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

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But of course, like some people in this thread have already done, after those very people were claiming 'there is no evidence whatsoever outside the gospels" they are now claiming that the Pagan Romans, the Christians and the Jews were all lying...

Nope. Just the Christians.

"But a graver accusation than that of inaccuracy or deficient authority lies
against the writings which have come down to us from the second century.
There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written
with no other view than to deceive the simple-minded multitude who at
that time formed the great bulk of the Christian community."

"No fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their
unsuspicious acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to
edification. No period in the history of the world ever produced so many
spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of
every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master
himself, was freely attached to every description of religious
forgery."

Pious Forgeries

a reply to: DarthFazer

You might be the most pessimistic person I've encountered on ATS and believe me I'm as much of a realist and pessimistic as anybody.

Its called the golden rule and its very much a universal in my opinion. Stop generalizing Christians and putting your own opinions about religious doctrine as 100% fact. I'm tired of everyone preaching to me about what they think Christians are based on their own personal bias. I don't speak for anyone but myself and I sure don't hold all of you accountable for all the atheists in the world.

I'm done with this # throwing contest you all sound the same to me

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Riiight, and the Christians also forced the Jewish people to accept the existence of Jesus even though to this day they say he wasn't the Christ and wasn't the son of God, but do say Jesus did exist?...

Again, if Jesus was a myth Tacitus, among others would have written about Jesus as a myth, and not as a man who lived, taught and was crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate. Tacitus was a historian who compiled the story of how much of Rome burned. Tacitus probably grew up hearing stories about Jesus, and if any story would have claimed that Jesus did not exist he would have written so as Tacitus was a pagan.

If Jesus was a myth, the Romans wouldn't have been bothering to claim that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier... That was an obvious attempt to humanize a man that existed. A man that was seen as the son of God by many people, and this was a threat to Roman rule.

Tacitus didn't write about Jesus at all.

It seems curious that the early church apologists who scoured such documents and frequently cite Tacitus, were unaware of it. Wouldn't you say? When was the first reference to it by the church? Also the mistake about "procurator" that is very understandable for a later Christian scribe. It seems to owe much to the imagination of Sulpicius Severus. It doesn't matter anyway because the best it will ever be is 2nd century hearsay.

Hotema notes that this passage was not quoted by any Church father up to the 15th century, although the passage would have been very useful to them in their work;[63] and that the passage refers to the Christians in Rome being a multitude, while at that time the Christian congregation in Rome would actually have been very small.

You might have also overlooked the previously referenced and somewhat relevant, peer reviewed, scholarly paper. That the years of Jesus supposed ministry are absent from Tacitus writings are also most likely because Christians destroyed them (it must have been embarrassing finding not one word about Jesus).

Christian persecution over the fire is also largely fabricated, as is the notion of Christian persecution in general. It's more likely that Jews (which included Christians), who were made to pay reparations, were persecuted for it.

I think you might be slightly exaggerating the importance of a satirist, making up satirical stories about a claimed person that existed 150yrs previously, re the historicity of your mythical hero. No doubt Celsus story was a fabrication (that somewhat being the point). The whole thing is a fabrication. The "Toldot Yeshu" is a better version, it has no bearing on historicity either.

Seriously, some obscure 2nd century rag tag splinter sect of Jewish religious nutters are going to take over the Roman Empire lol?

The more realistic scholars realise that there really isn't anything outside the gospels. Yet they amount to nothing more than a few miracles followed by a "passion play" narrative that in a historical sense, would be almost as miraculous as the "miracles" themselves. It's mythology.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
This from a historian, about the relevant Josephus material, from a paper appearing in a mainstream peer reviewed journal, complete with usual bibliography/citations etc.

