The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

Hello All!!

Do you think that it's possible to separate History from Religion?
It's mixing all the time.

Can we study apart each other.

Both are True!!

SNC24

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If it "didn't really matter" you wouldn't have know-it-alls stating the year is currently 2008 "CE".

When that isn't what it truly is, it has only been called that recently to again, deny Christ.

I'm saying it doesn't matter because it's no more evidence for Jesus, then January is evidence for Janus, a Roman god.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No one says that's PROOF Christ exists, however, it is just 1 more brick of evidence in the wall.

Actually, someone IS saying that's proof. That's why I brought it up. And all it's evidence of is that the mythology of Jesus is popular, just as the mythology of Greek and Roman gods influenced the names of the months.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
What year is it again?

In answering that question, you'll have all the proof you need.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Heck, it's one thing to deny Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, years ago people just simply claimed "He was just a man, not God". That's not good enough nowadays, now the growing consensus is to claim he never existed whatsoever!

Because there's nothing substantial that supports his existence.

To contribute to the discussion, here are some references to Jesus, albeit after the fact, but early on….are these legitimate in ATS-skeptics eyes???

These certainly contribute to his existence, right?

OT

Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we--that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection."

"For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, 'Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.' And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them."


Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):
"Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope."

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."


Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
"Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him."


Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
"The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."

Barnabas, 130-138 AD:
"He must needs be manifested in the flesh. ... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. ... But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree."


Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
After referring to Jesus's birth of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem, and that His physical line of descent came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse, Justin wrote, "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea."

"Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles."


Justin Martyr, in a dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:
"For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land."

"For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot."

"Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead ... yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that 'a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.'"

"For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."

reply to post by OldThinker


As I've said before, all that proves is that people read the gospels. There is no way they witnessed any of it as all of those dates are atleast 70 years after the fact. So we are left to conclude that they are talking about the gospels, and that their words mean no more than if someone today talked about the gospels. So we goto the gospels. We learn that the gospels were also written after the fact. We learn that during the time that Jesus actually lived, there was no record of him. NONE. This is a fact that many Christians can not seem to grasp or do not like to think about, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Because there's nothing substantial that supports his existence.

Are you serious? How about CHRISTIANITY???? It has over 1.6 Billion adherents, 2 major holidays, and you expect me to believe that all started because 11 men were liars???

David Koresh had more than 11 disciples. Where is his massive religion? Alexander the Great claimed to be a deity, do we celebrate his birthday every year? Are there Billions of people who are Alexandriacs?

That's absurd, how do we have Christianity today if Jesus never walked the Earth? You mean to tell me 11 men lied about him, (unto death), for a MYTH????

Do you know a single person that would maintain Bigfoot is real with a gun to their head?

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by OldThinker

 

As I've said before, all that proves is that people read the gospels. There is no way they witnessed any of it as all of those dates are atleast 70 years after the fact. So we are left to conclude that they are talking about the gospels, and that their words mean no more than if someone today talked about the gospels. So we goto the gospels. We learn that the gospels were also written after the fact. We learn that during the time that Jesus actually lived, there was no record of him. NONE. This is a fact that many Christians can not seem to grasp or do not like to think about, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Jesus didn't tell his disciples "Write about me". he said "Follow me..."

Secondly, virtually all Jews were illeterate.

Thirdly, the Pharisees and Scribes wanted to "cover their tracks" in essence, when they wrote about him in their Talmud they changed his name, or refused to name him altogether, I.E. 'that man'.

He was hated by the Jews. And as far as the Romans go, they hated the Jews, they were tolerated basically, they didn't care if they wanted some innocent carpenter put to death, it barely fazed the Romans....

Well, that is until his followers began to rapidly increase throughout Rome.

Earlier you said…
“If you lived in a country where everyone thought something was true, and you disagreed, and they tried to force it down your throat, what would you do? The reason the topic is intense is because it brings out of humans the need to fight for their belief. Because when you have so many people telling you that you are wrong, even though you know you are most likely right, then it makes you fight even harder. It's basic psychology. I've seen Christians bring this up time and time again. It's nothing personal, it's just that there really isn't evidence for Jesus. I admit that there is a small chance that he did exist, and if so, was most likely a compilation of stories put together. That's my take on it anyway. I've had people say that I'm run by Satan. Does Satan seak the truth? Because that is what I seak. The problem is that Christianity implys many times that there will be people that disagree because they have demons. My intent is not driven by evil, I'm actually a pretty nice guy. I'm just interested in the truth, and when the truth is supressed, I like to point out the whole story. There are so many people that think that there is actual evidence for Jesus' existence. There simply isn't.”

