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

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.

Lmao!!!

Did a self professed Christian, just accuse you of being biased??? Lol


That might be the best example of "pot calling the kettle black" I have ever seen....


Only someone who didn't believe in whatever religion, but didn't have anything specifically against it could ever be considered unbiased.


"I believe that Jesus is the son and the bible is the infallible word of god!!! But I'm not biased when considering if he ever really existed. Pinky swear"

Hehe

a reply to: JDmOKI

You shouldn't even bother when I've already addressed the issue and they haven't responded time after time after time.

a reply to: Entreri06

Lmao!!!

Did a self professed Christian, just accuse you of being biased??? Lol

Did that Christian proclaim the divinity of Christ?

That might be the best example of "pot calling the kettle black" I have ever seen....

You would think so, simpelton.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: windword

This is what I find very annoying about the "did Jesus exist" discussion. Believers push forward shaky evidence that could at BEST be evidence of a person named Jesus existing then try to use that evidence to substitute the claim that the mythical Jesus lived. It is a double dose of dishonesty. We can't even say for sure that a man named Jesus existed that was cult leader and ended up persecuted by the state, let alone that a demi-god named Jesus existed that came to save us from our inborn sins.

Tho I'm an atheist myself, I do think you can have the discussion of if he was a real person, without having to hang the title of son of god if it's agreed he did exist.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

As a fan of history, this is also irritating to me. How can you validly inject a source from a time not of when the person lived as a valid source? That would be like Abraham Lincoln writing about George Washington and then a historian centuries later trying to use those writings to prove that GW existed. Abe wasn't born when George lived and would have to take the existing sources as valid to confirm the writings were true. As a future historian, analyzing Abe's writings on GW don't offer a valid source unless further sources from the time of GW were uncovered to help substantiate the claims made by Abe.

Well, in this case it would be more akin to Abe Lincoln writing that in early America, there was a tale of a boy who never told a lie and who cut down a cherry tree ... and having someone 1000 years later saying "Look, he's talking about George Washington!"

a reply to: Gryphon66

lmfao you should probably just actually reply to me in kind instead of pretending like you won this debate.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

lmfao you should probably just actually reply to me in kind instead of pretending like you won this debate.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? Why are you so obsessed with who "won"?

You always declare victory for yourself anyway, so do it?

/bigwhoop

None of us know one darn thing more than we did when we started this. No one has changed their position one iota.

a reply to: Gryphon66

because you and your friends are twisting the subject matter to suit your own ends, as if it somehow makes you right. It does not. In the least.

originally posted by: windword
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.

There really isn't any proof of a human Jesus the philosopher either....

a reply to: Gryphon66

address my responses to you or forfeit the debate.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

because you and your friends are twisting the subject matter to suit your own ends, as if it somehow makes you right. It does not. In the least.

The subject matter was the evidence for Jesus.

That has been discussed in depth. Many different perspectives were presented passionately.

That's the point of the discussion, to share and review evidence, not "to win."

That is your own needful thing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you have conceded earlier in the thread, and you concede now that the OP was justified?

Or would you like to twist the argument some more?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

address my responses to you or forfeit the debate.

You've been responded to by me and a dozen other posters.

You're not "the debate referee" bud, LOL ... that's just silly.

Go blow bubbles out your nose.

a reply to: Gryphon66

maybe the subject has changed and it's now about hating on Christianity? In which case I will take my leave.

a reply to: Gryphon66

not adequately, friendo.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you have conceded earlier in the thread, and you concede now that the OP was justified?

Or would you like to twist the argument some more?

Conceded? Nope. There is zero historical proof of Jesus Christ the Son of God, Wine Maker Extraordinaire.

You are aware of my position; I've made it clear. You're just sniping because no one will play with you.

Enjoy your "trophy."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Conceded? Nope. There is zero historical proof of Jesus Christ the Son of God, Wine Maker Extraordinaire.

There we go... Thank you!

consider yourself schooled.

a reply to: Entreri06

We've remarked several times that there is weak evidence for "a" Jesus.

No evidence aside from belief for SuperJesus though.

It's really not that complicated. The facts are the facts.

Some folks aren't apparently getting their egos stroked enough in real life, so they're looking for it here in unending argument.

Sad really.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh no... so sad

All the evidence goes in favor of the OP?

BUT WAIT? We have alternate narratives that have been shot down and personal feelings about religion!?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The OP states: "Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is."

Jesus Christ is a person who, supposedly, ROSE FROM THE DEAD!

Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christós" (i.e. Jesus, the anointed; or "Jesus, the Messiah" by his followers) after his death and believed resurrection
en.wikipedia.org...

To say "Christ" existed is to say there was a person who rose from the dead. There is NO proof, outside of biblical testimony that Jesus Christ existed.

If the OP would have asked, "Is there evidence for Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Christ", your claims might be a tiny bit more reasonable. But as it is, this thread is an exercise in futility and a flight of insanity.

Let me ask you this. Suppose it was proven 100% that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified. So, then what?