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

a reply to: Prezbo369

Wow very dishonest, you want to discuss Jesus Christ but want to conveniently miss out the spooky and supernatural elements that define the character?

The context of the debate is "Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.", as per the thread title. I have not been dishonest at all.

I find it comical that you are implying we should include the "spooky and supernatural elements" that define the "character", when generally the narrative is that we can't prove the bible by the bible? Have I argued with the bible thus far? Have you reviewed my arguments honestly?

If you want to include the biblical accounts of Christ's miracles as a source of contention, then why should they not also be considered as eye witness accounts of his existence? The problem here, is that you know I haven't once relied on scripture to back up my claims, because I don't need to.

If he had been merely a man that had certain sayings attributed to him, we wouldn't be having this discussion and you wouldn't be a christian...

Clearly we would be having this discussion, because there are many non christian historians who do believe he existed and he was just a man. My personal faith has nothing to do with the argument, since I haven't relied on it even once in this discussion. 1 point for mythicism, 10 against it. Funny how you haven't even bothered addressing that yet.

So you wont discuss the lack of writings of the zombie invasion? nothings at all?

Don't waste my time. If you are just here to troll, you can bait someone else. My arguments are sound, and your inability to refute them speaks volumes.

I appreciate history but this kind of story sets off my BS detector as it should for anyone with critical thinking skills. You're obviously too invested in a particular set of superstitions to able to look at this issue objectively.

It would seem that goes both ways. Only one of us is actually approaching the subject rationally, however.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

1. Did each Roman "witness" describe the same man in the same way dying the same death?

2. Did I claim that the fact that there's no proof that Jesus was divine takes away from a historical presence of someone named Yeshua?

3. Check your own irrational interest before condemning others, perhaps?

4. Perhaps Biblical historians care. Perhaps Christian historians care. You won't find any historian obsessing over the proof of an individual's existence in history BEYOND the actual material facts.

5. I was actually giving a point to your side Seraph, but as usual, sadly, you take what should be a simple matter of comparing facts and make it into an angry little pissing match. Who do you think cares about your opinion? Who cares about any of our opinions? What does that have to do with anything?

Try it again without the cynical-snide glasses on: the value that someone gets from reading the words of Jesus does not depend on an actual physical historical Jesus.

Besides that, only a true believer would even suggest that what exists as Christianity today was "founded" by Yeshua the Desert Mystic.

Christianity was an invention of the Roman government. The Roman Church even mimics the structures of the Roman Government.

Pontifex Maximus ring a bell?

Pfft.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Prezbo369
The context of the debate is "Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.", as per the thread title. I have not been dishonest at all.

I find it comical that you are implying we should include the "spooky and supernatural elements" that define the "character", when generally the narrative is that we can't prove the bible by the bible? Have I argued with the bible thus far? Have you reviewed my arguments honestly?

In regards to Jesus Christ, the bible is all there is, other than Josephus of course. And you're fully aware that the stories and tales contained within the bible are utterly indefensible, and as such your lack of defense or even recognition of said tales goes towards the evidence against the characters existence.

If you want to include the biblical accounts of Christ's miracles as a source of contention, then why should they not also be considered as eye witness accounts of his existence? The problem here, is that you know I haven't once relied on scripture to back up my claims, because I don't need to.

Do we have a list of names of these eye witnesses? any signed and written testimonies? or was it simply a mere mention that such 'eye-witnesses' were there?

No? none? BS detector is buzzing again isn't it?

And yes you have turned to 'scripture', 3-4 of your evidences on the previous page mention it....is the only way you're able to defend your claims to be this dishonest?

Clearly we would be having this discussion, because there are many non christian historians who do believe he existed and he was just a man.

Right and in this hypothetical you wouldn't be a Christian, just a student of obscure history?......lol ok

My personal faith has nothing to do with the argument, since I haven't relied on it even once in this discussion.

Your personal faith has shaped your arguments and dishonesty when it has come too looking at the evidence objectively. As a christian you have an obvious agenda to protect and defend your beliefs/superstitions even if it means being this dishonest.

1 point for mythicism, 10 against it. Funny how you haven't even bothered addressing that yet.

Yep you find such things funny, comical etc etc. You know it's a sign of poor writing whenever somebody uses such fillers....and I guess it really is fingers in ears time for you! Just because you keep repeating something it doesn't make i true (something to remember).

Don't waste my time. If you are just here to troll, you can bait someone else. My arguments are sound, and your inability to refute them speaks volumes.

So no you cannot even begin to address or recognize the lack of mention in the writings of any roman historians at the time of a zombie invasion.....if they did, it'd be undeniable evidence for the cosmic jesus character. But as there isnt, you're left down s*** creek without a paddle on this one.

It kinda destroys your whole premise.

It would seem that goes both ways. Only one of us is actually approaching the subject rationally, however.

One of us is being very dishonest, one of us already has conformation bias from a biblical worldview, can you guess which one it is?

a reply to: Gryphon66

1. Did each Roman "witness" describe the same man in the same way dying the same death?

There were no roman witnesses that left records, as I'm sure you know. But yes, the historians that describe Jesus and his crucifixion agree on some very basic facts that corroborate the new testament.

