It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:15 PM
There is much more evidence that Jesus existed compared to say Pontius Pilate for example, yet the vast majority of historians say Pontius Pilate existed. The truth is, vitally all modern scholars say that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If you have a problem with this, then go and ask all the historians why they believe Jesus existed, and tell them where they are wrong and how you know better

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by texastig

Outside of the Bible, there is NO PROOF of the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4).

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

Josephus knew nothing about so called "Christianity" or any so called "Christ".

Josephus knows nothing of Christians

It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: " the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ... were edified... and ... were multiplied." – Acts 9:31.

This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12).

And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this:

"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." – Life, 2.

Josephus elsewhere does record a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its superstar:

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.

They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...

And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." – Antiquities 18.23.

Josephus fails to mention anything of the Herod's Murder of the Innocents, although he documents other of Herod's atrocities. There is no documentation of any "Star of Bethlehem, although Ovid, a contemporary writer at the time of Jesus, did write about "Ceasar's Comet".

There is no documentation of an impossible eclipse and the ensueing darkness on the day of Jesus' supposed crucifixion, or for an earthquake that damaged the temple, nor an account of dead people walking the streets in any of the annals.

edit on 2-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Scope and a Beam

Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.


129 Facts of Jesus Christ
If you still don't think Jesus lived in person on earth then that issue can be tackled elsewhere since 95 to 99% of sceptical and non-sceptical scholars do not doubt Jesus walked the earth. If you are going to deny the life of Jesus then you will have to throw out everyone in history, because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity.

In "The Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" (1996) by Gary R. Habermas, the leading scholar on the resurrection, we can summarize what the earliest sources have said (pages 225, 250-253). Tiberius Caesar who died four years after Jesus only has 9 sources of him whereas Jesus has 45 sources within 150 years of their deaths.

"We have examined 45 ancient sources for the life of Jesus, which includes 19 early creedal, four archaeological, 17 non-Christian, and five non-New Testament Christian sources. From this data we have enumerated 129 reported facts concerning the life, person, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus the disciples' earliest message."

The Person

"The deity of Jesus was widely reported in ancient writings that we investigated. Of our 45 sources, 30 record this teaching, which surprisingly includes seven of the 17 secular sources.

"It was pointed out in Chapter 4 that Jesus claimed to be deity, as indicated, for example, by such titles as "Son of God" and "Son of Man" [for a detailed study, see Miethe and Habermas, chapter 27]. The pre-New Testament creeds (the six Acts texts, along with Rom. 1.3-4, 1 Cor. 11.23ff., 15.3ff. and Phil. 2.6ff., in particular, provide especially strong evidence for the deity of Jesus.

"These creeds show that the church did not simply teach Jesus' deity a generation later...The best explanation for these creeds is that they properly represent Jesus' own teachings, especially since he made similar claims."


"Of all the events in Jesus' life, more ancient sources specifically mention his death than any other single occurrence. Of the 45 ancient sources, 28 relate to this fact, often with details. Twelve of those sources are non-Christian, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event.

"Not only is Jesus' death by crucifixion of major concern to these authors, but 14 of 28 sources give various details about the crucifixion, from medical observations to political information concerning the current rulers, to historical specifications of the times in which Jesus died, to religious details about the reason for his death...It is fair to assert that this is one of the best-attested facts in ancient history.

"After Jesus' death, he was buried. This fact is not only strongly affirmed by five different sources, but generally a normal consequence of dying. These sources include the early creeds in 1 Cor. 15.3ff. and Acts 13.29, as well as hostile sources such as Toledoth Jesu and the information implied in the Nazareth decree.

"Of our 45 sources, 18 specifically record the resurrection, while an additional eleven more provide relevant facts surrounding the occurrence.


"Of the seventeen [non-Christian sources], seven either imply or report this occurrence [of the resurrection of Jesus].

"Alternative theories that have been hypothesized by critics to explain the resurrection of Jesus on naturalistic grounds have failed to explain the data and are refuted by the facts.

"Even if we were to utilize only the four minimal historical facts that are accepted by virtually all scholars who deal with this issue, we still have significant basis on which to both refute the naturalistic theories and provide the major evidences for the resurrection."


