Yehoshua Christos existed, deniers = C/Ters

[mistercollie]

Empiricism speaks for itself. The data is there. There is absolutely no excuse to posit differently, and if you do - you are a C/T'er and a subjectivist:

[1] Cornelius Tacitus [55-120 AD]:

Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also. [Annals XV, 44]

Tacitus is a professional historian and not a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government records over Christian testimony. Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Yehoshua was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified: (example: Annals XV, 55)

[2] Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus [69-130 AD]:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome. [Life of Claudius 25.4]

Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius recorded the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome.

[3] Pliny the Younger [63-113 AD]:

I asked them directly if they were Christians... those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians... worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture.

Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you... on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger...

Pliny admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman gods and curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to Emperor Trajan that too many citizens were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith. The willingness of believers to die for Christ would hardly be reasonable if he was merely a fable.

[4] Lucian of Samosata [120 - 180 AD]:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws... [The Death of Peregrinus 11-13]

Lucian's commentary revolved around historical events. In Lucian's work The Way to Write History, he openly criticizes his contemporaries who distort history to flatter their masters or those who fill in the historical gaps with personal conjecture:

The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened... He may nurse some private dislikes, but he will attach far more importance to the public good, and set the truth high above his hate... For history, I say again, has this and only this for its own. If a man will start upon it, he must sacrifice to no God but Truth. He must neglect all else. [The Way to Write History]

[5] The Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged [crucified]. Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

The Babylonian Talmud is an ancient record of Jewish history, laws, and rabbinic teachings compiled throughout the centuries. Though it does not accept the divinity of Jesus, it confirms the belief he was hanged (an idiom for crucifixion) on the eve of the Passover.

[6] There are quite a few other sources I can add in detail, but these are the most valid and earliest sources. If you do not believe Yehoshua existed (even just a natural man) you must also deny the existence of Socrates, Aristotle, or Plato.

As a point of comparison, the New Testament (which is the biography of Yehoshua Christos), was written between 48-100 CE with the earliest copies recorded in 125 CE, a span of only 25 years - and over 4,000 manuscripts to-date exist.

However, Caesar's history of the Gallic War occurred between 100-44 BCE. The earliest manuscripts for this record are dated 900 CE, a span of close to 1,000 years - and only 10 manuscripts to-date exist. If you deny the historicity of Yehoshua because of the standards of evidence you have invented, then you must also deny the historicity of the majority of the ancient world.

[OneStepCloser]

Well done, and I do enjoy your passion on the subject.

[SteelSS]

Uhm alright. Is there really argument that as a historical figure he never existed? Not sure what this thread is for

[Harbinger]

There are millions of references to Harry Potter and, video...

Why is there not a single contemporaneous account of jesus or his followers?

[Harbinger]

Uhm alright. Is there really argument that as a historical figure he never existed? Not sure what this thread is for

we just like to mess with him.

[LighthorseLee]

Goes to show that if he existed he is either a Liar,Lunatic, or God.

[Streetbull]

Uhm alright. Is there really argument that as a historical figure he never existed? Not sure what this thread is for

Lots. jf1 and numerous will say he was Mithros and sundry other beings.

Was the Jesus story embellished? Probably. Did Jesus exist? Yes, as MisterCollie proved. Well done, btw!

[mistercollie]

Why is there not a single contemporaneous account of jesus or his followers?

History is written after the fact by professional historians, commentators, and contemporaries. The data compiled in the synoptic gospels (and over 4,000 manuscripts) posit the details given by his contemporaries. No one directly took credit for the authorship of the data as it was compiled from multiple witnesses & obviously contemporaries.

Your rebuttal is not really a rebuttal. The gospel of John, by the way, could very well fit the bill of a "contemporary gospel". And...

There are millions of references to Harry Potter and, video...

... welcome to the 21st century.

Uhm alright. Is there really argument that as a historical figure he never existed? Not sure what this thread is for

This thread is a direct response to the personal conjectures of numerous agnostics in this thread: thread.

