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

a reply to: chr0naut

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.

There is no way you can make a logical leap like that from a fragment.

The canonical NT texts are also a hell of a lot different from what people have in their homes. All the different versions of the canonical NT texts.

There shouldn't be any mention of the fall of Jerousulum the NT is supposed to be about a story from before then. It wouldn't be logical for it to have been mentioned as it would serve no purpose.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Is it that hard to understand?

It certainly shouldn't be...

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.

You don't seem to be grasping the fact that an argument for a historical Jesus is not at all predicated on the premise that Jesus was the Son of God.

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.

Same with wealth and power. What on earth does any of this have to do with the argument for or against Jesus as a historical figure?

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.

Either my point went completely over your head, or you chose to willfully ignore it. The one argument mythicists have is that there are no contemporaneous writings about Jesus. There aren't any from Plato's lifetime either. Why are you so confident one existed and the other didn't?

He actually WROTE things HIMSELF

No he didn't. What we know about Plato and his philosophies were recorded years after his death. There is literally ZERO contemporaneous documentation of Plato until after he died.

His history is due to his own writings, not the writings of other people about him.

Prove me wrong, then.

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

It is completely logical. History and archaeology have provided no contemporaneous documentation on either individual until after their deaths. Yet one is assumed to have existed, and the other is categorically denounced as a work of fiction by armchair historians like yourself who simply have a bone to pick with the religion of Christianity, and no real interest in history.

ETA:

To further this argument, let's look at Socrates. We know nothing about Socrates except for what his students had to say about him, yet we assume socrates was real based on that information. Why is that criteria sufficient for one set of individuals, and not the other? Especially when we have roman historians providing extra biblical corroboration of Jesus existence and execution?

Is there evidence this person was magical?

a reply to: bullcat

Nope. Although there are accounts from Christianity's critics that he did in fact perform miracles. However, his critics denounce these acts as either sorcery, or common parlor tricks (as a modern illusionist might perform).

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: bullcat

Nope. Although there are accounts from Christianity's critics that he did in fact perform miracles. However, his critics denounce these acts as either sorcery, or common parlor tricks (as a modern illusionist might perform).

Or knowledge of astronomical and environmental events?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
...

There shouldn't be any mention of the fall of Jerousulum the NT is supposed to be about a story from before then. It wouldn't be logical for it to have been mentioned as it would serve no purpose.

No, the New Testament is about the life of Jesus, what he did and the events that occurred in first century Christianity. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was in 70 AD. So, again you are wrong.

In the year 66 AD the Jews of Judea rebelled against their Roman masters. In response, the Emperor Nero dispatched an army under the generalship of Vespasian to restore order. By the year 68, resistance in the northern part of the province had been eradicated and the Romans turned their full attention to the subjugation of Jerusalem. That same year, the Emperor Nero died by his own hand, creating a power vacuum in Rome. In the resultant chaos, Vespasian was declared Emperor and returned to the Imperial City. It fell to his son, Titus, to lead the remaining army in the assault on Jerusalem.

The Roman legions surrounded the city and began to slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached Jerusalem's outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism.
...

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

a reply to: bullcat

Perhaps, if you would like to interpret it that way. I make no claims about Jesus divinity or miracles. Clearly, critics of the case for Jesus historicity discard the New Testament as an accurate source of information, so for the purposes of this discussion, I generally try not to rely on the bible unless extra biblical sources corroborate what is written in it.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I was making fun of religion when I referred to him as Jesus, Christ, God, and the son of God. You seriously couldn't see that?

My point was that Jesus has had a much bigger influence on human history than Plato has. I don't recall followers of Plato going around and killing in his name.

I may be incorrect here, but I am pretty sure followers of Plato don't go around blowing up abortion clinics or making gay people's lives a living hell.

Maybe I am off base here, but I don't believe Plato has manipulated billions of people throughout history to live their lives a certain way.

If you can't understand what I am alluding to at this point, there is no sense in us continuing any type of conversation.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No, the New Testament is about the life of Jesus, what he did and the events that occurred in first century Christianity. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was in 70 AD. So, again you are wrong.

Maybe you didn't understand because you are just backing up what I said.