Jesus fulfilled 62 prophecies from hundreds, even thousands of years prior. The odds of this happening are less than 1 in a trillion, scientifically speaking. He said He was God and proved it. He was sinless - the only man who was ever was sinless! He performed miracles none have been able to duplicate except the apostles. His teachings were deeper than any other. None can compare! He gave His life on the cross to die for you. And He was resurrected, seen by many eyewitnesses - including various writers of the books of the NT such as Matthew, Paul, Peter, John, James, and others. No less than 12 times was Jesus seen resurrected to various group sizes. Even one group had 500 people present. The brother of Jesus did not believe Jesus was God until he saw him resurrected after He died on the cross. Others (Mark and Luke) who were virtually firsthand accounts wrote books of the NT and testified to these teachings. There is one verse we suspect was Mark seeing Jesus before he died. Luke was close to the action also. They both went on missionary journeys with Barnabas and Paul. more...

what's your beef with Jesus anyway?

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:32 PM

Jesus of Nazareth' supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity the first century of the Christian era yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky.

Not so. Please see Ancient Non-Christian Sources:

All references including the notorious insertions in Josephus, stem from partisan Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-purposed for the needs of the early Church.

One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus.
From the

It is not with a human being that the Jesus myth begins. Christ is not a deified man but a humanised god who happened to be given the name Yeshu. Those real Jesuses, those that lived and died within normal human parameters, may have left stories and legends behind, later cannibalised by Christian scribes as source material for their own hero, but it is not with any flesh and blood rebel/rabbi/wonder-worker that the story begins. Rather, its genesis is in theology itself.

You have no proof for that. It is a fact that Jesus was crucified on the cross, buried and rose from the dead and seen by many eyewitnesses. There is no cannibalizing. What we have today in our Bible, matches what the Christians had back then.

The name Jesus is actually a 16th century creation.

"In German, our English word for book is "buch." In Spanish, it becomes a "libro;" in French, a "livre." The language changes, but the object itself does not. In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese), without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “the Lord is Salvation.”

'Whether Jesus ever actually existed has long been debated. The argument (very well documented) is that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence of his existence in documents other than highly suspect Christian sources.'

Then that means there is no corroborating evidence of any ancient persons. There's more information of Jesus than any other ancient person of antiquity.

Many elements of the 'Passion' make no sense historically.

What was done to Jesus was illegal.

But of course if the 'Passion' were really a pageant of a re-born sun-god it makes perfect sense that the 'sacrificed' actor be taken off-stage, subsequently reappearing in a later act, 'reborn'…

There were no sun gods in the Jewish culture. All dying and rising myths came after Jesus resurrection.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by texastig

Certainly, Jesus Christ never existed.

Then no other persons of antiquity existed either. Because the same data used for persons of antiquity is the same that is used for Jesus.

Jesus, if he existed, didn't have the last name "Christ". In fact, there were many "Christs" before and after the advent of the birth of Jesus, if he existed.

Christ is a pagan construct that was used by multiple pagan cults to describe initiates, deities, leaders and teachers.

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.

Since early Christians weren't even called "Christian", but "Nazarene", there is no way that Jesus, if he existed, was called Jesus "Christ" during his lifetime. Why would Jesus, a Jew, and probably, if he existed, an Essene of the Nazorean sect, from Nazareth, a tiny farm settlement at the foothills of Mount Carmel, Essene headquarters, would NEVER accept a pagan title!

Jesus Christ certainly NEVER existed. Jesus the Nazarene, maybe.

Jesus, in a way, was a founder of a religious movement. He founded, through his apostles, the sect of the Nazarenes within Judaism. The sect did not last more than four centuries. It was another religion, Christianity, which claimed him not only as its founder but also as God incarnate. It was something the historical Jesus would have probably been shocked to hear, as we can vouched from the reaction of the Nazarenes to it. The sect he founded dwindled and disappeared form the face of the earth. One man, Paul, took his name and expounded his own theology that developed the heretical doctrine which was called Christianity. The historian Hugh Schonfield summarized the situation thus:

It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church which received them had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics..

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by jazz10

And do you expect to see any proof of your existence in a few hundred years?

You're asking Neno this? By all means, I certainly expect someone as colorful, talented, and well-spoken to go down in posterity as a bad-ass and a genius.

