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

a reply to: peter vlar

Yes I did read the links, did you read what I wrote?... That Jesus and Christians were being mocked. Does the mocking references Jesus? Yes... Is it an ancient account referring to Jesus?... Yes.

I mentioned that other authors similarly went about to mocking Jesus, and to make claims that his father was a Roman soldier. You don't make such claims on a person who didn't exist...

But i see that your counter argument is to offer even more mockery... Good job there.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Grimpachi

Even at the time that he was born if Jesus was fictitious Tacitus would have described him so. Yet Tacitus doesn't do that, even though he was not Christian his references of "history" includes that Jesus did exist, was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate, and his followers were called Christians after his name.

Tacitus also wrote about Hercules like he was a real person.

So you must also believe Hercules was a son of god.

I bet I know who was stronger.

Nice red herring. Did Hercules have any sort of archaeological evidence unearthed to support his existence? No. But Pontius Pilate does, the same individual tacitus reports was responsible for crucifying Jesus. Infact, one of the more popular methods used by mythicists prior to the 60's to discredit the notion of a historical Jesus, was to suggest that Pilate himself didn't exist, and that he was a Christian fabrication!

Guess who turned out to be right?

The divided believe stories of other times - they argue over whether Jesus existed or not. 'Was he' or 'wasn't he' - and 'will he be' found in the future. Jesus said 'I am' is the way, the truth and the life. 'I am' is not past or future - 'I am' is.

What actually is existing? What is existence? Is existence in the past? Is existence in the future?
Existence is what is existing right here and right now - but this is missed because of thoughts of 'there and then'.

What is there really??
What is there if there were no words to lead you astray?

There is only this present happening.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Then why do you not believe the science which is used to support the historicity of Jesus? There is an entire science behind historical credibility, textual criticism and analysis, etc. There is a reason we can date the earliest Christian writings to within 20 years of Christ's crucifixion and that the mention of Christ by tacitus is believed to be genuine and unbiased. This isn't just religious hocus pocus, or there wouldn't be non christian historians who support the idea.

No, I think it's clear you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence in favor of your bias.

I do pay attention to the science and the science says there is no contemporaneous documentation of Christ. None.

If you have read different then you haven't been reading the science or you have been ignoring it.

BTW here is a pick of the oldest known piece of the NT.



It is called p52 dated somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE that is older than 20 years.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Tacitus wrote about Teutonic worshippers of Hercules... As far as i know he didn't claim Hercules was real. If I am mistaken show "proof".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That was a really long way of saying "Why no Mr. Vlar, nobody can produce a contemporary piece of evidence providing actual concrete proof of the living Christ. All accounts are from long after his alleged time on Earth".

That was mockery. The first reply was simply me pointing out errors in your derived logical interpretation of the provided data sets.

a reply to: Grimpachi

More what? From the article I linked:

UNTIL 1961, there was no concrete archaeological evidence that Pontius Pilate, the fifth governor of Judaea, ever existed. There were accounts of him, of course, not least the accounts in the Gospels. But the records of his administration had disappeared completely: no papyri, no rolls, no tablets, no (authentic) letters to Rome. The Roman ruins that remained in Israel seemed to have nothing to do with him. Even his aqueduct - a project that got him into plenty of trouble at the time - appeared to have crumbled away.

So we know now beyond a shadow of doubt that Pilate existed (just as the gospels and Tacitus reported). There weren't any contemporaneous documents from his lifetime that survived history, but there was documentation written after his life that confirmed his existence. It wasn't until a single chance archaeological discovery that we could confirm this narrative. So why is that same criteria not applicable to Jesus of Nazareth, when we have the same historian who originally mentioned Pilate, also mentioning Jesus?

He isn't even the only roman historian to do so.