Among the works of Josephus, scholars find two disputed passages on Jesus

Many scholars see this passage as fraudulent, in whole (65) or in part. (66)

Highly respected Josephean scholar Louis Feldman discusses the historical silence surrounding the Testimonium Flavianum:
The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers—Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century—who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite.68

If this passage contains Christian interpolations to some extent (agreed upon by both mythicist and historicist scholars), it might not be surprising if the whole passage was fraudulent, especially considering the relative historical silence. The precedent has already been set that the text was tampered with, raising serious questions as to its reliability. Ehrman also suggests that the removal of the entire passage makes the surrounding text flow more smoothly and that the first person to quote it is Eusebiusof Caesarea, a 4th century Christian bishop.69 This could be significant as Eusebius was arguably tolerant of pious fraud (Preparation for the Gospel 12.31),70 and by his own words raises questions as to his reliability as a historian (Church History 8.2.3)

A second passage from the works of Josephus that mentions Jesus is also from Antiquities of the Jews: Apart from the phrase “called the Christ,” this passage does not seem to offer any useful information on Jesus. The Jesus mentioned need not necessarily be Jesus of Nazareth. After all Jesus (or Joshua) and James (or Jacob) are very common Jewish names, and there are quite a few people named Jesus mentioned in the works of Josephus. In fact, soon after the “called the Christ” reference, Josephus makes mention of “Jesus the son of Damnaeus,” who became the high priest. It could be (or is even more likely) that this is the Jesus referenced earlier, as some mythicists speculate,74 and this would explain why James’ brother is mentioned; the high priest being a noteworthy figure.

Indeed, with the possible or likely fraudulent nature of the first passage, the second passage potentially raises questions as to who Josephus thinks this Christ is, given that he had otherwise not mentioned him.

Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies- Volume Six, Number One Spring 2015 (Utah State University Department of History).

I felt fairly confident I shouldn't bother with you, because you were just as intellectually honest as your fellow mythicists here. None of them will question you or your sources, and you will probably act like you won this debate. But a few points before I depart because talking to a wall has never accomplished anything:

there are reasons to have doubts over the authenticity or legitimacy of this passage. It is interesting that the name Jesus is never used, and that this is Tacitus’ only reference to Jesus. It is questionable if a non-Christian historian would refer to this person as Christ rather than the more secular Jesus of Nazareth. A Christian scribe, however, would have no issue in calling him Christ. Given that Jesus is not specified, there may also be a small possibility that this could refer to another Christ or messiah-figure. Though Annals covers the period of Rome’s history from around 14 CE to 66 CE, no other mention is made of Jesus Christ.78 This passage is also ignored by early Christian apologists such as Origen and Tertullian, who actually quote Tacitus in the 3rd century.

Name your source. Not only that, but acknowledge previous arguments or counter arguments. Providing biblical criticisms as if they somehow portray the entire body of thought within academia is just poor form. I can show you peer reviewed journals that say the earth was 6000 years old. That doesn't necessarily make it so, does it?

there are reasons to have doubts over the authenticity or legitimacy of this passage. It is interesting that the name Jesus is never used, and that this is Tacitus’ only reference to Jesus. It is questionable if a non-Christian historian would refer to this person as Christ rather than the more secular Jesus of Nazareth. A Christian scribe, however, would have no issue in calling him Christ. Given that Jesus is not specified, there may also be a small possibility that this could refer to another Christ or messiah-figure. Though Annals covers the period of Rome’s history from around 14 CE to 66 CE, no other mention is made of Jesus Christ.78 This passage is also ignored by early Christian apologists such as Origen and Tertullian, who actually quote Tacitus in the 3rd century.

There are more reasons to suspect the passage from Tacitus is authentic than not. Again, just because YOU quote it, doesn't make it so.

None of the rest of your quotes are worth addressing since they have been either answered before you even got here, or done so via other material linked herein.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: DarthFazer

You might be the most pessimistic person I've encountered on ATS and believe me I'm as much of a realist and pessimistic as anybody.

Its called the golden rule and its very much a universal in my opinion. Stop generalizing Christians and putting your own opinions about religious doctrine as 100% fact. I'm tired of everyone preaching to me about what they think Christians are based on their own personal bias. I don't speak for anyone but myself and I sure don't hold all of you accountable for all the atheists in the world.

I'm done with this # throwing contest you all sound the same to me

You mean based on Christian actions and doctrine , right?


If you only speak for yourself, why associate yourself with a religion you disagree with it's scriptures. The bible is far longer then "the golden rule". Can't lock on to that and ignore all the slaveryness.

a reply to: JDmOKI

Golden Rule my ###!