The NT is about the life of Jesus I agree so there would be no reason to write about something in 70AD in conjunction with the NT.

I am not wrong you just misunderstood what we were talking about.

Or maybe you can explain why the fall of Jerusalem should have been in the NT.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

I was making fun of religion when I referred to him as Jesus, Christ, God, and the son of God. You seriously couldn't see that?

What does that have to do with the debate, though?

My point was that Jesus has had a much bigger influence on human history than Plato has. I don't recall followers of Plato going around and killing in his name.

Plato was just as influential on the course of human history, imo. But as for your comments on Jesus, I don't recall Jesus telling his followers to go around and kill people in his name either. None of this has anything to do with whether or not Jesus existed as a real person (be he a mere man or otherwise).

I may be incorrect here, but I am pretty sure followers of Plato don't go around blowing up abortion clinics or making gay people's lives a living hell.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You disagree with the actions of a certain segment of Christians. I understand that, and I don't disagree with you on that front. But it has ZERO bearing on whether or not Jesus was a real person, and what history has to say about that.

ETA:

It seems to me like you are overly invested in your emotional perceptions of "religion", and those feelings have made you incapable of thinking rationally about the subject of whether or not the personage of Jesus of Nazareth existed as a real historical figure.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Did you know that there have been murderous acts by atheists throughout the 20th century?

For example, the Red Terror in Spain in 1936 by sections of nearly all leftist groups in Spain, except the Basque people.

The number of people killed during this time ranges from 38,000- 72,344 lives. They murdered priests, desecrated churches, they murdered capitalists. Back in those days the majority of Spaniards were catholic, and people were afraid.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then there are the murders perpetrated by the Marxists, who were atheists, and other atheist communists, which is over 110 million people murdered, without counting the soldiers killed in wars. Not to mention the millions more imprisoned in gulags over their beliefs and their views.

Evil people will use any and every excuse to commit murder. But just because there have been cases in which people have used the name of Christ to kill, doesn't make his teachings evil, or the reason for such murderous events.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Why do i have to repeat myself? Please read what i wrote. The destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the 1st century and was an event that affected Christians and Jewish people, hence why it is mentioned in the NT.

You are making up claims which are wrong.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

When did I deny that Jesus was a real person? I called your comparison to Plato illogical.

I couldn't be any less emotional when it comes to religion.

I didn't realize that having an opinion on people who believe in fairy tales caused me to be "emotional".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh forgive me. I didn't realize that atheist's were a group.

Allahu Atheism!

You are making up claims which are wrong.

The mind is making up all of the past stories and the mind makes up stories about the future.

'This that is' cannot be made up by the mind - 'this' is beyond belief.
The mind cannot argue or look like it knows something unless it is speaking about something that isn't (past or future).

Can anything be said about presence? The realization of presence is where peace lies - beyond all understanding.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh forgive me. I didn't realize that atheist's were a group.

Allahu Atheism!

You do know Allah is another word for Lucifer (Bal, Beel et al).

Really, all of them are worshipping Lucifer. Just by different names.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

When did I deny that Jesus was a real person? I called your comparison to Plato illogical.

Then you ignored me when I demonstrated why it wasn't. All this after implying I'm somehow mentally ill.

I didn't realize that having an opinion on people who believe in fairy tales caused me to be "emotional".

There you go again. Now it's "fairy tales". We are talking about whether or not Jesus existed in history (outside of myth). In one sentence, you claim you never denied this, and in the next you claim you don't believe in fairy tales.

I would say you are very much clouded by emotion. Do you believe there is evidence to suggest that Jesus existed in history, or not?

Can anything be known about the past?
There is no such thing as a true story.
But all stories appear in truth.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Can anything be known about the past?
There is no such thing as a true story.
But all stories appear in truth.

I have no "contemporaneous documentation" that my great great great great great great grandfather existed, yet here I am.

*shrugs*

a reply to: bullcat

Allahu Akbar means Allah is great.

Allahu Atheism has a nice ring to it, but yes it doesn't translate into anything meaningful.

If you want it to make more sense, Atheism Akbar would be more on track.

Next time some atheists go out killing religious folk for being religious, I am sure they will shout Atheism Akbar at the top of their lungs.