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

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Can anything be known about the past?
There is no such thing as a true story.
But all stories appear in truth.

I have no "contemporaneous documentation" that my great great great great great great grandfather existed, yet here I am.

*shrugs*

Yes then stick with the fact of 'I AM'.
'I am' is the truth (the life and the way) - in that 'I am' the story of great great great great great great grandfather appears. That story is not ever present but without the 'I am' where would the story happen?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the 1st century and was an event that affected Christians and Jews, hence why it is mentioned in the NT.

So now you are saying the fall of Jerusalem was written about in the NT that happened in 70 AD.

So if that was true it would be proof positive that the NT was written long after the time of a Christ.


Your argument then is really with chr0naut since he is the one who said.

While the fragment may be from 117 AD or later, all the canonical NT texts make no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and its subsequent consequences, so the original documents must have been written prior to then.

Go figure. Christians don't agree on things. lol.

You can't both be right.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

History is what you believe it is. I have no problem with believing someone named Jesus existed in some fashion. I don't necessarily think there is strong evidence for it, but I am not going to claim I was around then and know exactly who existed, and what happened.

You are confusing two completely different things.

Me claiming that religion is people believing in imaginary friends or fairy tales has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus lived.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

then was it really necessary to come out and attack me and imply I am mentally ill, when your real issue is with the religion itself, and not the arguments for or against the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

a reply to: DeadSeraph
You know you are here - this is the prime fact.
Where is the past appearing? What is the 'past' made of? The past is nothing but thoughts arising now - presently.
All thoughts, all stories, all colour and all sound appear in presence as presence.

But the mind cannot know or speak of presence so it invents 'other than'. The mind splits now into 'before and after' and makes up stories - those stories appear as presence and are known by presence.

But you believe you are separate from presence because of the belief in words!!

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I find it far more of a miracle that your replies get starred within 30 seconds of you posting them, than I do the miracle of Jesus of Nazareth.

a reply to: Grimpachi

The mention in the New Testament of Jerusalem's fall was a prediction by Luke.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I suppose it was a bit harsh to call your mental health into account, but I honestly find the comparison of Jesus to Plato completely illogical. Regardless of whether or not there is more or less historical credibility for Jesus or Plato's existence was besides my point.

A more sane comparison would be Jesus to Muhammad or any other religious prophet.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

How many people named Christ/Christus/Chrestus were crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate, and a new religion was named after his name (Christ)?

Can you show us proof? Any proof at all?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

42?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Grimpachi

The mention in the New Testament of Jerusalem's fall was a prediction by Luke.

That is debatable and you have walked your argument back quite a bit from what it was.

I guess you looked at your position and realized you were making my case for me and went "oh crap".

That is fine I am just LMAO.

Lets go over the actual arguments.

Arguments in favor of the mythicist position:

1) There are no contemporaneous writings from the time of Jesus life which attest to his existence.

Arguments against the mythicist position:

1) There are no contemporaneous writings from the lifetimes of millions (even billions) of individuals throughout human history. Yet they existed. We assume that Socrates and Plato were real historical figures, yet by the criteria asserted by mythicists, we should call their existence into question.

2) The earliest writings about Jesus of Nazareth can safely be dated to within 20 years of his crucifixion

3) Multiple Roman historians and critics of Christianity chronicle the fact Jesus existed, and was put to death by crucifixion (as per the new testament narrative)

4) Early Jewish texts make no effort to deny the existence of Jesus. In fact, the talmud actually attests to his existence and his execution

5) Archaeological evidence has now proven that Tacitus was correct in his writings regarding Pontius Pilate. Subsequently, the argument that Tacitus also wrote about hercules holds no water, since Tacitus never spoke of Hercules as a real individual, but rather wrote about a group of individuals and their beliefs about hercules. However, he records Pilate as executing Christ via crucifixion, without including any caveats.

6) The new testament at no time discusses the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Contextual analysis as well as textual criticism has essentially proven that the gospels were written well within the lifetime of those who would have been eyewitnesses to the events detailed in the New Testament

7) Assuming Jesus was in fact a myth, there is absolutely no good explanation for how someone could have concocted the entire new testament narrative and recorded it within a mere 30 years, let alone spread it throughout the roman empire, based purely on an individual which never existed.

8) Considering the opposition to early Christianity by both Romans AND Jews, it is odd that neither ever denies the existence of Jesus, but rather both groups direct their focus on criticizing his character and discrediting the idea of his divinity.

9) Paul is a historically confirmed individual who records meeting Jesus brother James, as well as Peter

10) Recent archaeological discoveries have proven the new testament to be reliable as far as it's depiction of Nazareth being inhabited in the 1st century (previously disputed) as well as the existence of Pontius Pilate (previously disputed). Additionally, various historical facts detailed in Paul's earliest letters have since been confirmed by extra biblical sources and archaeological finds.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Archaeological evidence

Pretty weak list of evidence for a claimed god or son of the god that rules the universe.....but archaeological evidence?

New York exists, is that evidence for Spiderman?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Pretty weak list of evidence for a claimed god or son of the god that rules the universe.....

Was that ever the claim in this debate?

New York exists, is that evidence for Spiderman?

You have one argument for mythicism listed above. Either add to it, or refute the ten arguments against it.

Again Christos and Messiah is a term of what a person is not a name (Anointed one). Similar to the term el as in part of Elohim as in Adri-el, Ambri-el, Ari-el, Azaz-el, Dani-el, Gabri-el, Micha-el and all the others.

When it is said that "scholars acknowledge that Jesus existed" doesn't that need some considerable contextualization?

There was an individual named Yeshua in 30 CE or so who may have been a populist religious figure, or may have been a political figure set against Roman rule in Palestine, or may have been an itinerant mystic.

