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

a reply to: DeadSeraph

lol! Wrong again.

windword and I happen to have some similar experiences and understandings. I don't 'follow her around', for crying out loud!!

You have let your own bias on the subject shine with so many stars you should be prohibited from commenting on the subject.

You want to silence me? LOL!!!!!!!

You LITERALLY suggested Christians should be eradicated (yet again) in a thread that has NOTHING to do with Christianity in the first place.

Show me where I said that.

Jesus you people are impossible.

A good lap dog????

Careful, I bite.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Because unlike you, I'm interested in history.

THEN STUDY IT.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

So since Egypt and Rome had documentation of their gods and vast resources to show worship to them you find it crazy that we have little evidence to prove the existence of a poor carpenter from a poor town in a subjugated province?

What in the world are you talking about?

Quote something I said and I'll do my best to respond.

a reply to: NYCUltra

Fine with me, I guess I hit a sour note and you decided to attack me when I respected you and just responded to your posts (I didn't intend to offend you).

YOU attacked ME, pal. You disrespected my profession and dissed my links as nonsense. And yes, I DID say it was fundamentalist Christians that are the problem.

You certainly meant to offend me. You didn't 'respect' me - you said my sources were lame, and that I 'couldn't be serious.'

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Don't even start claiming you have been attacked personally, when that is all you have in this argument. LITERALLY all you have. You hate Christians, therefore your opinion MUST be better than anyone who agrees with the notion of a historical Jesus, regardless of whether or not they are even Christians!

a reply to: DeadSeraph

At bare minimum, you'd be invited to universities to discuss your "theories".

Does it count that I was invited to speak at a national conference for the Prevention of Child Abuse Association? That was in 2006.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Does that have anything to do with the OP? No?

Then I'd go so far as to say no, it doesn't have JACK SQUAT TO DO WITH IT.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You hate Christians, therefore your opinion MUST be better than anyone who agrees with the notion of a historical Jesus, regardless of whether or not they are even Christians!

No, I don't "hate" Christians.
Strike three. You're out.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

then why were you posting in this thread and in others about how Christians shouldn't be allowed to raise their children with Christian beliefs because it is "child abuse"?

What the hell does any of it have to do with the OP? NOTHING. That's what.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: windword

Because unlike you, I'm interested in history.

"Tis an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted." Bishop Eusebius (260-339 AD)

Really? I think you're here to silence those who threaten the Christian status quo of mindless blind faith to Bible stories and rhetoric.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: windword

Because unlike you, I'm interested in history.

"Tis an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted." Bishop Eusebius (260-339 AD)

Really? I think you're here to silence those who threaten the Christian status quo of mindless blind faith to Bible stories and rhetoric.

You and your sidekick have been exposed, time and time again.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well, I guess by logic, then you and OP are in cahoots and are ignorantly tag teaming in a campaign of insults against your detractors. Because the OP's premise has long since been debunked and now there's nothing to do but vilify what you can't argue.

a reply to: windword

you're the one with a star already

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well, I guess by logic, then you and OP are in cahoots and are ignorantly tag teaming in a campaign of insults against your detractors. Because the OP's premise has long since been debunked and now there's nothing to do but vilify what you can't argue.

Anyways, at the end of the day, you should be capable of dismantling my arguments. You haven't been capable of doing so over multiple threads, so there is no reason to believe you will actually address them sufficiently in this one, either.

More of the same. Shifting goal posts, cherry picking issues, and avoiding the tough questions, as if you know something 98% of historians don't.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You haven't rebutted my answer to your arguments, although most have been successfully refuted in this thread. In the end, the result is the same, there is NO proof, zero, zilch, nada, of the historicity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

a reply to: windword

"Christus/Chrestus, everything is a forgery".

Your arguments are pretty simple.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

It's unfortunate that you Christians have the self confessed liars, Eusebius and his son Jerome. Eusebius, loudly justified his forgeries and interpolations. His son Jerome wrote letters to fellows explaining why it was better to alter sacred texts, removing the errant logic of Origin, for example, "so that others may not be led astray", in a campaign to save Origin from his inevitable excommunication. The only writings that we have of Origin and Tacitus, and many other critical texts, are those that were translated by Eusebius or Jerome, and hence, deemed acceptable by the Holy Roman Church.

a reply to: windword

You are a liar. Discard all of tacitus then.

What's the oldest extant manuscript of Tacitus?

(I ask again, softly.)

ANSWER: 11th Century

All of the late Italian manuscripts - some 31 at the last count - are copies of a single mediaeval manuscript, also in the Laurentian library, where it is number 68.2. It is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean', to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Bound with it are the major works of Apuleius, written slightly later than the Tacitus but at the same place.

This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD).

Source