Quite simply, if you maintain that Jesus never existed, you haven't done your homework. If people want to say that he wasn't the son of God, I can accept that. But at least get the facts straight as far as what mainstream archaeologists and historians have to say about the subject. Don't bandy around the term "science" when it is clear you are content to reject it when it doesn't suit your terms.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Grimpachi

Even at the time that he was born if Jesus was fictitious Tacitus would have described him so. Yet Tacitus doesn't do that, even though he was not Christian his references of "history" includes that Jesus did exist, was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate, and his followers were called Christians after his name.

Tacitus also wrote about Hercules like he was a real person.

So you must also believe Hercules was a son of god.

I bet I know who was stronger.

Nice red herring. Did Hercules have any sort of archaeological evidence unearthed to support his existence? No. But Pontius Pilate does, the same individual tacitus reports was responsible for crucifying Jesus. Infact, one of the more popular methods used by mythicists prior to the 60's to discredit the notion of a historical Jesus, was to suggest that Pilate himself didn't exist, and that he was a Christian fabrication!

Guess who turned out to be right?

Talk about a red herring you just threw out a huge one.

Pontius Pilate existed and your link shows that. It does not show that Christ did.

Again Tacticus born 59AD who wrote about Hercules and could have never met nor have seen a Christ.

Yes or no question. Can anyone present contemporaneous documentation of a Christ?

If that cant be answered plainly then the answer must be no. I already know the answer, but want to see if honesty exists.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I do pay attention to the science and the science says there is no contemporaneous documentation of Christ. None.

Yet you ignore the mountain of evidence that displays clearly why this is a poor argument and in no possible way demonstrates that Jesus did not exist (while simultaneously ignoring the evidence that suggests he did).

If you have read different then you haven't been reading the science or you have been ignoring it.

You literally have one argument, and it is incredibly poor. Who is ignoring the evidence here?

BTW here is a pick of the oldest known piece of the NT.

The oldest known fragment of a manuscript. You should probably do a little more research. Specifically on Galatians and why it is thought to be one of the oldest Christian writings. There really is non religious methodology behind this stuff. You just choose to ignore it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Again Tacticus born 59AD who wrote about Hercules and could have never met nor have seen a Christ.

Where did Tacitus state that hercules was a real person?

Yes or no question. Can anyone present contemporaneous documentation of a Christ?

No.

Do you understand why that is an extremely poor argument? Probably not. Or at least you will choose to cherry pick. Do we have any contemporaneous writings from Plato's lifetime? No. Do you deny Plato existed by the same criteria? If not, why?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

So what your saying is we have solid evidence that Pilate existed, but not for a Christ and you want everyone to act like we do.

BTW where is Christian writings to within 20 years you claimed exist?

a reply to: Grimpachi

I will respond to you further when you take the time to actually acknowledge my arguments instead of ignoring them completely.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You can stop throwing out Red Herrings at this point and deflecting.


P52 is the oldest confirmed documentation of the NT.

Tacitus is the crown Jewel that so many use as their proof yet it only proves that Christians existed and explains what they believed.

That is It. No one claims Christians didn't exist at that time.

When he wrote of Hercules he documented that the Germans themselves said he used to come visit them.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Can anyone present contemporaneous documentation of a Christ?

Documentation is knowledge - second hand knowledge. Reading or hearing about something that may or may not have happened, happens when?
Speaking about what may or may not have happened is conflicting - there can be no peace in beliefs about 'other'.

Notice the presence in which all thoughts of 'other' appear. Then worship no 'other'.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Comparing Christ to Plato is amazing! Truly a comparison from a sick mind.

Please seek help.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Comparing Christ to Plato is amazing! Truly a comparison from a sick mind.

Please seek help.

Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

Do you mind explaining to me why you feel I have a "sick mind" and should seek help?

ETA: Furthermore, I didn't compare the two individuals insofar as their ideologies or philosophies. I compared them as far as the argument of "contemporaneous documentation" is concerned. Please do try to follow along and not take my words completely out of context (not that your misperception gives you adequate grounds to insult me in the first place).

a reply to: peter vlar

I am sure that even if there were earlier accounts given here you, among some others, would make up excuses to dismiss them... Just like you are doing about the accounts of historians like Tacitus...

