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

a reply to: Connell

You are going to be popular in some circles around here.

Since you have enough posts you should copy and past your diatribe into a thread and give it whirl if you think it can stand the criticism.

That's just the opinion of a self-proclaimed fan of rationality.

a reply to: Connell

Ok my precious little modernist friends, I simply can't bring myself to write up an entirely new response to people who will make no effort to understand what I'm saying, so I'll simply copy something I wrote in a prior thread:

Try breaking it up into paragraphs, first of all.

And - since you're off-topic, how about starting your own thread??? Since people don't understand what you're saying, you know.
It's your job to explain it so that everyone can understand it.

Communication is a two-way street. If your audience doesn't understand, then your words are wasted. Make sure they understand.

("Jesus" tried, but failed, as it turns out. He wanted people to realize that we are all connected to the Divine.)

I'll look forward to seeing your thread.

"Modern society is based on reality". Really, is that the best possible response you can scrape up in that old brain of yours? Please try to do better next time mate.

I have no interest in debating with someone so simple, please refrain from quoting my posts.

NVM

I hope the moderators here at ATS realize that this thread is in the "headline" front-page section of AboveTopSecret.com. The last few pages are WAY off track and gives this forum an (undeserved) bad name, IMO.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Connell

Ok my precious little modernist friends, I simply can't bring myself to write up an entirely new response to people who will make no effort to understand what I'm saying, so I'll simply copy something I wrote in a prior thread:

Try breaking it up into paragraphs, first of all.

And - since you're off-topic, how about starting your own thread??? Since people don't understand what you're saying, you know.
It's your job to explain it so that everyone can understand it.

Communication is a two-way street. If your audience doesn't understand, then your words are wasted. Make sure they understand.

("Jesus" tried, but failed, as it turns out. He wanted people to realize that we are all connected to the Divine.)

I'll look forward to seeing your thread.

Righto, I'll get to making that thread.

Message to my opposition: Prepare to be mentally annihilated.

Please return to the topic......

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

Also, You are responsible for your own posts. and Community Announcement re: Decorum

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: awareness10

Great depiction of our modern society today.
It's too bad we'll continue to make the same mistakes until we're left with no more choices.

*scrambles*
on topic... I feel at this point it's left entirely to opinion whether a man named Jesus/Y'shua existed or whether the Christ existed. I feel the former has much greater historicity than the latter.

I can't keep up with this entire thread, but just one response to people who say there is no "proof". I'll draw an analogy to the law of evidence.

"PROOF" is synonymous with evidence. Google defines it as "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement". Not surprisingly, Google's definition of proof also closely parallels what constitutes "relevant" evidence in a court. Evidence is "relevant" when it tends to prove some desired point. You confuse your argument when you say there is "no proof" if what you really mean is for you, there is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". And I won't try to define what THAT means, as there is no hard and fast definition, and two people can come to different conclusions with the same evidence before them as to what "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is.

There is evidence/proof of Jesus, just as there is evidence/proof of His divinity. The very existence of a modern church is evidence/proof of that, and would certainly be relevant in a court of law. Whether this thread has provided a particular person with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is a different matter entirely.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: whooknows

And while it is sometimes done by humans, it is not wrong to assume that there is a demonic element in all of the attacks on those who understand truth and speak it.

Yup. We're all demons, except for Blue_Jay.

And don't come to AboveTopSecret to find people who want it. I've found them to be a bunch of bullies. Mostly pagan witches, and atheists. If you have an opinion that goes against them, they will cyber-stock you and bully you until you want to stop posting on this website.

In three days, you've found this?

Lol?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: whooknows

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Too ALL the naysayers.

Trying to revise history from 2000 years ago is an exercise in futility, have fun with that.
It's revised only in your mind because of "Confirmation Bias"
The distrust of known historians of the day is singular.

Can't trust the Bible, around for centuries.
Can't trust a Jewish Historian with published works around for centuries.
Can't trust a Roman Historian with published works around for centuries.

Can't trust the Quran, around for 1400 years.
Buddhism has been around for 2500 years.
Hinduism is one of the oldest still-practiced belief systems on Earth.

There are plenty of completely ignorant and infantile writings throughout history attempting to explain what was not yet known by science.

What, exactly, does the age of anything have to do with truthfulness and accuracy? Hypocrite.

This is false.

The earliest religions stem from Babylon. Anyone that has any deep knowledge of occultism knows that all religions stem from Babylon, even Hinduism.

Hinduism, is definitely not the oldest religion on earth. Although it is steeply influenced by lies from Babylon.

BlueJay, the only reason you were attacked in this instance, is because of your truth telling. Any sort of truth on this website is usually attacked. And while it is sometimes done by humans, it is not wrong to assume that there is a demonic element in all of the attacks on those who understand truth and speak it.

Just as Satan was behind the cruel and dastardly murder of first-century Christians. And just like the Romans in general hated Christ and his followers, it is no different today.

I said Hinduism is "one of the oldest still-practiced religions." Your reading comprehension is atrocious. If you really want to argue about who was actually first, the Babylonians were influenced by the Sumerians.

You were so anxious to post your nonsense that you didn't bother understanding what was typed.

We all attack Christians on this site because they tell the truth. That's it, you got us... it's all a big conspiracy to stamp out the "truth" of Christianity.

Your face is false.

Nay, I was not anxious to post anything. And I wasn't posting to you. But if the glove fits, wear it.

Babylon is the cradle of civilization. You perhaps have been lead to believe otherwise, and perhaps think you know more than you do. That is fine, I respect your right to believe as you do.