2. Did I claim that the fact that there's no proof that Jesus was divine takes away from a historical presence of someone named Yeshua?

Yes you did, by implying the fact there were multiple people named "Yeshua" in the 1st century somehow has significance.

3. Check your own irrational interest before condemning others, perhaps?

I haven't once found it necessary to rely on religious superstition in this debate because I have never needed to. The history speaks for itself, as do the non christian historians.

4. Perhaps Biblical historians care. Perhaps Christian historians care. You won't find any historian obsessing over the proof of an individual's existence in history BEYOND the actual material facts.

You don't seem to have given serious consideration to any of my 10 arguments, or the fact they are also arguments used by non christian historians. Considering there is one in favor of mythicism, and 10 against mythicism, I would like to think you could at least address half of them.

5. I was actually giving a point to your side Seraph, but as usual, sadly, you take what should be a simple matter of comparing facts and make it into an angry little pissing match. Who do you think cares about your opinion? Who cares about any of our opinions? What does that have to do with anything?

I don't expect anyone to care about my opinions. What I expect is people to care about facts, and this website and its users simply do not add up to the motto "Deny Ignorance".

Try it again without the cynical-snide glasses on: the value that someone gets from reading the words of Jesus does not depend on an actual physical historical Jesus.

The words of Jesus and the value one might derive from them haven't even been used as an expression of historical credibility by myself or anyone else in this thread thus far.

Here are the material "facts" for existence of Jesus;

1 reference in Tacitus (actually the most reliable)

2 references in Josephus (one reasonable evidence, the other not so much at the very least embellished)

The existence of a Christian cult in the first century Roman empire ... but this cult was NOT uniform, they did NOT all believe the same things, there was no doxology or dogma until the Romans took over the religion, so in almost every significant way there were many different cults that were later combined into one, e.g., Gnostics.

Yes, Jesus existed. He was probably a minor religious/political figure that was crucified for inciting against Rome.

Yes, he had followers that propagated stories about him after his death.

Given the FACTS thought that there is no proof that:

1. He was a deity.
2. He said what we have recorded that he said.
3. He served as some kind of cosmic stand-in for the sins of the world
4. He was brought back to life after death.

means that the actual character JESUS that is worshiped by over a BILLION people today is only indirectly related to whatever Jewish political/historical figure actually lived and whose existence is verified by scholars.

The two individuals are NOT the same. Period.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

1. Nope, now you're waving your hands over the facts. There are three references from two writers and they only "corroborate" the New Testament in the most general ways.

2. No, I did not make such a claim, that was your inference. You. Me. Different people different words. Basic debate.

3. The history of a Jewish man named Yeshua who was crucified and who had a following is "substantiated by facts." The rest of the story is fabricated as far as we know. The figure that scholars agree probably existed bears virtually no relationship to the Son of God worshiped by over a billion.

4. Your "arguments" are the same that are brought up in every one of these Real Jesus debates; are you seriously making the claim that you yourself developed these arguments? LOL. Besides that, your premise is flawed. The individual that is referenced in two historical notes, that historians agree probably existed bears virtually no relationship to the Son of God figure.

5. Then why bring opinions up? Why try to present your opinions as fact and all other facts as opinions? Pfft.

6. Why does the discussion come up repeatedly? Why is there any significance whatsoever about the possible historical figure that may have served as the basis for the Son of God figure?

Why else would we be discussing obscure Jewish political figures of the First Century if there wasn't a supposed connection to Jesus Christ, Son of God?

What a disingenuous response!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse



If he did exist, his name wasn't Jesus.. It was Yeshua or something close to that spelling.

Jesus didn't exist and the letter J was an invention, much like most of the bible, not all
but much of it is 'changed'.

And why did they use the name JESUS anyways? Is it an occult name that when one prays
the power of that person is taken by the occult letters of jesus into a demonic form?
I don't know do you know why everyone uses a fabricated name for this man?

If i was a God and people changed my name to something obscure i'd be pissed.

a reply to: awareness10

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.

I would just like to state that I am very disappointed in ATS as a whole. Grimpachi I expect this sort of nonsense from, since he refused to acknowledge anything I said to him, but the fact this post received so many stars is quite frankly disgusting. Here is what Tacitus said about Jesus:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind

Here is what he said about "Hercules":

They say that Hercules, too, once visited them; and when going into battle, they sing of him first of all heroes. They have also those songs of theirs, by the recital of which ("baritus," they call it), they rouse their courage, while from the note they augur the result of the approaching conflict. For, as their line shouts, they inspire or feel alarm. It is not so much an articulate sound, as a general cry of valour. They aim chiefly at a harsh note and a confused roar, putting their shields to their mouth, so that, by reverberation, it may swell into a fuller and deeper sound. Ulysses, too, is believed by some, in his long legendary wanderings, to have found his way into this ocean, and, having visited German soil, to have founded and named the town of Asciburgium, which stands on the bank of the Rhine, and is to this day inhabited. They even say that an altar dedicated to Ulysses, with the addition of the name of his father, Laertes, was formerly discovered on this same spot, and that certain monuments and tombs, with Greek inscriptions, still exist on the borders of Germany and Rhaetia. These statements I have no intention of sustaining by proofs, or of refuting; every one may believe or disbelieve them as he feels inclines.

