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

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, you have dellusions of grandour that your beliefs are better than any Christian belief, or anyone else who believes in any religion... Got you...

You "got me"? From where?
Delusions of "grandeur"? I never said that.
I said that I am an agnostic, and that by not believing that any ONE faith is correct and true, above all others (as claimed by that religion), I am constant in my openness to dissuasion and information.

I don't know, and frankly, I don't think we humans are equipped to know. But, that doesn't stop us thinking about it.





Delusions of "grandeur" is perfectly exemplified by "Christians" who claim that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is going to burn in hell (poor them. stupid non-believers. their fault, entirely. i mean - who hasn't heard of Jesus? - really. they've heard but reject the idea. so they will all burn in hell. oh well. sigh. at least i know my soul is safe, because i know the word to say at the pearly gates.

Isn't that right?)....okay, Got you.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's nonsense, really, as quantum mechanics is a theory that applies to the material world. I'm not agnostic, but generally agnosticism is considered to be the state of not knowing, or believing it's knowable, whether *supernatural* or religious concepts like "god" can be true. The "material world" includes anything that can be described by theory and tested with reproducible results, and quantum mechanics is certainly part and parcel of that.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Perhaps you should try to find what an agnostic is, because if you are fascinated and believe in quantum mechanics, and in other dimensions then you are not agnostic...

How so? Do quantum mechanics insist or prove that there is a "god" watching us? No. They don't.

Agnostic means "not known",

Correct. It is the stance that it can't be known, but if it is proven, will be acceptable that there was an instigator of everything. We just don't know, El, and that's the bottom line. You can claim to know, but it doesn't make your claims true.

as in the nature of things beyond the material cannot be known.

Yes, "the nature of things beyond the material cannot be known."......but....but.....
But - wait.

Quantum theory is about the material. It's about math. It doesn't have to 'link in' to God at all - but it also keeps me curious about how it all works.
God?
No God?
Doesn't much matter. I'm just interested to continue exploring and learning how it REALLY WORKS.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

No?... you claimed that you are a better person than Christians because of your beliefs... That's what you wrote...not I...

BTW, not all Christians believe the same things... Not all Christians believe that those who don't believe will burn in lakes of fire.

It is my belief that it is not my place to judge anyone else based on their religious, or atheist beliefs.

Jesus did say "he who is free of sin throw the first stone" when teachers of the law and the Pharisees told him that he should enforce the law on an adulterous woman.

There are certain circumstances where i draw the line, such as rapists, murderers, etc. But because other people think and belief differently than me in religion I will not judge them. It isn't my place to do so.

You are painting all Christians with a broad brush and making claims which are simply not true.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Agnosticism is not just about the belief of God... Agnosticism is the belief that the nature of things beyond the material cannot be known... It includes quantum mechanics. It includes other dimensions, and includes anything that is not physical in origin.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It includes quantum mechanics. It includes other dimensions, and includes anything that is not physical in origin.

Orale, Luis, no.
Quantum Mechanics IS MATH. That, string theory, other dimensions, etc are MATERIAL THEORIES about how the universe works.
You're confused, amigo.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No?... you claimed that you are a better person than Christians because of your beliefs...

I claimed that being agnostic makes me a better person than a Christian spewing condemnation, hatred, judgment, rejection, and shame onto everyone who doesn't believe just like they do.

Big difference there, bro. BIG difference.

a reply to: FraternitasSaturni

You are claiming that Tacitus was like "Ridley Scott"... I am sorry but you don't understand that Tacitus was a historian, not a science fiction producer/director...

As for the Pilate Stone... The parts that can be read include...

"S TIBERIÉUM
NTIUS PILATUS
ECTUS IUDA
E"

The only governor with the last name Pilate under the reign of Tiberium, whose first name includes the words NTIUS is Pontius Pilate.

So, you are wrong in both claims.

Neither was Tacitus a "science fiction director/producer", and the Pilate Stone could only be referring to Pontius Pilate.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


What you implied with your comments is that all, or a majority of Christians do those things you claimed, and hence you are a better person. A person who believes his/her beliefs are better suited to all children, hence you obviously just want to force your view on all children. Since you claim that Christianity damages children...

Anyway, this is getting way off topic. How about instead of claiming things that are not true you stick to demonstrating that Tacitus, among other non-Christian sources were all lying and that Jesus Christ did not exist.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

BTW, not all Christians believe the same things... Not all Christians believe that those who don't believe will burn in lakes of fire.

That is a huge relief to know. Now I can breathe while I'm talking to you.

There are certain circumstances where i draw the line, such as rapists, murderers, etc.

As do all sane, civilized people. (Although I don't believe they will burn in lakes of fire. I believe they will reincarnate and learn the lesson 'the hard way.')

But because other people think and belief differently than me in religion I will not judge them. It isn't my place to do so.

Good to know.

You are painting all Christians with a broad brush and making claims which are simply not true.

I'm glad to know that shoe doesn't fit you.

You have helped me understand your stance.

It was you who insisted there is evidence of the existence of "Jesus Christ".....and I am one of those who disagreed. Does that make me 'atheist'? Condemned? Stupid? Ignorant? Homicidal? Demonic?

No. None of the above.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What you implied with your comments is that all, or a majority of Christians do those things you claimed, and hence you are a better person.

Please don't assume. You might have taken it that way, but it does not mean I was "implying" anything about all Christians. That is "projection" (when you are applying your own reactions instead of hearing what I'm really saying).

