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

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why not begin from well, the very beginning shall we. Just the facts, jim.I'm simply trying to show you that not only
does the name not add up, but nothing adds up.I do find the truth fascinating though. Is it wrong to question the
origins of anything?



Quote: Excerpt

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings,

"the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that,

"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).


The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"


Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.


About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).


In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,

"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"

(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).


It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.


The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).



There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:

Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes.

(God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god.

Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"

(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).


There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:

the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).

Unquote.


Info found here www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

originally posted by: windword
...
Paul and his ilk were referred to as Nazarene at the time of the Jewish expulsion of Rome.

Your hatred towards Christians shows why you have so much disdain and bias against Christianity no matter what evidence is shown to you.

As for your claim that there were plenty of Christs that would foment dissent, sorry, you need to provide evidence... Simply providing other names of other Jewish people who were named Jesus is no evidence that they fomented the disagreements between Jewish people.

The main disagreement between Jewish people at the time was those who followed Christ, and those who didn't.

Paul a Jew, and one of the Apostles, before becoming Christian arrested Jewish people who believed in Christ.

These differences of opinion between the Jewish people in Rome was the reason why Claudius expelled all the Jewish people from Rome. To "stop the disturbances" and restore order, as the Romans saw it.

Hence the mention of disturbances because of "Chrestus" by Suetonius could no be referring to anyone else but Christ. Since the "disturbances" happening at the time between the orthodox Jews and the Christian Jews was over the teachings and belief in Christ.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As for whether Pontius Pilate was a Prefect or a procurator...

...
Prefect of Judea

In 26 A.D. the Roman Emperor Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate prefect of the Roman provinces of Judaea, Samaria and Idumæa, although Pilate is best known for his leadership of Judaea. While the typical term for a Roman prefect was 1–3 years, Pilate was to hold his post as the fifth Roman procurator for 10 years. In assuming his position, Pontius Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus.
...

www.biography.com...

LOL! Your source us defining Pilate based on Christian apologetic material that assumes biblical material is historically factual!

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone, the Pilate Stone, was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Judaea (Iudaea). Bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum, the dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus Iudaeae), that is, prefect of Judaea. The early governors of Judaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in AD 44.
en.wikipedia.org...

This transfer created some confusion among scholars dealing with Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, who was often thought to have been a procurator, until the excavation of the inscribed so-called Pilate Stone, which proved his title to have been that of a prefect.
en.wikipedia.org...(Roman)

See how easily we can spot pious forgeries these days?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As for your claim that there were plenty of Christs that would foment dissent, sorry, you need to provide evidence...

All ready provided. Care to comment on what I've posted about other Jesuses and other would be messiahs and other crowd pleasers on the era?

Simply providing other names of Jesus is no evidence that they fomented the disagreements between Jewish people.

Nope. But the historical narrative, and their remarkable similarities to the supposed adventures of Jesus of Nazareth, DOES!

Paul and "ilk" were a special breed of "Christian" that were separate from the followers of John the Baptist, or James the Righteous, the Gnostics, the Ebonites, etc. Learn your history and you won't need to react so defensively.

Hence the mention of disturbances because of "Chrestus" by Suetonius could no be referring to anyone else but Christ. Since the "disturbances" happening at the time between the orthodox Jews and the Christian Jews was over the teachings and belief in Christ.

This is patently untrue. This is simply your personal bias conformation. Take your blinders off! Josephus has provided us with numerous examples of detailed narratives showing huge followings of the multitudes of Jews rising up with would be messiahs, but not once does he ever mentions Christians, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth or the Son of Joseph leading any kind of movement, religious or political.

a reply to: windword

Really, you come up with ANY excuse to dismiss what you simply don't want to accept...

Even Jewish sources confirm this.

