don't prove it.


You're granting there are invocations to Jesus on those ossuaries but insisting the crosses alongside them are only "scratches?"

That's very typical debunker mentality.

That is just so funny.


Gryphon66
reply to post by reject
 


You're merely playing "what if" games here. You're making an assumption based on your belief. Do you have any physical evidence, perhaps the archeology you mention, that demonstrates the use of the Cross as a Christian symbol before the end of the 2nd century.

If not, you can always just state that you "believe it to be true," that your "heart tells you it is," instead of pretending that there's physical evidence for baseless claims.




edit on 19Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:40:38 -060014p072014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yeah.
My assumption?

My belief?

I'm not even Christian.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


Why don't you make a substantive counterargument?

You're arguing for the reality of the funeral boxes as Christian because of the presence of a cross symbol.

The word "cross" is used 28 times in the text of the new testament.

Do you have any evidence of the "cross" symbol being used as a Christian symbol even a SINGLE time as you boasted, or not?

I have presented the work of scholars and historians in the field we're discussing. What have you presented?

You're making no sense in claiming that a simple statement of facts is "debunking."

Have you nothing more to say in response than muttering "debunking" over and over?

If you don't believe the claim you're making, you're merely trolling.

Are you merely trolling? Or did you realize your mistake? It's okay to admit it.
edit on 22Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:56:43 -060014p102014266 by Gryphon66 because: Just cause.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Yashua did not exist.

Do your research



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 11:26 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 don't buy into the one path to salvation

what if a man was born was a good person and lived a good life life but never knew of your God would he still go to heaven ?



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

conspiracytheoristIAM
reply to post by Scope and a Beam
 

Last night we celebrated New Years eve and it's A.D. 2014. Just go to Wikipedia and look up A.D., B.C., C.E. and B.C.E.......all referring to the " the year of our lord "(Jesus ). I think that will convince you that Jesus is accepted and was written about in a historical sense.

wow such a week argument



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join