Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

[MLLMillenium]

http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20060104/1235482036.htm&ewp=ewp_news_0106jesus_debate

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona," or impersonation...

.."Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will to decide if Christ exists or not."

I wonder.. imagine if this guy won, and Jesus was found to be a hoax.. then what? What of the Vatican? What repercussions would this have?

[ArTkY_]

None at all.

[MLLMillenium]

...are you kidding me? Wow, great input.

[cantnokdahustle]

NO!
Jesus is a melding of Mithras, Dionysus, Prometheus, and other famous deities of the time.

And No! nothing will change if the court rules that Jesus, in fact, never existed. People have deluded themselves for a couple thousand years, this will not stop them.

No repercussions for the vatican either. If you can sign an accord with hitler, the reichsconcordat, and get away with it then you can do no wrong.

[oldwirehands]

This is a pretty retarded case haha.

[dai the flu]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

[Angelcrusherd]

I don't think it's going to go anywhere. Even if Cascioli did win, people are so hooked on their religion that no country would dare even touch it. Their government would most likely take it to a higher court and stretch the matter out indefinitely if it meant claiming Jesus did not exist. Interesting situation though, I would love to see how pissed everyone would get if "Jesus never existed" hit the news.

[MLLMillenium]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

I never said anythign about the matter.. what the hell AREyou talking about.

Also the main question was, what if this went through the courts and as law the nation of italy decides to rule that jesus never did exist. That would ahve a HUGE impact on how things run there.

[dai the flu]

I never said anythign about the matter.. what the hell AREyou talking about.

i was talking to cantnokdahustle. sorry, i shouldve quoted him.

[MLLMillenium]

i was talking to cantnokdahustle. sorry, i shouldve quoted him.

Gotcha, I thought you ment the thread in general. I was like oh well arn't you mr smarty pants.

In anycase, the thing i wanted to bring up is basically what would happen if Italy of all places decided that the entire religon based around jesus was incorrect, woudln't thins bringabout some sort of revolt in the country and or world. I mean this appears to be a small case, but if somehting big were to happen and the nation ruled this to be law, then imagine what could happen.

[oldwirehands]

Gotcha, I thought you ment the thread in general. I was like oh well arn't you mr smarty pants.

In anycase, the thing i wanted to bring up is basically what would happen if Italy of all places decided that the entire religon based around jesus was incorrect, woudln't thins bringabout some sort of revolt in the country and or world. I mean this appears to be a small case, but if somehting big were to happen and the nation ruled this to be law, then imagine what could happen.

Then lets find out if Alah is real. Lets just rid of religion, period.

[cantnokdahustle]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.


Other than Saul of Tarsus, who wrote about the supposed existence of jesus 50- 100 years after his supposed death and subsequent "resurrection," where is this evidence you speak of?

reasons for believing in Caesar Julius would be the multiple and international sources that claim his existance during the time in which he lived, Rome kept immaculate records, yet no mention of jesus. Why is this?

"Pretend", that's not an atheistic trait; one of yours though!

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

touche and a bad ass statement my friend.

[oldwirehands]

Our history is so fucked up, its ridiculous. No one can honestly prove anything.

Believing in a religion is the same as believing reptilian shapshifters or aliens from a 12th planet called nibiru.

Its all just personal preference, not truth. I personally believe that Jesus did exist. That is my personal belief.

[oldwirehands]

Other than Saul of Tarsus, who wrote about the supposed existence of jesus 50- 100 years after his supposed death and subsequent "resurrection," where is this evidence you speak of?

reasons for believing in Caesar Julius would be the multiple and international sources that claim his existance during the time in which he lived, Rome kept immaculate records, yet no mention of jesus. Why is this?

"Pretend", that's not an atheistic trait; one of yours though!

There are multiple and international sources that claim E.T. does a lot of anal probing. Do you believe that?

[splitsecond]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

Well said. The insulted athiest bit is just sad really.

[cantnokdahustle]

claims of E.T.'s are extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now true it comes down to you personal epistemology, i.e. what you believe is reasonable to know and the conditions for claiming "knowledge." With the evidence of the life of Caesar Julius (which consist of much more than just a work by Shakespeare), it is reasonable to claim that he did indeed exist. Surely you are a skeptic to the greatest extent.