Jesus Christ became more popular AFTER his death, and his teachings spread to Rome AFTER his death, which would be why there was more mention of him AFTER his death.

He had been scorned by his own people, and was crucified as a common criminal by the Romans. Of course the Romans and the Jewish people didn't "erect statues" of him at the time... But as shown here yes there are "ancient accounts" that verify he did exist, and he was crucified.

If you don't want to believe it, that's your decision. But it is obvious you would not accept anything as evidence.

Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars
p3 The Life of Claudius
...
4 Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus,75 he expelled them from Rome.
...

Link

The reference that Suetonius is making above on 25:4 is about the expulsion of the Jews from Rome made by Claudius. Claudius was in office from 41 AD to 54 AD. He mentions that the "disturbances" were made at the instigation of Chrestus.

The reason given why Claudius expelled the Jewish people from Rome was the expansion of Christianity in Rome was seen as a threat, hence why Christus(Christ) teachings were seen as the instigation for the disturbances.

References to a possible expulsion of Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Claudius, who was in office AD 41-54, appear in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2), and in the writings of Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122), Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

As for why did he write Chrestus instead of Christus.

Chrestus

James D.G. Dunn states that most scholars infer that "Suetonius misheard the name 'Christus' (referring to Jesus as Christ) as 'Chrestus'" and also misunderstood the report and assumed that the followers of someone called Chrestus were causing disturbances within the Jewish community based on his instigation.[19] R.T. France says that the notion of a misspelling by Suetonius "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake."[20] The term Chrestus (which may have also been used by Tacitus) was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Then why do you not believe the science which is used to support the historicity of Jesus? There is an entire science behind historical credibility, textual criticism and analysis, etc. There is a reason we can date the earliest Christian writings to within 20 years of Christ's crucifixion and that the mention of Christ by tacitus is believed to be genuine and unbiased. This isn't just religious hocus pocus, or there wouldn't be non christian historians who support the idea.

No, I think it's clear you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence in favor of your bias.

I do pay attention to the science and the science says there is no contemporaneous documentation of Christ. None.

If you have read different then you haven't been reading the science or you have been ignoring it.

BTW here is a pick of the oldest known piece of the NT.

It is called p52 dated somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE that is older than 20 years.

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

As Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, that leaves a 37 year window in which all the gospels and letters of the canonical NT must have been written.

Also, the spread of Christianity was quite rapid and this was noted even by its detractors. It makes no sense to believe that people living close to that time (and therefore likely to be told otherwise by eyewitnesses), even if they were detractors, would make the assumption that Jesus, called the Christ, was a real living person.

Why does no one of that generation at all suggest that Jesus was fiction?

It is, therefore, not well reasoned for us, 2000 years later, to seriously suggest that Jesus was a fiction.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Is it that hard to understand?

Jesus...Christ...Son of God...God(whatever term is "hip" these days) is used by hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis as their guide on how to live their lives.

Christianity(along with other religions) has been used as a reason to go to war, kill, rape, pillage, steal, and manipulate people ever since their inception.

Beyond Jesus and Plato being extremely diametric to each other when it comes to the amount of pain and destruction they have had on history, Plato actually WAS a person. He actually WROTE things HIMSELF. His history is due to his own writings, not the writings of other people about him.

I find your comparison disturbing in that you think it is logical.

a reply to: chr0naut


Apparently there are many detractors who don't know that Jesus was crucified in 33AD and that his teachings became more popular after his death.

We do have Roman historians, and others mentioning Christ/Christus/Chrestus as having existed, being crucified and his teachings (Christianity)being the reason for the Jewish getting expelled from Rome by the Roman emperor Claudius whom issued the edict in January 49AD.