The Case for Christ

[tosca1]

The title is taken from the popular book by Lee Strobel, who'd done an investigative research to prove Jesus Christ was simply myth.....and yet, the opposite happened. He ended up proving Jesus Christ existed.

This thread will prove that Jesus Christ did exist.


There are historical documents that made mention of Christ. One such document came from Tacitus, a Roman historian.

This is an excerpt from a very long article.

His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value.
Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. 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: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center 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.



Tacitus turns out to be an extremely rich source of data that confirms important aspects of Christian history:

He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This militates against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological head of Christianity.
He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius.
He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a time. This would hint at the probability that Christianity was recognized to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This militates against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan religious ideas.
He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were dying for their faith

Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth refuted. Did Jesus exist?

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[40][41] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[41] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[5][6][7][41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The title is taken from the popular book by Lee Strobel, who'd done an investigative research to prove Jesus Christ was simply myth.....and yet, the opposite happened. He ended up proving Jesus Christ existed.

This thread will prove that Jesus Christ did exist.


There are historical documents that made mention of Christ. One such document came from Tacitus, a Roman historian.

This is an excerpt from a very long article.



Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth refuted. Did Jesus exist?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

I've read it. He didn't prove Christ existed.

You'll have to do better than that.

A more interesting topic would be 'Did the supernatural events described in the bible and attributed to Christ really happen?", since whether there was actually a historical figure named Jesus Christ or not (and it's likely there was), those are the things central to the veracity of what most people consider to be the case for Christ.

 

[Realitywins]

The faithful are forever bringing up Josephus, Eusebius and Tacitus, ignorant of or unwilling to admit to the fact such references were interpolations or forgeries added by later xian apologists attempting to put flesh on their imaginary man. Even the Catholic church finally admitted these were forgeries. It should also be noted, even of they weren't forgeries, they were written long after the time and so the very best one could say for them would be that they were not only merely hear-say, but hear-say far removed for the alleged events and thus completely unreliable.

 

[RAMOSS]

I've read it. He didn't prove Christ existed.

You'll have to do better than that.

A more interesting topic would be 'Did the supernatural events described in the bible and attributed to Christ really happen?", since whether there was actually a historical figure named Jesus Christ or not (and it's likely there was), those are the things central to the veracity of what most people consider to be the case for Christ.

WHen it comes to Tacitus, let's make some assumptions. Let's make the assumption that the passage attributed to tacit us is genuine (a case I think could be made that it is a 10th century forgery)...

But, Tacitus, if he wrote that passage, wrote it in 114 CE.
Nothing he wrote was not claimed by Christians earlier.
Tacitus used the name 'Chrestus' for Jesus, which was a name that was similar to a Greek name. This shows he was introduced to the idea as the title Jesus was given by the Christians later, which would indicate getting the information from Christians, or from someone who got the information from Christians.

This would be evidence that Christians existed in the early 2nd century. It says nothing about the origin or accuracy of Christian belief.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

when it comes to tacitus, let's make some assumptions. Let's make the assumption that the passage attributed to tacit us is genuine (a case i think could be made that it is a 10th century forgery)...

But, tacitus, if he wrote that passage, wrote it in 114 ce.
Nothing he wrote was not claimed by christians earlier.
Tacitus used the name 'chrestus' for jesus, which was a name that was similar to a greek name. This shows he was introduced to the idea as the title jesus was given by the christians later, which would indicate getting the information from christians, or from someone who got the information from christians.

This would be evidence that christians existed in the early 2nd century. It says nothing about the origin or accuracy of christian belief.

shhhhhh!!!!!!

 

[Dragonfly]

This thread will prove that Jesus Christ did exist.

It most certainly will NOT. :roll:

 

[Visbek]

This thread will prove that Jesus Christ did exist.

Uh huh

Well, I for one have no doubt that there was a human being, named Jesus, born in the backwaters of Judea, who preached and got crucified in Jerusalem. I have no problems defending that theory. Very few scholars of the period believe the historical person did not exist.

However, making the leap from "the historical person of Jesus existed" to "Jesus was a god" is a much, much bigger leap, which I won't defend. Like... at all.

 

[USViking]

Listen, Threadstarter: the issue is not whether Christ existed- he did.