Just sayin'. I could even see him being 'demideified' if folks get hold of his writing!!

reply to post by texastig

There is more historical evidence for the Bible than any other ancient literature.

Nope! There are only lots and lots of Bibles, and people who've made their careers studying it and writing ABOUT THE BIBLE. There is very little, if any, actual "historical evidence." As many members in this thread have already showed us.

They knew about Jesus being born to a virgin because Jesus was sinless.

What?!! Are you actually serious with this line of argument, tig?

There is nothing wrong with them not writing down the nativity scene. They didn't write down if Jesus was picking his nose. Don't be so picky.
I'll ignore the 'pun', but again -- the birth circumstances and maternal conception would be CONSISTENT if there were any truth to it. AND, where was he during his youth? Hmmm? Just picking his nose for almost 20 years?

It's not a tale. It is fact. Jesus was sinless, born of a virgin.

Sorry, dear, but you can not claim this as fact. There is ONE PLACE that claims it, and that is in the Bible - not the early texts, and you simply can not use the Bible to prove the Bible is true.

Died and was buried

Like most people, but when and where are up for debate among the most learned professionals.

.. and rose from the grave according to the scriptures which includes prophesy of Him.

"According to the scriptures" is not FACTUAL DOCUMENTATION; and it's very easy to retrofit a legend to fit earlier works that were composed by people 'guessing. Ever heard of "fan fiction"? Nowadays if someone came up with something based entirely on, say, the "Dune" series, and used only those characters and scenarios, they would be writing "fan fiction." If they claimed it was original, it would constitute plagiarism.

It is logical and rational.

No - it is preposterously, exquisitely illogical, and not at all 'rational.' Not even remotely.

I suggest you do some serious research - not on websites, but in scholarly tomes that are difficult to read and full of notes along with an extensive Bibliography and Suggested Reading section. (Lee Strobel DOES NOT COUNT, btw.) But it's okay, you're not alone in 'buying in' to a clergy's representation. They bank on you doing that. And I mean that as a pun, and a literal phrase.

Cheers; happy new year.
It will all be okay in the end. We'll all get there. Might be several lifetimes after this one, but - we will. We all have passports.

edit on 1/2/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:43 PM

It's because Jesus, probably didn't exist outside of religious doctrine.

He did exist out of religious doctrine. The Gospels are historical books.

At the very least his origins were completely fabricated and nobody can argue this. Just look at the 12 or more identical stories regarding 'gods and saviors' that come much better the time of Jesus.

If you say His origins are fabricated then you must say the same for every other ancient person of antiquity. All of the other 'gods and saviors' writings came hundreds of years after. Jesus was written about 25 years after his resurrection by Paul which means no myths and fairy tales could be inserted.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:46 PM

Because he don't exist. Some old fool made up a convincing story, so now everyone believes it to be true. He's a myth.

Then you must apply that same standard to ancient persons of antiquity.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:47 PM

Considering the amount of tampering that must have occurred to the christian bible

There is no tampering. What we have in our Bible today is what the early Christians had. We have papyri that proves that.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:48 PM

I don't really care about the person

You should care because in John 14:6, Jesus states that He is the way, the truth and the life and no man can come to the Father but through Him.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
I would guess that there isn't a lot of historical record of the guy because when he was alive, he really wasn't all that popular. He didn't become popular until his identity, his life story, and his message was hijacked and twisted.

There were a great many who didn't like Jesus for what he was saying because he was threatening the livelihood of the elite clergy of the time, who were railroaded and/or coerced with money and property to make things the way they would have it by the Romans.

Jesus' message was essentially the same message as Occupy or Anonymous now, only his solution was more tenable and realistic. Love.

Love is a threat to all who are greedy, manipulative, and selfish.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:15 PM


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.


Worshiping Jesus, praying towards a cross IS idol worship

Wrong. It is only idol worship if you are worshiping the cross (or whatever man made image you choose). Those who worship toward a cross (as a reminder) are still worshiping Jesus as a deity. Not the idol.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:18 PM

I'll have a go at Demolishing the historicity of Jesus:

And for your quotes, there's hundreds of more quotes for Jesus.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by bitsforbytes

So how was this mythical figure validated as an actual person across the Abrahamic faiths? the only questions they had was what his significance was, prophet or messiah or neither, this is the problem, and I do believe all three have made reference to his miracles and works.