= = = = = = = =

TP, OT’s got to give it up to you…you are tenacious…and I thank you for that…you appear to be a truth seeker…and that’s a good thing!!!

I agree with you in many ways…it does boil down to FAITH…

Thanks so much for asking great questions…

How do you respond to the centrality of the whole Bible? You know,

Torah…man sinned….I’ll send a savior…

Prophets, He’s coming…

Gospels, He’s here…

Epistles, Live like Him…

Revelation, He’s coming again…

Also, you don’t speak for Satan…the Bible says…all who are without Christ are DEAD…in their status…look man, I am NO FREAKIN’ better than you….I am in no way a righteous dude, just a forgiven sinner…but I do appreciate the discussion…please know OT is praying for you!

OT

PS: Here’s some more references for your review, albeit after the fact, my man…

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):
"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."


"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."



Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)


Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:


"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]



Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
"[The Christians] 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." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.



Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."



Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:
"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.


The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."


Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then 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. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."



Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."



The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:
"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. ... For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. ... it became a body."


"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. ... He draws himself down to death through life. ... eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."



The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:
"It happened one day when John, the brother of James,--who are the sons of Zebedee--went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, `Where is your master whom you followed?' And he said to him, 'He has gone to the place from which he came.' The Pharisee said to him, 'This Nazarene deceived you with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers.'"



The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:
"The Lord ... existed in flesh and ... revealed himself as Son of God ... Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being."


"For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, 'He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.' Great are those who believe."


"The Savior swallowed up death. ... He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality."


"Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."


Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):
"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."


Phlegon, was born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen, mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.

How about the reality that we are living today with a calendar that began the year that Jesus was born. Which puts his birth at 2008 years ago. Is there anyone else in that era of history that could have that impact upon time?

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Yes there are things written about Jesus AFTER the gospels, but they are obviously written by people who READ the gospels and did not witness anything first hand. So it all comes down to the gospels, which were written years and years after the fact. If I'm a man of consistency, I can put no more stock in Jesus' existence then I can Hercules.

Both of these sources were previously linked in this thread, one by myself and the other by Iasion.

The atheist perspective

members.iinet.

Both agree that no less than seven books of The New Testament were written by Paul between 50-60 AD , or if you prefer CE, the Christian Era.

It is interesting, the members.iinet link [hattip Iasion]and the picture it is attempting to paint. Paul only met Jesus once...

After studying with a leading rabbi in Jerusalem, Saul becomes closely linked with the religious authorities in the city and zealously helps to suppress the Jewish heresy which is being spread by the followers of the crucified Jesus. He watches with full approval the stoning of Stephen, a leading Christian, and then he sets off to Damascus to seek out and arrest any Christians in that city.

On the road to Damascus he sees a blinding light and hears a voice saying 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' The voice goes on to add: 'I am Jesus'.

The first missionary: AD c.35-c.55

Instead of persecuting the Christians of Damascus, Saul is baptized by them and stays among them for some three years. Later he returns to his home town in southern Turkey, preaching the Christian faith.

Then, probably in the second half of the 40s, he begins the great series of missionary journeys (using by now the name Paul) which give the young church its first sense of being a widespread community. They also give it, incidentally, its earliest written records.

source


According to the graph at members.iinet the words Paul used more often are suffered, died, crucified and resurrected. This would support his knowledge of Jesus, the Christ, from the Roman perspepective and records at the time would have reflected this, otherwise, why was Saul employed by the Romans?

What were Sauls' motivations?

[Maybe Saul was one of the Devils first attempts at damage control.]

Saul, when he was a pharisee, would have known all about Jesus' life, from the Roman perspective and first hand.





[edit on 9-9-2008 by mhc_70]

[edit on 9-9-2008 by mhc_70]

[edit on 9-9-2008 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by OldThinker

 

As I've said before, all that proves is that people read the gospels. There is no way they witnessed any of it as all of those dates are atleast 70 years after the fact.