Again - I assert that self-proclaimed "Christians" who teach their children that they are hopelessly flawed, worthless and deserving of damnation, bound for hell, and so forth ARE DANGEROUS.

My assessment does not at all imply or indicate that I think "most" or "all" or the "majority" of Christians feel that way. It is a select subset - the Evangelicals - who are causing the damage, and trying to take over the USA.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Agnosticism is not just about the belief of God... Agnosticism is the belief that the nature of things beyond the material cannot be known... It includes quantum mechanics. It includes other dimensions, and includes anything that is not physical in origin.

You really do not have the authority to re-define things where they should be considered credible.

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

BTW

Ultraviolet photo of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy).

The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.

link

The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

A person who believes his/her beliefs are better suited to all children, hence you obviously just want to force your view on all children. Since you claim that Christianity damages children...

Anyway, this is getting way off topic. How about instead of claiming things that are not true you stick to demonstrating that Tacitus, among other non-Christian sources were all lying and that Jesus Christ did not exist.

*lights match*

*tosses match*

le sigh.

Oh well. Nice bridge while it lasted. Sorry we're on opposite sides of the canyon again. Nice talking to you!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Tacitus does not mention Jesus (or Yeshu, Isa, Yesa, etc.) as Christos.

If you state that, you're stating a mistruth.

What is the oldest extant copy of Tacitus?

Does anyone have that information?

We keep talking about Tacitus as a witness as if we have something scribed in his hand.

In fact, don't we have a copy from ... hundreds of years after Tacitus?

originally posted by: NYCUltra

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.

That's an opinion, raise your kids as atheists. Does this go for all religions, or just Christianity? I just see bitterness. Millions of kids raised as Christians are not as damaged as you perceive.

Actually, they are, in ways you obviously cannot perceive.

You see, neither Atheism or Christianity are correct, but are offered up as the only solutions, religion or not religion.

The real truths of why someone implanted these brutal subconscious programs onto us is definitely not found with everyday accepted thinking.

Christianity is designed to ensure that those who want the truth get stuck in a certain kind of quagmire, one which constantly tells them lies to ensure they feel ok.

It is the most diabolical mind control ever conceived, perhaps in this or any other dimension.

And in this lifetime, we shall see it completely and utterly destroyed, again by things that you likely are not willing to perceive, but trust me OTHERS DO.

Taking into account, all the possibilities of life and the so-called beyond, an incredible attempt at breaking free from the monsters who control will take place, and will succeed whether or not you can perceive it, but once it happens, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING will change utterly and drastically.

The unfortunate pain that can ensue from sudden jarring impacts of REALITY on the mind will implode many, but we are not going to stop, NOTHING can stop us from finishing those who are of the worst kind beyond most anyones imagination, and that is a good thing.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So in order from humanity to progress you have to destroy Christianity? Does the message of Jesus really hold back humans? The religion maybe... but does the message?

YES!

It is the current control set scheme that holds back the most worthy souls from actually doing anything outside of the box!

It is the placeholder of ALL religions ALL governments, and ALL scams.

It is the new name on a very old REGIME that lives too ensure no one is going anywhere, but to have their power stolen here, and harvested continuously , endlessly in blind ignorance never knowing the truth, FOR EVER.

Time for it and whatever else is the next name it will hide under to completely and totally be destroyed.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How do you safely reconcile yourself in the knowledge that beliefs are interchangeable and can be altered at will, within such a supposed strict framework of TRUTH.

This is already a partial admittance that ALL CHRISTIANS are in religious cults, DESPITE the fact that lately they are teaching the flocks to claim, I AM NOT RELIGIOUS, LOL.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You are far off topic.

a reply to: Gryphon66
There are many other historical references to christ. Why did Thallus attempt to explain the hours of darkness after christs crucifixion if christ didn't exist and wasn't crucified and there wasn't darkness after his non-crucifixion? Why did plinius write about christians being willing to die for christ if he was not an actual person? Why did lucian explain christs relations to christians? Why did

I'm sure you know of occam's razor. Now which is more likely? That multiple historians wrote about christ because he was a person. These historians confirm who he was to the christians, how he died, and the darkness after his crucifixion.

Or is it more likely that they are explaining many people but referencing him as a single person? And they just happen to confirm the biblical elements of christ's crucifixion by explaining many different people? If this part was hard to read that's because it's very difficult to put into words an idea as asinine as the one you seem to be perpetrating.

Or is it that you believe that the "enlightened one" was many (why?) and the many different sects all worshipping different enlightened ones decided they all believed the same thing and came together as one, not behind a person, but behind an idea?



Or maybe you're trying to say that there were many "enlightened ones" all teaching the exact same thing! What are the odds of that?

It seems the most plausible explanation is that historians documented history which included a man referred to as christ who was crucified by pontius pilate and was the start of the christian religion.

Let me do a little comparison here to make sure I'm understanding what you're getting at:
Let's say a historian decides to write about the people in this particular thread like they did about roman upheaval during the beginnings of christianity. Instead of tacitus saying: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius".

Tacitus instead says: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished gryphonites, who were Hated for their enormities. gryphon, the founder of the name, was Put to death by scott walker, governor of wisconsin in the reign Of Obama"

Now Just like christ meant "enlightened one" gryphon is a mythincal creature. So for tacitus to be referring to the idea of an enlightened one in the first instance is about as plausible as his referencing a mythical creature in the second one.