(All dates "era vulgaris" = Christian Era)

314
Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks the Gentiles: The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess Artemis.

324
Emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire. At Dydima, Asia Minor, he sacks the Oracle of God Apollo and tortures its Pagan priests to death. He also evicts the Gentiles from Mt. Athos and destroys all local Hellenic Temples.

326
Emperor Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the Temple of God Asclepius in Aigeai of Cilicia and many Temples of Goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenice, Baalbek, etc.

330
Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the Pagan Temples in Greece to decorate Nova Roma (Constantinople), the new capital of his Empire.

335
Constantine sacks many Pagan Temples of Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers". Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatros.

341
Emperor Constas, son of Constantinus, persecutes "all the soothsayers and the Hellenists". Many Gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed.

346
New large - scale persecutions against the Gentiles in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius accused as... "magician".

353
An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship through sacrifices and "idols".

354
A new edict of Constantius orders the closing of all Pagan Temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms. Executions of Pagan priests. First burning of libraries in various cities of the Empire. The first lime factories are built next to closed Pagan Temples. A large part of Sacred Gentile architecture is turned into lime.

356
A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the Pagan Temples and the execution of all "idolaters".

357
Constantius outlaws all methods of Divination (Astrology not excluded).

359
In Skythopolis, Syria, christians organise the first death camps for the torture and execution of arrested Gentiles from all around the Empire.

361 to 363
Religious tolerance and restoration of Pagan cults declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the Pagan Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus.

363
Assassination of Emperor Julianus (26th June).

ETC., ETC., ETC.,

Christianity itself is proof that Jesus Christ never existed, in my opinion!

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
This from a historian, about the relevant Josephus material, from a paper appearing in a mainstream peer reviewed journal, complete with usual bibliography/citations etc.

Among the works of Josephus, scholars find two disputed passages on Jesus

Many scholars see this passage as fraudulent, in whole (65) or in part. (66)

Highly respected Josephean scholar Louis Feldman discusses the historical silence surrounding the Testimonium Flavianum:
The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers—Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century—who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite.68

If this passage contains Christian interpolations to some extent (agreed upon by both mythicist and historicist scholars), it might not be surprising if the whole passage was fraudulent, especially considering the relative historical silence. The precedent has already been set that the text was tampered with, raising serious questions as to its reliability. Ehrman also suggests that the removal of the entire passage makes the surrounding text flow more smoothly and that the first person to quote it is Eusebiusof Caesarea, a 4th century Christian bishop.69 This could be significant as Eusebius was arguably tolerant of pious fraud (Preparation for the Gospel 12.31),70 and by his own words raises questions as to his reliability as a historian (Church History 8.2.3)

A second passage from the works of Josephus that mentions Jesus is also from Antiquities of the Jews: Apart from the phrase “called the Christ,” this passage does not seem to offer any useful information on Jesus. The Jesus mentioned need not necessarily be Jesus of Nazareth. After all Jesus (or Joshua) and James (or Jacob) are very common Jewish names, and there are quite a few people named Jesus mentioned in the works of Josephus. In fact, soon after the “called the Christ” reference, Josephus makes mention of “Jesus the son of Damnaeus,” who became the high priest. It could be (or is even more likely) that this is the Jesus referenced earlier, as some mythicists speculate,74 and this would explain why James’ brother is mentioned; the high priest being a noteworthy figure.

Indeed, with the possible or likely fraudulent nature of the first passage, the second passage potentially raises questions as to who Josephus thinks this Christ is, given that he had otherwise not mentioned him.

Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies- Volume Six, Number One Spring 2015 (Utah State University Department of History).

I felt fairly confident I shouldn't bother with you, because you were just as intellectually honest as your fellow mythicists here. None of them will question you or your sources, and you will probably act like you won this debate. But a few points before I depart because talking to a wall has never accomplished anything:

there are reasons to have doubts over the authenticity or legitimacy of this passage. It is interesting that the name Jesus is never used, and that this is Tacitus’ only reference to Jesus. It is questionable if a non-Christian historian would refer to this person as Christ rather than the more secular Jesus of Nazareth. A Christian scribe, however, would have no issue in calling him Christ. Given that Jesus is not specified, there may also be a small possibility that this could refer to another Christ or messiah-figure. Though Annals covers the period of Rome’s history from around 14 CE to 66 CE, no other mention is made of Jesus Christ.78 This passage is also ignored by early Christian apologists such as Origen and Tertullian, who actually quote Tacitus in the 3rd century.