I expect no intellectual honesty here, but one of you should at least be bold enough to admit tacitus is describing a historical event in one case, and the beliefs of a people in another.

What a sad day for ATS.

All I know as an Atheist is that if Jesus really existed, I would go for a drink with that man because he sounds sensible and intelligent. So much so that I think he'd be embarrassed by the illogical arguments of his 'followers'.

a reply to: Hecate666

Given what we know about him in the new testament, he'd probably be willing to have a drink with you too.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Alright. I'll bite. For the moment, lets grant that Jesus was a historical figure, and there's plenty of convincing evidence apart from the bible, and religious writings...

That does not make him the only begotten son of god, nor does it mean he worked even one miracle. There were also others before him who made atonement for our "sins", and sacrificed their lives to bring salvation to the masses. Jesus is not unique as a savior, except that his story has some unique embellishments. The Christian religion is a plagiarism of those religions and saviors that predate it.

BTW. William Wallace existed, too. He was 7 feet tall, killed men by the hundreds, and shot fireballs from his eyes...

a reply to: Klassified

It's almost as if nobody is actually processing what is being said in this thread, and only reinforcing their own beliefs instead of arguing the merits of the subject at hand? I mean it could be me, but we keep going back to the whole "cosmic jesus" thing, when that was never mentioned to begin with...

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Klassified

It's almost as if nobody is actually processing what is being said in this thread, and only reinforcing their own beliefs instead of arguing the merits of the subject at hand? I mean it could be me, but we keep going back to the whole "cosmic jesus" thing, when that was never mentioned to begin with...

I understand what you're saying, and I'll admit to jumping the gun a little. But having been a Christian myself. I know where these "facts" are going. If I can get a person to admit Jesus was a historical person, then I can take it to the next level, and the next after that. I did a fair amount of street witnessing in my day. I used similar tactics to build a rapport with the "heathen" I was witnessing to. One step at a time.

a reply to: Klassified

lol that is not my intention at all. I have never been one to prosthelytize on ATS. I am genuinely looking at the issue from a historical perspective, and the historical evidence is solid.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Josephus mentions no less than 19 Jesuses, non of them are called Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.

Here's one of them"

Jesus son of Ananias: A Voice from the East
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,

"A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!"

This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon the magistrates, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,Jesus son of Ananias: A Voice from the East
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,

"A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!"

This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon the magistrates, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.
Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.
This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,

"Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the Holy House!"

And just as he added at the last,

"Woe, woe to myself also!"

there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"


www.josephus.org...

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:
Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

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

Jesus never existed. Jesus is a Christian construct of Plato's LOGOS as redifined by Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jewish philosopher and historian of the 1st, century.

Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[13] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[14] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

Jesus Christ is a composite figure meant to represent what the Jewish people and their culture went through just before the "end of their world".

THIS IS INFURIATING.

I am an educated historian specializing in this exact era and place, and I can assure you...

THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THIS MAN LIVED

I worked in the reconstruction of the 2nd oldest Christian Church ever discovered (In Jordan).

No Historian, NO HISTORIAN, would look at your examples as valid. The Greek 'Christos', is simply a word. The sources you cite do not in any way prove anything.

A message to all 'Christians'. Stop attempting to use 'science' or 'research' to prove the existence of your diety. It is an insult to faith, it is an insult to the religion, it is an incredible insult to historical research and study.

a reply to: windword

Jesus never existed. Jesus is a Christian construct of Plato's LOGOS as redifined by Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jewish philosopher and historian of the 1st, century.

You should write a book about that. Not that you are qualified to do so, but I'm sure if you could find a publisher, you'd make a lot of money. People love to be told what they already believe. You illustrate that point to a fault.

Jesus Christ is a composite figure meant to represent what the Jewish people and their culture went through just before the "end of their world".

Remember when I shot you down while you were touting Joseph Atwill's theories? Let me guess... You never did? Lets start with this:

Address the 10 points I have listed. If you refuse to do so, I can understand, because it's easier to keep running with what you want to believe. So lets go with that, and you can explain how this "composite figure" was both written about, and spread across the roman empire within the span of about 30-40 years, while a historical figure claims to have met that "composite figure's" brother and closest disciple. Maybe you can also explain why the Romans or the Jews never pointed any of this out, or hell... deal with the 10 points I listed previously.

I have addressed almost every single argument in this thread, point by point, comment by comment. NOBODY has addressed my post on the one argument in favor of mythicism and the 10 arguments against it, yet everyone has their own opinion on why Christianity sucks balls. Unfortunately, that isn't really the topic of conversation.