PROCURATOR

PROCURATOR, title of the governors (first over Judea, later over most of Palestine) appointed by Rome during the years 6–41 and 44–66 C.E. From a recently discovered inscription in which *Pontius Pilate is mentioned, it appears that the title of the governors of Judea was also praefectus. Procuratorial rule came into force with the banishment of *Herod's son *Archelaus in the year 6 and was interrupted for three years during the reign of *Agrippa I (41–44). The Judean-Palestinian procurator held the power of jurisdiction with regard to capital punishment (jus gladii). Roman citizens had the privilege of provocatio, i.e., the right to transfer the trial from the provincial governor to the emperor (cf. the case of *Paul, Acts 25:10–12; cf. 22:25ff.). The procurator was subject to the Roman legate in Syria, an illustration of this being the deportation of Pontius Pilate (26–36 C.E.) by Vitellius. Josephus also states (Wars, 2:280–1) that formal charges would have been preferred by the Jews against the last procurator Gessius *Florus (64–66 C.E.; see below) but that they refrained from taking their case to *Gallus in Syria from fear of reprisals. The Sanhedrin was allowed to exercise jurisdiction in civil matters, although the procurators could exercise control in this sphere as well. As a rule, the procurators maintained supervision over the country from their official residence at Caesarea. On Jewish festivals, their seat was temporarily transferred to Jerusalem in order to control the thousands who flocked to the Temple and on these occasions they sometimes gave physical expression to their hatred of Rome.
...

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

What are you going to claim next, it is a Jewish link and can't be trusted?...

originally posted by: windword

All ready provided. Care to comment on what I've posted about other Jesuses and other would be messiahs and other crowd pleasers on the era?

Now you are providing the bible as a source, not to mention taking it out of context to fit your agenda?...

The bible in that instance is warning that there WOULD BE people who would call themselves messiah. it is not talking in particular about the time of Jesus...but the future in general... and yes to this day there are people who claim to be the messiah, yet none of them were crucified by order of Pontius Pilate because none of them were teaching Christianity... Only one man had the religion Christianity named after his name, and he was crucified under Roman rule by order of Pontius Pilate.

a reply to: awareness10

I am sorry but "bibliotecapleyades.net" is not exaclty a reliable site.

It's the same as using zetatalk, or similar sites.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If you check the quotes there, they come straight from the history books.

So the source matters little as you can find these very quotes written by the church fathers and where. It's the Information i've posted for you from the church itself. Straight from their book!

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: windword

Really, you come up with ANY excuse to dismiss what you simply don't want to accept...

Even Jewish sources confirm this.

PROCURATOR

From a recently discovered inscription in which *Pontius Pilate is mentioned, it appears that the title of the governors of Judea was also praefectus. Procuratorial rule came into force with the banishment of *Herod's son *Archelaus in the year 6 and was interrupted for three years during the reign of *Agrippa I (41–44).
...

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Pontius Pilate was NOT a procurator. He was a praefectus according to Josephus and according to the hard core evidence we have written in stone. The stone doesn't say "also a Procuratorial".



en.wikipedia.org...

What are you going to claim next, it is a Jewish link and can't be trusted?...

Your site's sources are awfully old, especially given the modern data recovered in 1961.

T. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, 2 (1909), 188–206; A. Schalit, Ha-Mishtar ha-Roma'i be-Ereẓ Yisrael (1937); H.G. Pflaum, Les Procurateurs Equestres… (1950), 146ff.; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 4 (19502), 196ff., and passim; Schuerer, Hist, index; Smallwood, in: History Today, 15 (1965), 232–9, 313–9; S. Krauss, in: REJ, 46 (1903), 219–36; A. Reitenberg, Israel's History in Coins (1953), 12–13 (with illustrations); A.H.M. Jones, Herods of Judea (1938).

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

ME: All ready provided. Care to comment on what I've posted about other Jesuses and other would be messiahs and other crowd pleasers on the era?

YOU: Now you are providing the bible as a source, not to mention taking it out of context to fit your agenda?...

What are you talking about? I provided quotes and narratives of actual people and events from Josephus, not the Bible! Here! I'll repost one of them for you.

Jesus son of Ananias: A Voice from the East
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,

"A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!"

This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon the magistrates, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.
Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.
Josephus Jewish Wars II 79

www.josephus.org...

Sound like anyone else also named Jesus?

Jesus Christ is a composite figure.

a reply to: awareness10

Claims taken completely out of context. Not to mention the orthodox Jewish, and the non-Christian accounts from the 1st century all which state that Jesus did exist, that his teachings led to Christianity. That he performed miracles but was seen by non-Christians as a magician, and that he was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. Again, refer to the info provided in this thread.

a reply to: windword

Did "Jesus son of Ananias" start a religion known as Christianity?... No... Was he crucified under order of Pontius Pilate?... No... He was seen as a madman, he didn't perform any miracles.

Even among his enemies Jesus was seen as a magician who performed miracles.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I know how hard core Xians are with this because i used to be one. That is until i did my own research into it, you see my heart, that red pumping thing inside ones chest intuitively knew something wasn't right about what we've been told to believe in.