Can you account for this mythical Jesus existing across Christianity, Judaism and Islam ? ( 2 of those would love to be able to prove him as myth to make their case the other is false but they cannot) and if he were only a myth, why was so much and in many instances detail about this mythical Jesus you are attempting to portray ?

I do not believe that the character of Jesus was made up or is a myth, some things might have been embellished or diminished through time, but there is no doubt, this person is the single cornerstone both of foundation and also controversy, not so much about his existence but about his identity as messiah, man or prophet.

edit on 2-1-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by bitsforbytes

This whole article was created so people could produce that secular evidence of Jesus, yet the only one that has been produced is the Josephus text that is always talked about. So, unless you can produce some more of this evidence then I'm going to have to say that you are wrong.

The NT bible was written many years after Jesus' alleged life and death. That is like someone from the Renaissance writing about King Arthur. There is bound to be hearsay, exaggerations, and out right falsehoods being attributed to the person so much so that the person being described is nothing like how they were in reality and could hence be said to have never existed. Sure a guy named Jesus could have existed, there are plenty of them down in Mexico, even the name Yeshua was pretty common, being Joshua which is still in use today, but that doesn't mean that the person described in the bible existed.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:24 PM

The obvious answer is obvious. Jesus never existed outside of the bible. It speaks volumes of our species' intelligence and progress that people still vehemently believe in religious figures without any solid evidence of their existence.

But you won't say that about the Caesars who thought they were gods.
To say that Jesus did not exist is to say that any person of ancient antiquity didn't exist. The same data is using for Jesus as other ancient people and there's more info for Jesus than the others.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:27 PM

What is even more telling is our acceptance of a deity that is a bumbling, jealous, wrathful, maniacal murderer who created hell for most of us.

Not true. He is not a bumbler. He does get jealous because your not serving Him. He is wrathful because of people's sins and He is not a maniacal murder because He is the God of righteousness and justice.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:31 PM

I am just a nonbeliever and when I see these people preaching, collecting money, passionately. I just almost, think their crazy.. I just don't understand. (meaning no disrespect) I can hardly believe it. I equate it to believing in Santa Clause. I have tried, really hard to believe. I just don't think I have/Had it in me ever.

Don't let people and churches turn you off from God.

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:34 PM
And yet so many non-believers continue to prove the mythical gospel right.
John 15:18-25

The World Hates the Disciples

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

I get it that plenty of crazies on both sides try to sway you one way or another but here's a novel concept.

How about let people decide for THEMSELVES what they wish to believe in.
There will always be religious nuts but their will always be ripened fruits as well ON BOTH SIDES.
Each reaching salvation at different points.
The biggest mistake this world makes is when people (ESPECIALLY) in Churches and even those with no belief attempt to form the minds and opinions of other people.
No man or woman can lead a person directly TO GOD. THE CONCEPT OF CHRIST AS I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND.... Is that he is the port through which we must all enter. Beyond him- it is between us and what we perceive that is our definition of God or a lack thereof. Eventually all roads must lead somewhere.

Some of the people on here on both sides seem so hell bent (no pun intended) on being on one side of the coin or the other when whatever CHRIST/GOD is. IS THE EDGE that runs AROUND the entire coin. What is in between is left to be molded by the individual and his or her reality.

We try to disprove something from a time in which NOTHING CAN EVER BE ABSOLUTELY KNOWN.
The records of Jesus DO appear quicker than any other famous figure of antiquity. The Pagan traditions in MY BELIEF (NEWSFLASH:!!:: NOT FACT JUST MY OPINION) most likely copied what was originally the idea of the Universality of Religion. All for one-brotherhood-love.

The basic ORIGIN of Christ and Abrahamic religions were perhaps NOT based off of Pagan beliefs but rather that Pagan beliefs adapted these in attempts to sway people who were of other religions.
Until we time travel or we see it in our eye all we have is our minds eye. Each will see differently.
The topic on here before Christmas about the Gift of the Magi was fascinating in this regard.

Christ has been present since creation-WHENEVER that was. Most likely- these stories that we have in our Holy Bible are 6-8-10,000 years old. The names have changed and most likely TRUE events have been added or deleted and false events have likewise been deleted or added. What we have is the best Collection or one of the best collections for the history of this planet. Since these civilizations existed long before the internet and modern society don't you ever look and think.. what will people see in 2000 years when they look back on us?