As far as my face? No, it is not false. It is a lot truer than yours is. And there is a difference between us. I will show you respect. You will not.

a reply to: gottaknow

This thread has proven that there are many people who will dismiss the writings of people who had no reason to confirm the existence of christ, yet did. These same historians whose accounts of history are accepted by the academics and professionals in their respective fields. Facts are facts, no matter what anyone says. The fact is, there is no reason to doubt tacitus and tacitus confirmed christ's existence as a person as well as his crucifixion at the hands of pilate and the religion that was born from his teachings. That's what is proven. That is what is real. Anything outside of that is conjecture or acceptance of other sources based on faith.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it does not become truth. It may become perceived as truth but truth is absolute. Truth stands regardless of opinion.

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Because I mean it?
Because people need to learn and realize the truth?
My final sentence references not just this posting, but many others over time that led me to the happy discovery of the hogwash that has been spoonfed into our brains for centuries and controls the majority of the population.

----OFF TOPIC RESPONSE------

You were warned.

I love the people who want to criticize religion as a tool of control. What is the purpose of this control? What is exactly bad about believing in the teachings of Christ? Is it bad to love thy neighbor? Is it bad to love god? Is it bad to believe that helping your fellow man is what our creator wants of us? Is it bad that our creator set forth standards to live our lives by (IE the ten commandments). Further what is bad about the ten commandments. Is jealousy good? Is murder good? Is fornication good? is adultery good? is disrespecting your parents good? Is it bad to take a day off every week to give thanks to our creator? is it good to steal? is it good to bear false witness against another?

While some may find problems with anything to do with 'the creator', what negative do those thing have on anyone not looking to be offended at the first opportunity?

originally posted by: awareness10
But, for the record, i don't feel Religion of any kind has done mankind any justice, it's only created groups of have's and have not's. People who are deemed better than those who aren't in the special little group.

Religion has not done that. Mankind has done that. In fact, religion attempts to overcome this. Imagine the world with no religion, would there be haves and have nots?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite
Do you find it strange at all that in your initial presentation you only discuss "two sides" in the debate when actually there are, as I pointed out, multiple viewpoints being espoused?

Are you saying you never ran across the concept of "false dilemma" or "false dichotomy" in your debate experience?

Let's just remember, you would never make a mistake in terms of "debate tactics" and yet, you open your argument with a fallacious premise?

Okie dokie.

Furhter, what "rules of debate" are in use here, aside from the outlines in the T&C?

If you're going to judge performance based on your estimation of good and bad "debate tactics" should you explain to the group what your expectations are before judging us?

You wave your hand at a range of "bad behaviors" but of course, you don't refer to any specifcs so that you can be challenged on the points of fact.

Seems to me like you're the one playing dirty forensic pool here, Dfairlite.

I hope you have a good day as well.

First, there are only two sides. Either A)Christ, the basis of the new testament, existed as a man as the OP suggests or B)Christ did not exist as a man. Any other tangent is a subset of these two points of view. Is that really hard to understand? Can you explain to me how this is a false premise? Are some on here saying that Christ existed as a man but did not exist as a man? I haven't seen that yet.

Second, good debate tactics are pretty universally understood. Do you really need a guide? Let me know and I'll post a link for you if you do.

Third, there are no "rules of debate in use here, aside from the T&C". You can say what you want as long as you abide by the T&C. However, I am entitled to my own opinion of your performance. If my opinion matters to you, so be it. If not, so be it.

Fourth, I have pointed out the specifics when I have critiqued the debate. I didn't point out names, but I did say what I don't like to see. You don't have to agree with me, I'm not trying to force that on you.

Finally, WTH is dirty forensic pool? I understand how dirty pool works in a discussion but I'm not sure what forensics has to do with it. Sounds like a made up term to me.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Edit: One blog quote doesn't equal historical fact, just because you want it to.

You are absolutely correct! It doesn't! But, the 'blog post' provides lots and lots of sources, and if you took the time to read the blog, you'd see that the author has a PhD:

I am a Ph.D. graduate student in Classics at the University of California, Irvine. My research interests include ancient biography, Greek and Latin historiography, the New Testament, early Christianity, and the early Roman Empire.

For a further description of my research interests in Classics, see here. I also study philosophy in my graduate work and write on topics such as ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. I completed my M.A. in Classics (emphasis in “Ancient History”) at the University of Arizona with a master’s thesis studying the use of ring composition in Suetonius’ De Vita Caesarum. Apart from my academic background in history and philosophy, I am also an advocate of church-state secularism, metaphysical naturalism, and secular humanism.

Let me know if you're too scared to click the links on the original - I'll add them here for you.
@@

Cool, but I would venture a guess that there are equally as many people who have the same or similar credentials as this guy who do believe that the gospels were written (or at least dictated) by the twelve apostles. In which case, who do we believe?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NYCUltra

Why go so vehemently hard to against this? People are against Christians/Jesus/religion or whatever - just don't follow a religion or believe anything. Why try to discredit an entire religion or faith system, specifically Christianity?

Because it damages millions of children who deserve to know the truth and are told lies from the cradle.

So to follow your logic, anyone or anything which damages a child (despite it's generally positive effects) should be done away with. Ok, well my kid has a disease called FPIES. Rice causes all sorts of damage to him. Let's get rid of rice for everyone. On another note, one of my other children was very very hurt by the harsh reality that we eat plants. I mean, it caused more dismay than I can describe. I'm not sure he'll ever recover. So lets get rid of plants, or maybe I should have lied to him to protect him from this awful truth? but that goes against what you're saying here, so what do we do?

From your last line it is very evident that you don't understand religion or religious belief and you are very intolerant.