[Streetbull]

My only critique would be that Seutonius, in his 12 Caesars, is more a court gossip than historian. Tacitus is beyond reproach though.

[wings_unhinged]

There's no reason to deny the existence of Jesus. He was someone. We'll likely never figure out who.

[Rune]

it's really the magic part I have issues with.

[ViolentZ]

All your passages are decades away after jesus's death (Anno Domini)

Tacitus

In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians—a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century—six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time—so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.

Google translation from dutch


Suetonius

In Suetonius - The Life of the 12 emperors becomes 1 mention made ​​of a raised Chrestus who is brought in by Jews living in Rome by Claudius in the year 49 are banned for riot anxious because they do not agree with the treatment of that Chrestus. Suetonius wrote that book 70 years later and also the book itself is considered as work gossip. On 1 reference after a wrong name is not really a historical source to mention.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger in 112 or 113 mentions in a letter to Trajan (the Emperor at that time) about Christians who adhere to Christ being a god. No evidence that Jesus would have lived, but a mention of a divine Christ. The basis of Christianity, in fact.

Tacitus

Tacitus, the records of 109. A statement about Christ put to death by Pontius Pilate. Even by Christian scholars assumed that the reference to Christ by Tacitus is taken from Christians themselves. Possibly from the Gospels. He uses the title of Jesus is not his name where he was known.

The OT is already based on a series of fictional characters and events. Why would it suddenly NT should be based on actual existing characters? Is it not as the scribes that the trick of the OT in the NT simply re-tried?

The problem is not even that of the existence of Jesus is no direct evidence can be found, he lived even for his time not too long. The problem lies in that of persons directly connected to Jesus no evidence is found, not even in the history of contemporary people. Also from Paul or Saul of Tarsus is no direct evidence to find, although how he's the most wonderful journeys made.

From Pharaohs we can still mummy's watch, of quite a few historic leaders are coins found beaten in the time she lived for many leaders are statues found from the same time that they lived, many historical figures, descriptions can be found by contemporary writers have recorded. Of Jesus, the 12 apostles, Paul and others is nothing tangible to find. Well adapted passages such as Josephus, or Gospels that describe Jesus' life should give. But when it comes to an objective source is nothing to find except for lateral entries for many decades after the alleged death of Jesus.

Dawkins (possible), Hitchens and a whole host of other modern scholars agree that Jesus was a myth. That they can (still) not to break the consensus is that Jesus existed, but the first to doubt the existence of Jesus is only a few hundred years old while the foundations of faith many centuries has taken longer.


It is also true that there are no authentic records or books of that time which can be dropped. Everything is written in later centuries and in Josephus are even many theologians agree that the Testimonium Flavianum whole or in part is a forgery.

Of course we also have the New Testament as a source but first there are adjustments made ​​for centuries and secondly it is highly debatable whether the first books of the New Testament really written by apostles. If 1 of the apostles could be proved historically, there is also equal more evidence for Jesus' life course. The problem is that the 12 apostles can not be proven and other apostles like Paul (Saul) of Tarsus either. But these issues are already discussed in this thread.

As long as no new evidence can be found that 1 of the apostles or Jesus really lived, there is little to suggest that the stories of the New Testament contain a grain of truth.

[Godfrd824]

Who cares if he existed, it makes no difference, I want prove that he had magical powers.

[mistercollie]

All your passages are decades away after jesus's death (Anno Domini)

Tacitus, Google translation from dutch
Suetonius
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus

Your fruitless Google search in no way discredits the original perspective of each of these historians - that Yehoshua Christos was an actual historical figure that lived, taught, and was put to death.

[1] Your rebuttal to Tacitus is not a rebuttal. It is a picking at straws. Your Google author even had to extend his words by playing on the timeline of the event by claiming it was nearly a century after the fact. It was actually ~70 years after the fact. Which, by most written records of history, is perfectly acceptable.