Name your source. Not only that, but acknowledge previous arguments or counter arguments. Providing biblical criticisms as if they somehow portray the entire body of thought within academia is just poor form. I can show you peer reviewed journals that say the earth was 6000 years old. That doesn't necessarily make it so, does it?

there are reasons to have doubts over the authenticity or legitimacy of this passage. It is interesting that the name Jesus is never used, and that this is Tacitus’ only reference to Jesus. It is questionable if a non-Christian historian would refer to this person as Christ rather than the more secular Jesus of Nazareth. A Christian scribe, however, would have no issue in calling him Christ. Given that Jesus is not specified, there may also be a small possibility that this could refer to another Christ or messiah-figure. Though Annals covers the period of Rome’s history from around 14 CE to 66 CE, no other mention is made of Jesus Christ.78 This passage is also ignored by early Christian apologists such as Origen and Tertullian, who actually quote Tacitus in the 3rd century.

There are more reasons to suspect the passage from Tacitus is authentic than not. Again, just because YOU quote it, doesn't make it so.

None of the rest of your quotes are worth addressing since they have been either answered before you even got here, or done so via other material linked herein.

None of the quotes are worth addressing since you can't really address them, you mean. No one does, they just give them the brush off or ignore them because, if their hero wasn't real historically (which he obviously wasn't)...that could mean...

'Twas ever thus.

Still quite big on the ad hominem arguments, as usual Seraph.

Scroll down to "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources" - Raphael Lataster. You'll get a free pdf of some recent scholarship re the imaginary friend of yours.

digitalcommons.usu.edu...

Our academic review board includes professionals from universities throughout the United States specializing in the religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism, as well as specialists in the fields of Psychology, Anthropology, and Sociology of Religion.

What you really need is something from the time jesus supposedly existed. It doesn't have to be extant, some corroborated references to some document, an inscription, anything......Instead of quibbling over things that are likely pious fraud to begin with and even if not, will only ever show that the story existed at such and such a time, usually long after.

That there is no such thing is why the bar is set so low in this area of scholarship. We even have genuine historical records to indicate the "Robin Hood" myth could be based on a historical person. For jesus, nothing.

The gospels are obviously not contemporary, it's unlikely they were written even by people who really understood the cultures and times where these stories were set. It's not possible to glean a historical person from them. Not one single thing that would be expected, from people who knew a jesus, can be found. Which is why there is such an embarrassment of different jesus figures. A different one for every historian it seems.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The only claim that the title of procurator came after Pontius Pilate comes from those who simply don't want to accept any evidence that proves Jesus Christ did exist.

PROCURATORS:
...
The procurators may be divided into two series: those preceding and those following the reign of Agrippa I. Those of the first series (6-41 C.E.) ruled over Judea alone, possessing, together with the legate, the power of supervision over the Temple, and the right to appoint and depose the high priest. Those of the second series (44-70) administered Samaria and Galilee, besides Judea. Tacitus' statement ("Annales," xii. 54) that Cumanus was procurator of Galilee only, is not confirmed by Josephus, who was better informed. In this period the supervision over the Temple and the high priests was exercised by Jewish princes of the Herodian dynasty. While the reader is referred to the special articles in The Jewish Encyclopedia on the several procurators, a condensed account of them, as well as of the legates who followed them, is here presented in the order of their succession. The first series of procurators includes the following:
...
Pontius Pilate 26-36). As Josephus expressly states (ib. 4, § 2), he was deposed before the first appearance of Vitellius in Jerusalem, namely, in the spring of 36 (comp. ib. 4, § 3 with 5, § 3).
...

