Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How about you prove that Tacitus was lying?... Tacitus, a pagan Roman who detested both Christians and Jewish people wrote about Jesus, that he was crucified under order of Pontius Pilate, and Christians were named after the Christ.

Prove this is false.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't go off tangent trying to debunk the evidence of Christ existence by now taking out of context and attacking part of Christian belief. If you want to prove there is no evidence for Jesus existing, then prove Tacitus was lying. Prove that the other Roman authors, and other pagans who wrote about Jesus were all lying.

a reply to: windword

My assertion is that Jesus Christ is a composite figure. Yes, "Chrestus" could be anyone. The Pontius Pilate reference is a forgery, though, an interpolation.

Yet you are incapable of proving this, and this assertion runs contrary to accepted academic standards. That would seem to indicate you are "wrong".

When there's evidence of forgery, it's hard to know where the lie ends and the truth begins, or even if the truth begins at all.

There is no evidence of a "forgery" as far as Tacitus mention of "Christus" and the Christians are concerened. You are completely fabricating untruths (or using poor sources). When the debate doesn't go in your favor, you then pull the "Chrestus" vs "Christus" card when that has also been demonstrated to be a fallacious argument. You continually grasp at straws, thread after thread after thread.

I admire your persistence, but your posts personify ignorance.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

There have been over 8 pages of more than two sides of an issue presenting very reasonable arguments that have been backed up with sources.

The motto here is not Deny Ignorance ... Unless You Believe in It.

There's enough Doom and Gloom. Does it have to extend to ATS as well?

I guess that's where we differ in opinion. I don't view reasonable debate as twisting words and logical fallacies. I expect BOTH parties engaged in debate to try to understand what the other party is saying and the point they are trying to get across. I saw that from one party (not perfectly, but reasonably) but not any of the opponents. What I saw was a refusal to accept the argument for what it was and many attempts to turn it into something it was not.

Maybe you saw something different.

a reply to: Dfairlite

well said.

Of course time is non-linear if it is dependent upon distance and mass. Where are you right now?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: windword

You still with the same... Wikipedia isn't always right, it's a modern invention that is known of it's bias in certain topics, including religion, politics, and climate change.

You claim that no Christian text can be trusted, no Jewish text can be trusted and EVEN PAGAN TEXTS from the Romans can't be trusted... It is obvious that you don't know what else to invent to dismiss these facts.

You're dealing with an unreasonable person. Any reasonable person will usually accept the epistles of paul to be accurate (not necessarily concerning the gospels but concerning historical events). This guy/gal won't even accept tacitus as accurate. I guess we should throw out the entirety of tacitus' historical records then, because he must have been a liar if he wrote that Jesus was a person who was crucified under Pontias Pilate and was who the Christians followed.

He/she has faith that christ is not a real person because it helps with their delusions. It must be faith because the evidence, as accepted by professionals in their fields, says otherwise.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Thank you. I admire the patience you've displayed. I've been through this debate a few times myself. With reasonable people they accept that christ was a real person and that his death follows that which is prescribed in the bible. Usually they draw the line at his miracles and claim they have rational explanations.

With unreasonable people the debate goes about like this thread. Wild tangents everywhere, twisting the argument, discrediting sources that are academically proven, etc. Some people seem to thrive on being opposed to anything that corroborates religion. No matter what it takes to do so.

Have a wonderful day!

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Klassified

lol that is not my intention at all. I have never been one to prosthelytize on ATS. I am genuinely looking at the issue from a historical perspective, and the historical evidence is solid.

You sir are in a loop of confirmation bias. If you really want to look from a historical perspective you should stop using any source to confirm what you already believe. Your view is biased and will lead you to only look at things that confirm what you believe rather than looking at actual evidence. If you really want to test a theory look at the facts that debunk it rather than confirm it. Is your theory not debunkable than you may have a good theory. Are there no alternatives to the theory left? Can the evidence only be read in a certain way as to exclude other possibilities? In this case a mere reference from a historian and a small number of circumstantial evidence dont make your theory very solid.

a reply to: Magnetron01

and you should read the entire thread.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you implying Rome was responsible for the Christian religion in the first place?