Sorry Truth, but that is hogwash.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
How about the reality that we are living today with a calendar that began the year that Jesus was born. Which puts his birth at 2008 years ago. Is there anyone else in that era of history that could have that impact upon time?

But do you know why? It's because Denis the Little didn't like Diocletian.

www.webexhibits.org...

In about C.E. 523, the papal chancellor, Bonifatius, asked a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus to devise a way to implement the rules from the Nicean council (the so-called "Alexandrine Rules") for general use.

Dionysius Exiguus (in English known as Denis the Little) was a monk from Scythia, he was a canon in the Roman curia, and his assignment was to prepare calculations of the dates of Easter. At that time it was customary to count years since the reign of emperor Diocletian; but in his calculations Dionysius chose to number the years since the birth of Christ, rather than honour the persecutor Diocletian.

Dionysius (wrongly) fixed Jesus' birth with respect to Diocletian's reign in such a manner that it falls on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, i.e. since the founding of Rome), thus making the current era start with C.E. 1 on 1 January 754 AUC.

How Dionysius established the year of Christ's birth is not known (see section 2.10.1 for a couple of theories). Jesus was born under the reign of king Herod the Great, who died in 750 AUC, which means that Jesus could have been born no later than that year. Dionysius' calculations were disputed at a very early stage.

When people started dating years before 754 AUC using the term "Before Christ," they let the year 1 B.C.E. immediately precede C.E. 1 with no intervening year zero.

Note, however, that astronomers frequently use another way of numbering the years B.C.E. Instead of 1 B.C.E. they use 0, instead of 2 B.C.E. they use -1, instead of 3 B.C.E. they use -2, etc.

It is frequently claimed that it was the venerable Bede (673-735) who introduced B.C. dating. Although Bede seems to have used the term on at least one occasion, it is generally believed that B.C. dates were not used until the middle of the 17th century.

I believe somebody had already posted something like this a couple of pages back.

Hia,

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
and AD has always meant the years "After Dominion".

False.
A.D. does NOT stand for "After Dominion".
It stands for "Anno Domini".

Don't you ever check ANYTHING?


Iasion

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Because there's nothing substantial that supports his existence.

Are you serious? How about CHRISTIANITY???? It has over 1.6 Billion adherents, 2 major holidays, and you expect me to believe that all started because 11 men were liars???

David Koresh had more than 11 disciples. Where is his massive religion? Alexander the Great claimed to be a deity, do we celebrate his birthday every year? Are there Billions of people who are Alexandriacs?

Not everything is as it seems at first glance. I understand that there are 1.6 Billion followers. But whether Jesus existed or did not exist, the reason for his fame is due to the gospels, and it's the gospels I hold in question. It's the story. It's very compelling, and appeals to all of us. The son of God came down to earth to die for our sins. You can't ask for a better story. But I believe that's all it is. A story.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
That's absurd, how do we have Christianity today if Jesus never walked the Earth? You mean to tell me 11 men lied about him, (unto death), for a MYTH????

Do you know a single person that would maintain Bigfoot is real with a gun to their head?

No one had to lie about anything. The way I see it, there are two very plausible options. Either it was a Roman conspiracy to pacify the Jews (which I've written about in this thread, and there is great evidence to make me believe this), or it was a myth that perpetuated through the people until it was written down. There are fables before the time of Christ that parallel his story, so this option is also very possible.

Also, my initial statement still stands. There is no substantial evidence to support his existence. Whether he existed or not, can't you at least admit that much? It's just a fact.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus didn't tell his disciples "Write about me". he said "Follow me..."

Secondly, virtually all Jews were illeterate.

Thirdly, the Pharisees and Scribes wanted to "cover their tracks" in essence, when they wrote about him in their Talmud they changed his name, or refused to name him altogether, I.E. 'that man'.

This scenario is possible, I'm not denying that. But it's certainly not probable. Iasion has already mentioned a few people during this time that would have written about Christ. Also, why wait so many years after Jesus' death to write an account of what you had witnessed? Surely the writer would know that this would cut his credibility in half. Anyone in such a situation would have written something before then. Not to mention all of the supposed miracles that thousands had witnessed (such as the baskets full of bread). These people may not have written about it, but they sure as Hell would have talked about it. They would have told everyone, at which time the news would have spread and someone would have written something about these alleged miracles.

