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.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Scholars debate the details of Jesus' birth, and few claim to know the exact year or date of his birth or death. Piecing together gospel accounts and historical records, scholars suggest that he was born between 7 and 2 BC/BCE and that he was crucified between 26 and 36 AD/CE. Near the end of his life, he was baptized in the Jordan River, led a ministry of preaching and healing in Galilee, and traveled to Jerusalem, where he was crucified.
Originally posted by degenerate oto
How is it, that there are no records other than those associated with the bible? No childhood, no bloodline, no successor nothing just he was born, and showed up again at an adult age, and was crucified. I've searched for historical records couldnt find any if someone can put me on to that information I'd be very grateful.
1. The disciples certainly didn't act like Jesus had foretold his resurrection.
2. Many of Jesus's most influential friends and followers evidently didn't "sign on" with the early church [link].
3. Wouldn't you think John the Baptist would have been more involved in his kinsman's ministry
4. If Jesus really said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the apostles apparently ignored his instructions
6. Other minor discrepancies raise additional concerns about how much the New Testament authors really knew
Originally posted by degenerate oto
I read that post the other day, it was quite insightful. It made many of the points that inspired me to research this topic. So thank you.
There are some "discrepancies" between the Koran and the Bible, important enough to say that either the Koran is not the word of God or the Bible is not the word of God... they cannot be both "the truth"... one of them is false, even if it has many good things... because God cannot say one single error!.
Whenever the origin of Islam is discussed, one question in particular tends to arise: are the God of the Qur'an and the God of the Bible one and the same? The answer is no. This is a common misconception. The misconception stems from the fact that many biblical characters seem to appear in the Qur'an, Abraham being a significant example. But the truth is, while the Qur'an uses the names of biblical characters to describe Quranic figures, they certainly are not the same historical figures and the God of the Bible is by no means the God of the Qur'an.
Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
This woman who wears a wooden cross around her neck and carries the bible in her purse to work everyday said that animals do not have souls. I said jump back (bad b word) yes they do. She said no they don't, I said how do you know, she said the bible. How so? Well if animals had souls they would need salvation. Animals don't have the ability to seek salvation. It's at this point that I shoved her bible down her throat, not literally,
Originally posted by cantyousee
Everybody has their own opinion. What's worse is everyone thinks their opinion is as important and truthful as the next person's. How egotistical and gullible.
Originally posted by degenerate oto
Yeah, it was a really dope post. The thing is, not to bash, but to fairly search for facts.
Not just the hearsay involved but actual facts that can be supported.
I've yet to see anything other than all literature involving the bible
that supports the idea that Jesus was an actual person, or that
anything in the bible actually happened.
Although, I am open to other perspectives.
Ok next stop, Islam and its discrepencies!