[2] Your rebuttal to Suetonius is also incredibly weak, but at least it qualifies as a rebuttal. However, it too is a grasping at straws. It was common for both pagan and Christian authors to spell the name using either an e or an i- and we know the Christian authors were obviously referring to Yehoshua when they spelled the name as Chrestus.

The pagans criticized the spelling of Christos as a way to discredit them. This does not change the fact that the Chrestus spoken of was Yehoshua Christos:

Tertullian: Most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name... It is wrongly pronounced by you as "Chrestians" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate)... But the special ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder. (Apology, Chapter III)

Lactantius: But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call him Chrestus. (Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries)

Justin Martyr (a Christian apologist) used the spelling of Chrestian to appeal to the pagan audience in his First Apology IV.

[3] Pliny did not need to comment on the historicity of Jesus. It was very obvious that people who were unrelenting in their faith in Yehoshua that he had to be real. People will not line up in droves, from all different ages, races, and genders, in the streets and willingly die for a person that never existed. Your rebuttal posits no counter-evidence.

The OT is already based on a series of fictional characters and events. Why would it suddenly NT should be based on actual existing characters? Is it not as the scribes that the trick of the OT in the NT simply re-tried?

Induction methodology, built on baseless assertions.

The problem is not even that of the existence of Jesus is no direct evidence can be found, he lived even for his time not too long. The problem lies in that of persons directly connected to Jesus no evidence is found, not even in the history of contemporary people. Also from Paul or Saul of Tarsus is no direct evidence to find, although how he's the most wonderful journeys made.

From Pharaohs we can still mummy's watch, of quite a few historic leaders are coins found beaten in the time she lived for many leaders are statues found from the same time that they lived, many historical figures, descriptions can be found by contemporary writers have recorded. Of Jesus, the 12 apostles, Paul and others is nothing tangible to find. Well adapted passages such as Josephus, or Gospels that describe Jesus' life should give. But when it comes to an objective source is nothing to find except for lateral entries for many decades after the alleged death of Jesus.

Yeah, a sectarian religious movement should have had the same amount of evidence of national figures, ones that actually owned, ruled, and fought wars with people & property.

The preservation of Yehoshua's historicity was maintained in writing. We have thousands of manuscripts, most of which are dated copies from only 50-100 years after his existence. This is a huge triumph given the standards of ancient history. Very few persons have thousands of written documents, coming into origin shortly after their existence, to support their existence.

In fact, many people that were supremely influential in their nation were lost for thousands of years - archaeological "findings" (contrasted with deliberated preservation) is the only reason we have come to know they exist.

Dawkins (possible), Hitchens and a whole host of other modern scholars agree that Jesus was a myth. That they can (still) not to break the consensus is that Jesus existed, but the first to doubt the existence of Jesus is only a few hundred years old while the foundations of faith many centuries has taken longer.

Antitheists' overcritical rejection of the historicity of the narratives is based fundamentally on atheological rather than historiographical grounds.

It is far more logical to reject the authenticity of the claims of divine revelation. Thus, it is quite possible that Yehoshua may have existed and yet not have been the Son of God. It is equally possible that ancient Israelites may have believed that God intervened in their history and recorded their perceptions of that intervention in the context of the actual historical events in which they lived.

Yet, we also have a number of secular sources that back up these events, making your position bankrupt when it comes to logic and empiricism.

Of course we also have the New Testament as a source but first there are adjustments made ​​for centuries and secondly it is highly debatable whether the first books of the New Testament really written by apostles. If 1 of the apostles could be proved historically, there is also equal more evidence for Jesus' life course. The problem is that the 12 apostles can not be proven and other apostles like Paul (Saul) of Tarsus either. But these issues are already discussed in this thread.

As long as no new evidence can be found that 1 of the apostles or Jesus really lived, there is little to suggest that the stories of the New Testament contain a grain of truth.

This is actually counter-intuitive to your stance. If the writings were truly a forgery, then what is the honest purpose of the material and of their objective? This is pointless conspiracy at this point. The inductive reasoning here is pathetic.