Will they see MLK as a man who changed the course of history? Or one who manipulated the system? A troublemaker who stirred up emotions and made people active and it was the subsequent people after his life-writing about him and describing his character who both defined HIM and the world we have come to live?

Will they view Abraham Lincoln as the freer of slaves? A man who did what was right? Or the founder of the Federalist state that slowly devoured the whole world?

Will the United States be seen as the greatest country ever? Rebounding from a fall and rising again? Or will it slowly fade into obscurity and become a second or third world country hidden behind the writings of an aristocracy who disguise it as 22nd and 23rd century 1st world?

Things change- History Changes- Some of you are so quick to deny God based on the words of another man or MEN. What do men do? Deceive and manipulate. Our own government tells everyone that it is fighting terrorism while they slowly creep into your pocket-car-home-bedroom and spy on you attempting to play God. IF men manipulate and deceive even in this age was the same not also true throughout history?

And this Goes for not only Jesus Christ but all of his apostles and the writers of the time and all those opposed.

The entire world has been deceived one way or another. Simply put- their has to be truth out there. Your truth is no different than another truth until absolutely proved.

I mean those of us living in the United States live in a nation where our ELECTED Officials have gone from what would essentially be public workers/servants- to a form of delegated royalty with different rungs upon a ladder. They have convinced- rather sadly. A strikingly large number of the population that they are NOT the same yet ARE at the same time. They vote themselves money out of the treasury and corrupt the entire system. The Presidency to those who are awake is a farce and a pointlessly elected official. Yet to those still blinded by the faith of "Nationalism" he is the closest thing to Royalty or Divinity that we have. Past presidents are looked at with awe and enamor. They are PEOPLE. We ALL ARE.

Mankind will NEVER define the existence of God.
God's existence however, will define Mankind.

The WORDS of a Man are just that.

Be careful who you trust. Top to Bottom- Left to Right.

Think for yourself. Critically think- Free think.

If you believe you believe. If you don't you don't.

It is what it is and the end of it all is.

Some will, some won't, so what.
edit on 2-1-2014 by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:49 PM

No there is not. Evidence and reference are two distinct things. How many references there are to Hercules even portraits and statues (even more contemporaneous) that doesn't signify he was a real person

Yes, there is evidence for Jesus. But you won't say that about other ancient people who have been written about by someone else.
About Hercules.

What Does the Bible Say About..Jesus and Hercules?

I was discussing some things at work with a co-worker and he tossed out a question that I've never heard before. He asked, "Why don't you believe in Hercules instead of Jesus." I laughed at first then thought....ok...he was being serious. I went home and read a brief story of Hercules and he has a strikingly similar story to that of Jesus. Many people date his life about 1000 years before Christ as well leaving me to ask was his story edited later or just a really big fluke the supernatural aspects match? What is a rebuttal against this if someone ever is to say Jesus is a rip off of Hercules?

My immediate answer to this argument has been that there is strong historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and for his actions and teachings. The gospels were written at a time when many who could have refuted them were still alive, and when many who could attest to their truth were as well. Even non-Christian writers document the existence of Jesus and his teachings, even if they did not accept the miracles. Nobody ever claimed to write an eyewitness account of the life of Hercules. Every account of his life claimed that he lived hundreds of years before the writer. He is essentially a mythic rather than historic personage. Even the accounts of his life don’t always agree.
The second answer is that there are significant differences between the historic Jesus and the mythic Hercules. Most notably, nobody ever claimed that Hercules died to take away the sins of the world. Some accounts have him dying as an old man. He was never considered a sacrifice for sin. Nor have I ever read a claim that he was sinless. There are no eyewitness accounts that Hercules rose from the grave. These are essential doctrines of Christianity.
I believe there may have been a Hercules, who performed some of the acts attributed to him, or at least something similar. But nobody ever claims to have actually seen him do what he is said to have done. I know, on the other hand, that there was a man named Jesus who lived and taught. Eyewitnesses attribute miracles to him. Eyewitnesses say he rose from the grave. They say that proves he was the Messiah and that he takes away our sins. That is why I don’t believe in Hercules “instead” of Jesus.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in