The issue is whether Christ was God, or the Son of God, or a member
of a divine Trinity, or whatever.

How about addressing the real issue, instead of creating a fake issue, you dork.

 

[Realitywins]

Listen, Threadstarter: the issue is not whether Christ existed- he did.

The issue is whether Christ was God, or the Son of God, or a member
of a divine Trinity, or whatever.

How about addressing the real issue, instead of creating a fake issue, you dork.

No he didn't. He is totally mythical and invented about 300 year after the time when he never existed.

 

[Realitywins]

Uh huh

Well, I for one have no doubt that there was a human being, named Jesus, born in the backwaters of Judea, who preached and got crucified in Jerusalem. I have no problems defending that theory. Very few scholars of the period believe the historical person did not exist.

However, making the leap from "the historical person of Jesus existed" to "Jesus was a god" is a much, much bigger leap, which I won't defend. Like... at all.

Jesus Christ ( the latter is a title, not a name) exists solely in the minds of xians. Was there a person named Yeshua Ben Jacob? Possibly, but if so he was no messiah, more likely shepherd.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I've read it. He didn't prove Christ existed.

You'll have to do better than that.

A more interesting topic would be 'Did the supernatural events described in the bible and attributed to Christ really happen?", since whether there was actually a historical figure named Jesus Christ or not (and it's likely there was), those are the things central to the veracity of what most people consider to be the case for Christ.

tosca's other thread went around in circles trying to force certain scientific theories to match up with certain things in the Bible. That fell apart rather quickly, but the thread continues. "Proving" the historical Jesus lived should be easier. I, for one, don't even bother debating that. You asked the important question in the text I bolded.

Perhaps tosca should work on that.

 

[roughdraft274]

No he didn't. He is totally mythical and invented about 300 year after the time when he never existed.

Well that's just wrong.

 

[roughdraft274]

tosca's other thread went around in circles trying to force certain scientific theories to match up with certain things in the Bible. That fell apart rather quickly, but the thread continues. "Proving" the historical Jesus lived should be easier. I, for one, don't even bother debating that. You asked the important question in the text I bolded.

Perhaps tosca should work on that.

The other thread should have ended within the first few pages. She claimed the bible was without error and without contradictions. I showed her the same story in two different gospels where Jesus said in one to bring nothing but a staff, and one where he said to bring nothing, not even a staff. And she claimed that those weren't contradictory. Granted that it wasn't anything to do with Christian doctrine, but when you claim a book is without contradiction, factual details like that are easier to show a contradiction. She outright denied it and acted as though I was crazy for insisting that those are two different things.

 

[Cephus]

WHen it comes to Tacitus, let's make some assumptions. Let's make the assumption that the passage attributed to tacit us is genuine (a case I think could be made that it is a 10th century forgery)...

But, Tacitus, if he wrote that passage, wrote it in 114 CE.
Nothing he wrote was not claimed by Christians earlier.
Tacitus used the name 'Chrestus' for Jesus, which was a name that was similar to a Greek name. This shows he was introduced to the idea as the title Jesus was given by the Christians later, which would indicate getting the information from Christians, or from someone who got the information from Christians.

This would be evidence that Christians existed in the early 2nd century. It says nothing about the origin or accuracy of Christian belief.

This is yet another case where nobody ever mentioned these things for centuries after they were supposedly written, just like Josephus. In fact, nobody noticed this supposed passage until Sulpicius Severus wrote about it in the 5th century. Sulpicius also wrote a lot of imaginary apologetics, like Life of St. Martin. And of course, we have evidence of an 11th century monk trying to alter Tacitus' words in the earliest known manuscript (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy), where what Tacitus actually wrote, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians").

Christian forgery was widespread. We know it. We have evidence of it. But the religious just don't want to admit it.

 

[USViking]

No he didn't. He is totally mythical and invented about 300 year after the time when he never existed.

You are out of touch with reality.

And it is sad to see that the Louisiana Right wing has nothing to fear from the Louisiana Left Wing as long as the LW consists of people, such as you, whose brains have been fried by staring at too many eclipses unprotected.

 

[Cephus]

Well that's just wrong.

And your objective evidence for that claim?

 

[roughdraft274]

And your objective evidence for that claim?

