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

a reply to: DeadSeraph

a wealth of evidence

The first word in the article you link to is "Possible"...
Classic "faithful" reference...

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Seraph, while I admire your persistence, my understanding of what Christianity is and isn't is not on topic. However, since you asked:

What existed prior to Nicea 321 and the Romanization of the various "Jesus cults" scattered across the Empire that would became Christianity, was a multitude of differing beliefs, standards, rituals, practices etc. Consider the polyglot that was discovered at Nag Hammadi. Consider that the very basic Credo of the Church is called "the Nicean Creed." The intervention of Rome brought orthodoxy and structure to what had been, at best, theretofore a interrelated but utterly diverse group of beliefs and practices. Consider also that Constatntine was the first "Christian" Pontifex Maximus, and that title comes down to us in an almost unbroken line to this day as the "Pontiff of Rome."

EDIT: Also, after Nicea the Jewish lunar calendar was discarded for ruling Church events and the Roman/Julian solar calendar was adopted.

And a host of other incidental matters. As I said. Off topic in this discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for your clarification.

I think where I misunderstood you is how you are defining "Christianity". Certainly, there were differing views within the early Christian church, and 1st and 2nd century Christianity probably resembled nothing like what it does in modern times.

However, I'm still quite certain there is no good evidence to suggest it was a Roman invention. Consider the fact that you yourself acknowledged the veracity of the passage referencing "Christus" and the early Christians via Tacitus. Consider also what he says about Christians, and the negative light in which he paints them while describing their persecution under Nero.

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: DeadSeraph

a wealth of evidence

The first word in the article you link to is "Possible"...
Classic "faithful" reference...

You haven't even contributed a single thought worth consideration to this thread.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Perhaps it is a semantic difference only, which is why I was so ready to drop it. To my mind, Christianity pre-Nicea is a wild band of bickering, differing, 1st and 2nd century "messianic" cults. Some said Jesus was a god, some a holy man, some a messenger of the devil, some honored John the Baptist equally, etc. etc.

Post-Nicea, one sees the merging of the Roman government and the creation of the Roman Church. Perhaps that would be the best way of saying what I mean ... the (Roman) Catholic Church was created at Nicea. Either way, that contributes nothing to which Jesus was which.

Carry on!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think your thoughts are merited, personally. Relevant to the discussion as well. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position for me.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

sorry Dad...

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: DeadSeraph

sorry Dad...

It's ok, Son.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I just want to say I've appreciated your respectfully erudite approach throughout this whole thread, which I feel a lot of people don't see. For the record, I'm not a Christian (I believe all religions are facades), but I do believe in a heavenly Father. I feel like of all the contributors in this thread, you've conducted yourself with the most poise and reason. I wish there were more people on ATS, who were able to understand the nuances of perspective, as you have exemplified.

As far as the topic is concerned, I have mixed opinions and that's all I have. I find that if mankind is good at any one thing, it's self-indulgence (To see what we want to see). To believe any texts as verbatim historical fact, even as far back as only 100 years, is ignorance. I feel that the mysticism surrounding our ancient past is far more fantastic than a few words denoting a character in a book. The Bible may actually be tame, compared to what really happened "In the Beginning"...

Interesting debate. I believe Jesus existed and the Gospel of Mark is one of the original descriptions of his later life. The oldest fragment of Gospel of Mark might date back to 90AD. Unlike the other Gospels which scholars believe are contrived from another source, the oldest completed copy of Mark (codex sinaiticus) doesn't mention virgin conception nor the resurrection,

I believe Rome tried to extinguish Christianity but failed so they instead decided to use Christianity as a vehicle for control rather than spirituality. They enhanced the greatness of Jesus so Rome (Vatican) could represent themselves as Gods spokesman on Earth.

a reply to: Aedaeum

Well, I myself would disagree with your estimation of my contributions here, (I see myself as something of a gutter-snipe at times) but thank you for your kind words anyway.

In reference to your comments, when I was still piddling with working out my own understandings of religion, I would regard the "proof" or "evidences" of Jesus's actual historical existence as ... unimportant at best ... to my belief in the divine Figure of Jesus Christ as described in virtually all modern versions of Christianity (although, those are still different from each other).