There is no particular author that took credit for any of the material, accept for some of the letters and books of the apostles, as it was completely unnecessary to set this as an empirical standard for future generations to analyze. The writers cared far more about the messages than their own identity.

[r0gue6]

In on troll thread.

[Cheezerman]

lol, nice try, i still don't believe that homosexual existed.

[lucious]

Congrats, youve made a substantive case that some sort of jewish rabbi developed a following at some time.




Now, the evidence that he had supernatural abilities?

[Weightaholic]

Was the Jesus story embellished? Probably. Did a Jesus exist? Yes, as MisterCollie proved. Well done, btw!

Corrected.

[Maiar]

who gives a f-ck? Christianity is still a crock of sh-t and that's what you should worry about.

[semitope]

The OT is already based on a series of fictional characters and events.

No?

[jf1]

Goes to show that if he existed he is either a Liar,Lunatic, or God.

NO.
He doesnt have to be any of those.
His followers and evangelists certainly were liars; the frauds that wrote the gospels.

Lots. jf1 and numerous will say he was Mithros and sundry other beings.

This is not the first time you have done this.
I NEVER have discussed Mithras, as I have little interest in any mythology.

Was the Jesus story embellished? Probably. Did Jesus exist? Yes, as MisterCollie proved. Well done, btw!

Mr collie has not proved anything.
The evidence for a man named Jesus is scant and dubious...but, for the sake of argument I do not deny that a first century Jewish iconoclast named Jesus existed.

it's really the magic part I have issues with.

This.

There's no reason to deny the existence of Jesus. He was someone. We'll likely never figure out who.

We can easily figure out who he was when we disallow the acceptance of magic.

Congrats, youve made a substantive case that some sort of jewish rabbi developed a following at some time.

This.

Now, the evidence that he had supernatural abilities?

NONE.

who gives a f-ck? Christianity is still a crock of sh-t and that's what you should worry about.

Thats the way I feel too.

[Harbinger]

No?

I'm afraid so little buddy.

[MesoPeaks]

it's actually in the history of the roman empire. Deal with it, haters.

[Scoundrel]

OP, why you calling him yehoshua and not yeshua?

[Tamorlane]

I find it amusing how fascinated people are at proving whether the man existed or not. It reminds me of a story :

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, "That's a cup." The Frenchman answers, "No it's not. It's a tasse." The Chinese comments, "You're both wrong. It's a pet." And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says "What fools you are. It's a cawan." The Englishman gets a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, "I can prove that it is a cup. My dictionary says so." "Then your dictionary is wrong," says the French- man "Because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse." The Chinese scoffs at them. "My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right. And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be a pet." While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup. After he has drunk, he says to the others, "Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pet or a cawan, a cup is meant to be used. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst."

You can argue about the implications of his existence, but he was a teacher. His teachings have been completely perverted. As has been said, the bible and history are words of men.

[Carpig]

who gives a f-ck? Christianity is still a crock of sh-t and that's what you should worry about.

What's wrong with the philosophy of Christianity? Whether or not you believe in the mystical/divine portion of the religion, the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are timeless.

[Harbinger]

What's wrong with the philosophy of Christianity? Whether or not you believe in the mystical/divine portion of the religion, the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are timeless.

Which teachings, the stuff about only beating your slaves when they deserve it or the lake of fire stuff?

[Tamorlane]

What's wrong with the philosophy of Christianity? Whether or not you believe in the mystical/divine portion of the religion, the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are timeless.

contradictions for one. If it's going to act as a shepherd to the sheep, then perhaps the message should be more clear. Hence the perversion of man into a "divine" book. I do believe the books have some perhaps divine teachings, as do most major religions, but in Christianity they are so perverted, manipulated and simply just mistranslated to the point that people today are acting completely different than how the teachings would have prescribed. We see the typical one-day a week Christian, or you know, casting the first and many stones type of deal.

[r0gue6]

Achilles and Thor have more proof of existence than Jesus ever did.

[BobisMighty]

pliny the younger and pliny the elder are excellent beers.