It may have been one individual, or, there may have been multiple individuals (actual humans) that history wrapped into one figure.

There is no evidence that He was the Son of god, none that He committed miracles, none that He was killed by the Romans and brought back to life by god, or that by doing so, He redeemed the human race from sin.

Who cares if some nomadic Jewish preacher in 1st century Palestine gave religious or political speeches and had a following that survived his death?

They were probably a dime a dozen. The Romans used a slave cult, combined it with the popular soldier's cult, and made it the State religion in order to consolidate power in the waning Empire.

That is the ONLY reason the name of Jesus is known today.

No proof that He was a deity, that He died and rose again, that He removed the sins of the world ... none.

Taking value from the words of Plato does not require an actual Plato.

Taking value from the words of Jesus does not require an actual Jesus.

It doesn't matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There was an individual named Yeshua in 30 CE or so who may have been a populist religious figure, or may have been a political figure set against Roman rule in Palestine, or may have been an itinerant mystic.

It may have been one individual, or, there may have been multiple individuals (actual humans) that history wrapped into one figure.

How could multiple individuals be recorded by roman historians complete with the exact method of execution recorded in the gospels, as well as being cited as the founder of Christianity?

You are grasping at straws. Just call a spade a spade.

There is no evidence that He was the Son of god, none that He committed miracles, none that He was killed by the Romans and brought back to life by god, or that by doing so, He redeemed the human race from sin.

Again, the fact this keeps coming up AGAIN AND AGAIN just shows how completely irrational some of you are when it comes to this subject. DOES THIS HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT JESUS WAS A HISTORICAL FIGURE? No. Do any of my 10 points above rely on the notion of a divine Jesus? No.

Refute the points, or add to the mythicist arguments on your own merit.

Who cares if some nomadic Jew in 1st century Palestine gave religious or political speeches and had a following that survived his death?

Historians care.

hey were probably a dime a dozen. The Romans used a slave cult, combined it with the popular soldier's cult, and made it the State religion in order to consolidate power in the waning Empire.

They were a dime a dozen. Josephus mentions other zealots named jesus, and even the new testament mentions religious zealots that were opposed to the roman empire. Does any of this detract from the debate at hand? No.

That is the ONLY reason the name of Jesus is known today.

It's actually not. But only one is credited with being the founder of Christianity and being put to death via crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, while also having his family members named (outside of the new testament).

No proof that He was a deity, that He died and rose again, that He removed the sins of the world ... none.

How very astute of you.

Taking value from the words of Plato do not require an actual Plato.

Taking value from the words of Jesus do not require an actual Jesus.

It doesn't matter.

Neither does your opinion on the philosophies of these men, since that isn't the debate, is it?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Prezbo369
Was that ever the claim in this debate?

Of course it is, don't be so disingenuous.

You have one argument for mythicism listed above. Either add to it, or refute the ten arguments against it.

Sure the 'Archaeological evidence' can be dismissed as shown above and the NT wasn't written until two decades after the fact (and that's a very kind estimate) 2000 years ago in a particularly illiterate part of the world.....one can only imagine the wild changes to a tale during that time in hysterical Palestine.

So you have a book of superstitions written by very superstitious people two (probably more than 5) decades after the events supposedly happened, and no contemporary accounts of all the magical events apparently surrounding the Jesus character featured in said book.

'Matthew 27:53
They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.'

You would've thought that the sight of hundreds of zombies in front of many people would've made it into the records or writings of that time, but alas no there's not a single mention.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Of course it is, don't be so disingenuous.

No it isn't. The title of the thread and the content therein is completely on the topic of whether or not Jesus existed as a historical person. Nobody has used any claims of divinity thus far, you simply aren't able to provide ample counteraguments.

So you have a book of superstitions written by very superstitious people two (probably more than 5) decades after the events supposedly happened, and no contemporary accounts of all the magical events apparently surrounding the Jesus character featured in said book.

'Matthew 27:53
They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.'

You would've thought that the sight of hundreds of zombies in front of many people would've made it into the records or writings of that time, but alas no there's not a single mention.

Yet there is mention of Jesus and his crucifixion by multiple roman historians, as well as mention of his "miracles" which were variously denounced as sorcery, parlor tricks, or superstition by the religions greatest detractors. You have done a piss poor job of arguing against the mans historicity, and only proven your disdain for the religion outweighs your rationality and appreciation of history.

Again. 1 argument in favor of mythicism. 10 arguments against it.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

No it isn't. The title of the thread and the content therein is completely on the topic of whether or not Jesus existed as a historical person. Nobody has used any claims of divinity thus far, you simply aren't able to provide ample counteraguments.

Wow very dishonest, you want to discuss Jesus Christ but want to conveniently miss out the spooky and supernatural elements that define the character? If he had been merely a man that had certain sayings attributed to him, we wouldn't be having this discussion and you wouldn't be a christian...

Yet there is mention of Jesus and his crucifixion by multiple roman historians, as well as mention of his "miracles" which were variously denounced as sorcery, parlor tricks, or superstition by the religions greatest detractors.

There are no contemporary mentions of the Jesus character other that the single paragraph from Josephus....more dishonesty...

You have done a piss poor job of arguing against the mans historicity, and only proven your disdain for the religion outweighs your rationality and appreciation of history.

So you wont discuss the lack of writings of the zombie invasion? nothings at all?

I appreciate history but this kind of story sets off my BS detector as it should for anyone with critical thinking skills. You're obviously too invested in a particular set of superstitions to able to look at this issue objectively.

Again. 1 argument in favor of mythicism. 10 arguments against it.

Fingers in the ears time already?