[oldwirehands]

claims of E.T.'s are extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now true it comes down to you personal epistemology, i.e. what you believe is reasonable to know and the conditions for claiming "knowledge." With the evidence of the life of Caesar Julius (which consist of much more than just a work by Shakespeare), it is reasonable to claim that he did indeed exist. Surely you are a skeptic to the greatest extent.

I do believe in life on other planets. It insane to think that out of ALL the planets in the universe, only this one has life. Our history is very VERY distorted. It all comes down to what you believe is the real story.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1892138026/sr=1-2/qid=1137815392/ref=sr_1_2/103-9868379-8123050?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Do you believe in this? Because a lot of people do.

[boekebong]

Interesting. In all likelihood the court will have to find in the affirmative or determine that it is inconclusive.

[cantnokdahustle]

I do believe in life on other planets. It insane to think that out of ALL the planets in the universe, only this one has life. Our history is very VERY distorted. It all comes down to what you believe is the real story.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1892138026/sr=1-2/qid=1137815392/ref=sr_1_2/103-9868379-8123050?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Do you believe in this? Because a lot of people do.

Is it possible that there is life on other planets, whether it be single celled or "inteligent?" Certainly with an atmosphere conducive to life, as well as other factors, it is possible. Do i believe it almost selfish to think that we are the only planet with life? certainly, but i can claim to "know" (justified belief) none of this without sufficient evidence.
The Universe is huge and ever expanding, according to contemporary physical science, and the "possibility" of life on other planets is there (but again, extraordinary proof is needed).

about the time travel thing:

I must say that i do not know enough about the particular subject to even have idea either way.

[oldwirehands]

Is it possible that there is life on other planets, whether it be single celled or "inteligent?" Certainly with an atmosphere conducive to life, as well as other factors, it is possible. Do i believe it almost selfish to think that we are the only planet with life? certainly, but i can claim to "know" (justified belief) none of this without sufficient evidence.
The Universe is huge and ever expanding, according to contemporary physical science, and the "possibility" of life on other planets is there (but again, extraordinary proof is needed).

about the time travel thing:

I must say that i do not know enough about the particular subject to even have idea either way.

Ever hear of the Drake equation?

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

[cantnokdahustle]

Ever hear of the Drake equation?

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

yeah, though i had always heard it referred to as the Sagan Equation.

[oldwirehands]

yeah, though i had always heard it referred to as the Sagan Equation.

I've never heard it called that. I know it was developed by Frank Drake. But, like I said, our history is very distorted.

[cantnokdahustle]

yes, all history has distortion, but that doesn't mean that in the presence of sufficient evidence, that we claim that a war, or leader, or event never happened. Did it happen in the way stated probably not, but none the less, evidence, whether it be anthropological or direct experience does show some "truth."

just to clarify, i am a materialist and empiricist, and this is why i give great creedence to such things as experience and artifact.

[punkrockcasual]

I want to know why someone would honestly question Jesus' existance. Like.. if they find out he didn't... two of our most beloved holidays, Easter and Christmas, would be no more.

[cantnokdahustle]

I want to know why someone would honestly question Jesus' existance. Like.. if they find out he didn't... two of our most beloved holidays, Easter and Christmas, would be no more.

we may have still had roman holidays, if not for the christian take over of their festivals, the solstice festival of saturnalia that turned into christmas, and the vernal equinox festival called the floralia (i.e. easter/eostore) . And that would have been sweet because those were almost month long festivals in which no one was allowed to work.

[yutsmcgee]

NO!
Jesus is a melding of Mithras, Dionysus, Prometheus, and other famous deities of the time.

And No! nothing will change if the court rules that Jesus, in fact, never existed. People have deluded themselves for a couple thousand years, this will not stop them.

No repercussions for the vatican either. If you can sign an accord with hitler, the reichsconcordat, and get away with it then you can do no wrong.

Wow you're ignorant

[cantnokdahustle]

Wow you're ignorant
would you mind explaining further?
perhaps a bit of support for this claim!

[preppyak]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.
ah yes, but I don't believe Charlemagne controls my life as we speak. I don't believe his every decision affects my life that I should pray to him. Do you remember that time that after Brutus stabbed Julius, he magically rose from his tomb to become our lord and savior?

Jesus is just that, a historical figure, but the flaw in your argument is that most people don't believe that those figures control our modern lives, their influence died in their time.