Originally posted by Iasion
Hia,

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
and AD has always meant the years "After Dominion".

False.
A.D. does NOT stand for "After Dominion".
It stands for "Anno Domini".

Don't you ever check ANYTHING?


Iasion

I speak English u troll, not Midieval Latin.

en.wikipedia.org...

In ENGLISH we say "After Dominion", heck some say "After Death".

Save it dude.

reply to post by TruthParadox
Well, I've done my part.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Or we could argue for 100 pages if ATS allowed us.

reply to post by mhc_70

Originally posted by mhc_70
This would support his knowledge of Jesus, the Christ, from the Roman perspepective and records at the time would have reflected this, otherwise, why was Saul employed by the Romans?

So there's a written record stating that Saul was employed by the Romans during this time? Can you provide a link?

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus didn't tell his disciples "Write about me". he said "Follow me..."

Secondly, virtually all Jews were illeterate.

Thirdly, the Pharisees and Scribes wanted to "cover their tracks" in essence, when they wrote about him in their Talmud they changed his name, or refused to name him altogether, I.E. 'that man'.

This scenario is possible, I'm not denying that. But it's certainly not probable. Iasion has already mentioned a few people during this time that would have written about Christ. Also, why wait so many years after Jesus' death to write an account of what you had witnessed? Surely the writer would know that this would cut his credibility in half. Anyone in such a situation would have written something before then. Not to mention all of the supposed miracles that thousands had witnessed (such as the baskets full of bread). These people may not have written about it, but they sure as Hell would have talked about it. They would have told everyone, at which time the news would have spread and someone would have written something about these alleged miracles.

The Pharisees did write about these miracles... they said they were done with magic from Egypt.

Bro, relax, if you don't want ot believe, you don't HAVE TO.

This isn't China, if you don't want to believe, fine, that is your choice.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Pharisees did write about these miracles... they said they were done with magic from Egypt.

As stated previously, this was written well after the fact, and I also highly doubt it was Jesus they were writing about. It sounds nothing like Jesus to me.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Bro, relax, if you don't want ot believe, you don't HAVE TO.

This isn't China, if you don't want to believe, fine, that is your choice.

Why do you say this? I'm a pretty relaxed guy. If I was anymore relaxed, I would probably be dead .

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by OldThinker

 

As I've said before, all that proves is that people read the gospels. There is no way they witnessed any of it as all of those dates are atleast 70 years after the fact. So we are left to conclude that they are talking about the gospels, and that their words mean no more than if someone today talked about the gospels. So we goto the gospels. We learn that the gospels were also written after the fact. We learn that during the time that Jesus actually lived, there was no record of him. NONE. This is a fact that many Christians can not seem to grasp or do not like to think about, but it's a fact nonetheless.

I have to totally agree withTP on this, quoting references from material whos source reference is tainted and without evidence only proves that someone believed what they read without knowing what they read was totally bogus.
The evidence is hearsay QED.

Thousands of people have read "Chariots OF The Gods" some still believe it's contents to be true and based on facts. Many cling to their belief because they simply do not want to know the truth or don't want to be appear foolish for holding their belief likewise the author of the book.

It is now September in a few short months Santa Clause will be a very real personage for millions of people on the planet. For these people there will be evidence in abundance of the reality of this character, they will claim to see him, hear him, dream of him, have conversations with him etc such is their need for this ficticious character to be real.

These people ar caught up in a big lie and they absolutely do not want to know the truth because of fear of not reaping the benefit of the belief such as it is.

Eventually these people will mature and see the lie, who knows whether this lie causes some fundamental damage or not but nevertheless as their minds and reason mature, they see the elephant in the room and drop the childish belief as it no longer does what its supposed to do for them.


Perhaps humanity will mature one day and drop unworkable,unprovable belief systems and we may well as a species decide to agree on one thing.

We have no choice but to live in the same house so surely the smart thing to do would be to have house rules that benefit the house, and keep our beliefs to our rooms.