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

How do you explain that if Jesus Christ did not exist, why then would the orthodox Jewish people not have used that knowledge against Christianity? Not even the majority orthodox Jewish people deny that Jesus Christ did exist and was crucified. But to them he wasn't the son of God.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It's not like Christians were being persecuted and fed to lions, or dogs, tortured, or even crucified for being Christians...
You are apparently even trying to deny that as well, even though it is another fact accepted by most scholars.

Any early underground writings made by some Christians that may have survived the persecution from the pagan Romans is probably buried under the rubble in the old ruins of Jerusalem, which now lies under the newer constructions of Jerusalem.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

BTW, do you also want to deny the existence of Alexander the Great? In case you didn't know there is a gap of 200-300+ years between his death and the biographies and other surviving texts of Alexander the Great written by Arrian, Curtius, Justin, Plutarch and Siculus. There are plenty of similar "gaps" between the death of other prominent historical figures whose biographies/earlier surviving stories were written years, decades and even centuries after their deaths. Is that proof they did not exist as well?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Fallacy, heaped apon more fallacy.

Where are the treatises proclaiming King Arthur didn't exist? Robin Hood? Romulus?

Seriously, resorting to the "no ancient person" argument fallacy now?

Apart from coinage, archeology and so forth, the mountains of corroborating references to historical documentation and evidence from so many reliable sources for the more historic figures?

You might have also missed this...

What you really need is something from the time jesus supposedly existed. It doesn't have to be extant, some corroborated references to some document, an inscription, anything......

Got anything?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Got anything?

Hell of a lot more than you do, son.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Got anything?

Hell of a lot more than you do, son.

Condescension doesn't help your argument. It's a common "port 'o call" for those without such a thing.

Anything more than 0, would be more contemporaneous references to Christ than I have, or that anyone else has been ever been able to find. Where are they?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The existence of Jesus is neither here nor there, it's the metaphor we are supposed to accept which at the end of the day simply amounts to a control construct no matter how benevolent it may seem Organised Religion is mind control for the masses.

The gospels are obviously not contemporary, it's unlikely they were written even by people who really understood the cultures and times where these stories were set.

Really? If the recent findings of a Gospel that dates back to 70 AD are true (that's ~40 years after Christ is supposed to have died) that's almost certainly untrue. The author would almost certainly have either been alive at the time or have known people alive at the time. It'd be like saying you don't really understood the culture and the times of the 1970s. If there is an original source or sources that some postulate the four Gospels we know today are based on, then the date of the original writings get pushed back even further.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that recent work has shown that the usage of the names used in the Gospels matches almost exactly the the names used by Jews of the time and era, based on records we have found. This strongly suggests that the authors either were present at the time or did their homework.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

That's a BIG IF! We're just going to have to wait and see what they're able to lift from this death mask. They say they found part of the book of Mark. But, in my experience, Christians tend to see what they want. For all we know this fragment says something like, "Love God with all your heart", which is a very generic saying. Many of the sayings that Jesus is credited with were spoken by someone else, and/or are found in earlier scripture.

Like I said, we'll have to wait and see.

a reply to: peter vlar

B.C & A.D. Stop that C.E crap.

originally posted by: soaringhawk
a reply to: peter vlar

B.C & A.D. Stop that C.E crap.

Why? C.E. is non-religious. Why should non-Christians be forced to honor some guy we don't believe in whenever we give the date?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

The gospels are obviously not contemporary, it's unlikely they were written even by people who really understood the cultures and times where these stories were set.

Really? If the recent findings of a Gospel that dates back to 70 AD are true (that's ~40 years after Christ is supposed to have died) that's almost certainly untrue. The author would almost certainly have either been alive at the time or have known people alive at the time.

40 years after an event is a LONG time to remember exact quotes of what someone said. I don't remember things I said a week ago, let alone 40 years ago. Doubly so if the author isn't a primary source.

It'd be like saying you don't really understood the culture and the times of the 1970s. If there is an original source or sources that some postulate the four Gospels we know today are based on, then the date of the original writings get pushed back even further.

So tell me some quotes, from memory of course, of influential people you met in the 70's.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that recent work has shown that the usage of the names used in the Gospels matches almost exactly the the names used by Jews of the time and era, based on records we have found. This strongly suggests that the authors either were present at the time or did their homework.

Because the author used common Jewish names? That sounds like a stretch.