As Kierkegaard suggested, belief itself is "absurd" ... and that is what makes it so powerful. Now, as an atheist/areligionist, since it is quite obvious to me (MYSELF) that no man has ever walked on water, raised the dead, or been raised, etc., therefore it is clear that the figure of the Bible is not and could not be an actual physical man in 1st century Judea.

That doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of Jesuses who were preachers who POed the Romans and got crucified ...

Anyway, thanks again for your kind personal comment, and enjoy ATS!

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think your thoughts are merited, personally. Relevant to the discussion as well. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position for me.

I'll risk one more off-topic comment. Thanks for your kind words. I wish you could hear what Windword is trying to say. I know that you two do not agree on this topic (as we've seen many times before) but you are both far above many in your quest to find the best truth based on the best evidence considered in the most rational way possible.

Grimpachi too. Those of us who prefer reason and facts over ... that other stuff ... are few and far between.

We all have our peccadilloes, you know.

BEST.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Someone will be along shortly to explain why people writing about something they have never seen from before they are born doesn't make evidence that a story is true.

BTW Cornelius Tacitus was born 56AD

True enough. but under the rules of your expectations, everyone that is born, should just ignore the history that has been written before their day of birth ....because they have never "seen" it, and it may not make sense to those who choose not to believe. Basically, by your terms...history means nothing unless "YOU" believe it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I might have taken a shot at both in this thread, and let my emotions run a little high. For that, I'm sorry. The truth is, I believe both of them to be highly intelligent. Even if they are wrong on this subject

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

There have been over 8 pages of more than two sides of an issue presenting very reasonable arguments that have been backed up with sources.

The motto here is not Deny Ignorance ... Unless You Believe in It.

There's enough Doom and Gloom. Does it have to extend to ATS as well?

I guess that's where we differ in opinion. I don't view reasonable debate as twisting words and logical fallacies. I expect BOTH parties engaged in debate to try to understand what the other party is saying and the point they are trying to get across. I saw that from one party (not perfectly, but reasonably) but not any of the opponents. What I saw was a refusal to accept the argument for what it was and many attempts to turn it into something it was not.

Maybe you saw something different.

It is indeed where we differ, apparently, but it is also clear that there are more than "two sides" in this debate. Also, I would guess (although you don't have to state it outright) that you see the "side" of the debate you favor as being the reasonable patient one, and "the other side" as the impatient, irrational, out of order one ... and given human confirmation bias, that's not really that hard to understand, is it?

Best.

Ahh yes, it must be bias. It couldn't possibly be the truth. While I may not be impartial on the subject matter, I am impartial on debate tactics. I am more than willing to call out either party for shady debate tactics.

Like your dismissal of my view because you claim it's biased, that's actual bias.

Good day.


ETA: I'm not saying you've been doing these things, it was much worse early in the thread. For the most part you have at least addressed the questions, proposed counter questions and restated your positions clearly. That can't be said for almost any other person representing your side of this argument in this thread.

I'm just glad the truth of the non-existence of Jesus is finally getting out there.
The sooner it becomes accepted by society, the better. So sick of being lied to with this garbage.
I think we'll see a lot more of this information becoming mainstream in the next decade and beyond.
There will always be people who just accept on faith, but for those who want to learn and question, the knowledge is out there(and in here).
Very exciting and I have ATS to thank for leading me onto the road for learning the truth about this.

originally posted by: gottaknow
I'm just glad the truth of the non-existence of Jesus is finally getting out there.
The sooner it becomes accepted by society, the better. So sick of being lied to with this garbage.
I think we'll see a lot more of this information becoming mainstream in the next decade and beyond.
There will always be people who just accept on faith, but for those who want to learn and question, the knowledge is out there(and in here).
Very exciting and I have ATS to thank for leading me onto the road for learning the truth about this.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

And that's supposed to mean something?

a reply to: gottaknow
Yes, it means you're yet another denier of the physical evidence..... and seraph's tired of dealing with crazy people.

Hey Dad!

You better get on top of these silly children...

put them in there place already!!!


LOL!!!