Nope, I'm stating it outright.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

How about you prove that Tacitus was lying?... Tacitus, a pagan Roman who detested both Christians and Jewish people wrote about Jesus, that he was crucified under order of Pontius Pilate, and Christians were named after the Christ.

Prove this is false.

Why would I prove that Tacitus is lying? What are you on about?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you implying Rome was responsible for the Christian religion in the first place?

Nope, I'm stating it outright.

What evidence do you have for this assertion? If you have no evidence, what arguments do you have to support it?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't go off tangent trying to debunk the evidence of Christ existence by now taking out of context and attacking part of Christian belief. If you want to prove there is no evidence for Jesus existing, then prove Tacitus was lying. Prove that the other Roman authors, and other pagans who wrote about Jesus were all lying.

Again, what are you talking about? I've stated previously in the discussion that there are two points for a "Jesus" figure existing, credited Tacitus and even both Josephus references (even though one is universally thought to be forged).

What are you on about? Haven't you read your own thread?

a reply to: Dfairlite

He/she has faith that christ is not a real person because it helps with their delusions. It must be faith because the evidence, as accepted by professionals in their fields, says otherwise.

I concur...It always amazes me how people of FAITH feel the need to convince those not of the FAITH that they are "right"...

People of "Faith" should stay silent,... and be "faithful"...
Once they leave the veil of "faith",... they enter into the world the rest of us live in,...the world of "REALity"...

Those of the "faith" are not allowed to use the "tools" of "REALity"... once they do that, they have left their realm of "faith"...
and are now trying to defend their "faithful" position using the tools of reality...

FAITH cannot be defended with the non-faithful's tools...it only shows the faithfuls desperation...

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

There have been over 8 pages of more than two sides of an issue presenting very reasonable arguments that have been backed up with sources.

The motto here is not Deny Ignorance ... Unless You Believe in It.

There's enough Doom and Gloom. Does it have to extend to ATS as well?

I guess that's where we differ in opinion. I don't view reasonable debate as twisting words and logical fallacies. I expect BOTH parties engaged in debate to try to understand what the other party is saying and the point they are trying to get across. I saw that from one party (not perfectly, but reasonably) but not any of the opponents. What I saw was a refusal to accept the argument for what it was and many attempts to turn it into something it was not.

Maybe you saw something different.

It is indeed where we differ, apparently, but it is also clear that there are more than "two sides" in this debate. Also, I would guess (although you don't have to state it outright) that you see the "side" of the debate you favor as being the reasonable patient one, and "the other side" as the impatient, irrational, out of order one ... and given human confirmation bias, that's not really that hard to understand, is it?

Best.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you implying Rome was responsible for the Christian religion in the first place?

Nope, I'm stating it outright.

What evidence do you have for this assertion? If you have no evidence, what arguments do you have to support it?

I'm quite sure that matter is off the topic of whether "Jesus" was a real historical person or not, but so as not to ignore you, and let you know what I refer to: Emperor Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, called the Council of Nicea in 321 CE.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you implying Rome was responsible for the Christian religion in the first place?

Nope, I'm stating it outright.

What evidence do you have for this assertion? If you have no evidence, what arguments do you have to support it?

I'm quite sure that matter is off the topic of whether "Jesus" was a real historical person or not, but so as not to ignore you, and let you know what I refer to: Emperor Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, called the Council of Nicea in 321 CE.

I don't believe it's off topic. Unless I might have misinterpreted what you are stating, you are claiming that the council of Nicea was the creation of the Christian religion?

I am pretty sure you are much more informed than this, so I am assuming I haven't interpreted your claims properly, given the fact we have ample evidence of the Christian religion predating the council of Nicea by almost 300 years.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I'm sure you're right then. Carry on!

a reply to: Gryphon66

well, I am...

www.livescience.com...

There is also a wealth of evidence that suggests the oldest Christian writings date from 40AD to 65AD...

Again, I'm only asking for clarification here. If I have misinterpreted your comments, please feel free to clarify. Otherwise, if you are sticking by your contention that the Christian religion was an invention of the romans circa 320AD, you should at least give some arguments as to why you feel that is a realistic scenario, no?

(I'm honestly trying to give you a way out, here)