That Jesus was created 300 years later? The gospels were written well before that. It's obviously false. I'm claiming to know that Jesus existed, but to say the concept of him was created 300 years later is just simply false.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The other thread should have ended within the first few pages. She claimed the bible was without error and without contradictions. I showed her the same story in two different gospels where Jesus said in one to bring nothing but a staff, and one where he said to bring nothing, not even a staff. And she claimed that those weren't contradictory. Granted that it wasn't anything to do with Christian doctrine, but when you claim a book is without contradiction, factual details like that are easier to show a contradiction. She outright denied it and acted as though I was crazy for insisting that those are two different things.

There are thousands of denominations, and that's necessary because there is a lot of disagreement about what the Bible says and means even amongst Christians. These threads feature debates between Catholics, Protestants and JW's as well as general skeptics and atheists.

Apologists have been at work on this for close to 2,000 years. One would think they'd have a very coherent case to present by now. In fact, I do think the better ones are pretty convincing at times, but when you step back and look at the big picture...

 

[FastPace]

Even the Catholic church finally admitted these were forgeries.

I don't know enough about the material to say one way or the other (I'm familiar with Josephus). But I want to point out--less for you than some person browsing this website--that I would not automatically trust every prevailing view coming out of the Catholic hierarchy which aligns with all anti-Christ views. Particularly when it comes to desire to conform in the anti-Christ "scholarly circles." People love to be accepted and included. Professional acceptance is also a strong temptation.

Catholic saints (I mean saints of the Church) have regarded Catholic clergy as having the power (ability) to lead people into hell.

I go back to the old saying: principles over personalities. But I should also include vocation and professional rank in that too. One uses that as a guide and that can help keep them from following the devil himself. Or just a person or leader that is leading people astray.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Listen, Threadstarter: the issue is not whether Christ existed- he did.

The issue is whether Christ was God, or the Son of God, or a member
of a divine Trinity, or whatever.

How about addressing the real issue, instead of creating a fake issue, you dork.

You might get dinged for that, but:lamo:lamo:lamo:mrgreen:

 

[Realitywins]

Well that's just wrong.

Really? Prove it.

 

[RAMOSS]

This is yet another case where nobody ever mentioned these things for centuries after they were supposedly written, just like Josephus. In fact, nobody noticed this supposed passage until Sulpicius Severus wrote about it in the 5th century. Sulpicius also wrote a lot of imaginary apologetics, like Life of St. Martin. And of course, we have evidence of an 11th century monk trying to alter Tacitus' words in the earliest known manuscript (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy), where what Tacitus actually wrote, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians").

Christian forgery was widespread. We know it. We have evidence of it. But the religious just don't want to admit it.

Of course, all this means is the the evidence external to the Bible is weak.. it does not 'prove' that Jesus did not exist. It is just that the evidence given for Jesus existing is weak at the very best. The evidence external to the bible that might have existed before the 4th century has been tampered with and is corrupt.. rendering it useless as evidence for the existence of historical Jesus (i.e. the Jesus for which there are no supernatural claims about).

 

[roughdraft274]

Really? Prove it.

The gospels were written prior to 300 AD. Therefor the idea of Jesus existed before 300AD. I'm not saying I can show he existed, nor am I saying that I can show writings that were written by contemporaries of Jesus. But to say the idea of him was created 300 years later is obviously wrong.

 

[MrWonka]

The title is taken from the popular book by Lee Strobel, who'd done an investigative research to prove Jesus Christ was simply myth.....and yet, the opposite happened. He ended up proving Jesus Christ existed.

This thread will prove that Jesus Christ did exist.

Even if you believe all of this. The existence of a person who called himself Jesus and claimed to be the son of god, does nothing to prove that he actually was the son of god.

If Jesus did exist, he was likely just a normal cult leader. He was no different than David Koresh. His followers simply concocted a ridiculous story about his resurrection to help expand their cult into a religion.

 

[it's just me]

Even if you believe all of this. The existence of a person who called himself Jesus and claimed to be the son of god, does nothing to prove that he actually was the son of god.

If Jesus did exist, he was likely just a normal cult leader. He was no different than David Koresh. His followers simply concocted a ridiculous story about his resurrection to help expand their cult into a religion.

Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, has been for some time. David Koresh is dead. That was a really bad comparison.