But ok for your sake lets pretend he is who they say, he is this Jesus/Yeshua. He didn't die then for Your Belief in him especially in your state of endless and continual sin. He died for using his own belief in himself and his god, for your benefit, so that you no longer had to believe or sacrifice bulls/goats/lambs etc etc. Nor did you have to even lift one finger to do anything at all because again, it was his blood sacrifice for all based on Not your belief but His.

Now that is what i would call a true and loving God, one who doesn't expect something back after giving such a Free Gift to Humanity whom he so loves and adores.

Jesus' sacrifice was actually more powerful than Adam's fall. And if Adam's lack of perfection impacted the whole human race to its detriment, then Jesus' perfect life and atonement redounded to everyone with blessings and righteousness. - Mike Williams

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did "Jesus son of Ananias" start a religion known as Christianity?... No... Was he crucified under order of Pontius Pilate?... No... He was seen as a madman, he didn't perform any miracles.

It doesn't matter. It's easy to see the blurred lines and duplicate stories that came from real people, some actually named Jesus, and then their stories were later legendized and incorporated into the mythical Jesus Christ narrative, along with other mythical character like Isis, Horus, Attis, etc.

There's no proof that Jesus Christ existed or that was crucified by Pilate. None of your historians' "Chrestus" references prove that he did. We do, however, have proof of hundreds of Jewish men put to death by Pontius Pilate.

a reply to: awareness10

In case you haven't realized it this thread is about the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and the fact that there are non-christian accounts, including non-Christian Roman sources, and orthodox Jewish sources which corroborate the fact that Jesus did exist. That he was seen by his enemies as a magician who performed miracles. Who taught to multitudes of followers which fomented "disturbances" between the Jewish people, and who was crucified under order of Pontius Pilate.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: awareness10

In case you haven't realized it this thread is about the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and the fact that there are non-christian accounts, including non-Christian Roman sources, and orthodox Jewish sources which corroborate the fact that Jesus did exist. That he was seen by his enemies as a magician who performed miracles. Who taught to multitudes of followers which fomented "disturbances" between the Jewish people, and who was crucified under order of Pontius Pilate.

Ok then what does it matter if he's real or not real, why keep arguing fighting and getting all twisted up in a knot over this? There are facts that lean both ways, however depending on what you would believe to be as facts, for or against, maybe everyone is lying and no one is right. Some arguments never end and this argument is one of them.

Why even create this thread if you expect everyone to believe only in your version regardless of the input from others? What are you trying to obtain by doing so?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you understand that the Talmud accounts and were severely censored and edited by Christians? Besides they were written centuries after the "fact". There is no proof of the existence of Jesus Christ, outside of the Bible. Everything you've presented is hearsay and highly disputed.

You know what's really funny? Most scientists say that evolution really happened, and people who don't agree with them are attacked for being stupid anti-intellectuals. Most historians say that Jesus was real, and people who agree with this mainstream proposition are attacked (often by the same people defending the mainstream scientific position) for not having enough proof.

Carry on!

a reply to: windword

Yes it does matter. Your assertion has been that the mention of Chrestus could be any other Jesus, or some other person. But the fact is that Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome because they were seen as causing many disturbances. Those disturbances back then were "mainly" between orthodox Jews who didn't believe in Christ, and the Christian Jews who believed in Christ. Hence "instigations of Chrestus" could only refer to disagreements of Jesus Christ.

You went so far as claiming that none of the sources I posted mentioned Christus. You are mistaking Suetonius reference of Chrestus, with other non-Christian accounts which refer to Jesus as Christus. Again.

In book 15 chapter 44 Tacitus wrote:

In his Annals, Tacitus tells of a fire that swept through Rome in the 60s, for which some were blaming Nero himself...

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
...

www.mesacc.edu...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes it does matter. Your assertion has been that the mention of Chrestus could be any other Jesus, or some other person.

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. 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.

You went so far as claiming that none of the sources I posted mentioned Christus. You are mistaking Suetonius reference of Chrestus, with other non-Christian accounts which refer to Jesus as Christus. Again.

There's no evidence that this "Christus" "Christus" is the biblical Jesus. There's no contemporary references to Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the son of Joseph, BUT THERE ARE references to OTHER PEOPLE doing what Jesus supposedly did!