Poor argument really, but anyone Pro-religion will go all for it

Well said. The insulted athiest bit is just sad really.
How is it "well said". If those figures are historically inaccurate, despite the fact they come from almost exactly the same time frame (Caesar is within a 100 years of Christ's birth whatever timeline you have), then the same reports of Jesus are as flawed. On top of that, people don't place their lives on the resurrection of Charlemagne and his father dictating how I should live my life based on a set of values.

You aren't arguing history with this, you are arguing faith, an agrument that can never be won or lost, but I guess you can pretend that historical inaccuracies can lead to my beliefs being wrong?

would you mind explaining further?
perhaps a bit of support for this claim!

Don't expect support, except perhaps a quoted proverb, which carries the exact same weight as any other source of literature to me.

[preppyak]

I want to know why someone would honestly question Jesus' existance. Like.. if they find out he didn't... two of our most beloved holidays, Easter and Christmas, would be no more.
haha, shit Santa and the Easter Bunny might be gone, and I don't think I can handle the loss of those important religious figures

[cantnokdahustle]

Don't expect support, except perhaps a quoted proverb, which carries the exact same weight as any other source of literature to me.

Yeah, I know. It's just disheartening to witness.

[preppyak]

Yeah, I know. It's just disheartening to witness.
Here is my problem, I handed in a paper in which I labeled the bible as a "piece of literature", which is exactly what it is, but my teacher docked me because "most people don't refer to it as piece of literature".

I studied the new and old testament in school, if they aren't pieces of literature, than the seperation of church and state was violated in each of those classes.

This is my take on religion, you derive your thoughts from a set text, say mine is The Divine Comedy, either way, I can site places where my thoughts are correct, but if you aren't willing to accept that fact that people will not agree with you, you are doomed to seem like an idiot.

Thus, when someone quotes proverbs to me, or when someone cites a biblical line as the reason for my wrong doings, I always respond witha line of Twain, or Poe, or some author, because to me, their is no difference.

For example, I'll take a proverb:

"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
Proverbs 31: 6-7

Does that mean that me drinking at college is correct? Because my heart is "heavy" after a week of work, and I don't have much money, is my release not justified? I can blur the lines of the Bible as easily as I can the works of any other text, thus why I don't place my faith in it.

I understand and respect those who have their faith, but don't feed me a bullshit line like "the insulted atheist is sad really..", because I can as easily call out the fallacies of your thought

[cantnokdahustle]

Here is my problem, I handed in a paper in which I labeled the bible as a "piece of literature", which is exactly what it is, but my teacher docked me because "most people don't refer to it as piece of literature".

I studied the new and old testament in school, if they aren't pieces of literature, than the seperation of church and state was violated in each of those classes.

This is my take on religion, you derive your thoughts from a set text, say mine is The Divine Comedy, either way, I can site places where my thoughts are correct, but if you aren't willing to accept that fact that people will not agree with you, you are doomed to seem like an idiot.

Thus, when someone quotes proverbs to me, or when someone cites a biblical line as the reason for my wrong doings, I always respond witha line of Twain, or Poe, or some author, because to me, their is no difference.

For example, I'll take a proverb:

"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
Proverbs 31: 6-7

Does that mean that me drinking at college is correct? Because my heart is "heavy" after a week of work, and I don't have much money, is my release not justified? I can blur the lines of the Bible as easily as I can the works of any other text, thus why I don't place my faith in it.

I understand and respect those who have their faith, but don't feed me a bullshit line like "the insulted atheist is sad really..", because I can as easily call out the fallacies of your thought
I apologize, i don't know how to sparse texts.

anywho. yes, I agree that it is literature and, if a teacher docked you points ( i hope that wasn't a college literature class!) that's ridiculous. I also agree that there is really no difference in the bible as opposed to...lets say... The Lord of the Rings....no... lets say Twain, the greatest american author,period (except Twain had a much better grasp of grammar than did the fellow who wrote the bible).

I understand that i am in the minority, but faith is irrational, according to kierkegaard (theist), and i fail to have the capacity to believe irrational concepts.

[preppyak]

I apologize, i don't know how to sparse texts.

anywho. yes, I agree that it is literature and, if a teacher docked you points ( i hope that wasn't a college literature class!) that's ridiculous. I also agree that there is really no difference in the bible as opposed to...lets say... The Lord of the Rings....no... lets say Twain, the greatest american author,period (except Twain had a much better grasp of grammar than did the fellow who wrote the bible).

I understand that i am in the minority, but faith is irrational, according to kierkegaard (theist), and i fail to have the capacity to believe irrational concepts.
Oh, I was agreeing with you, my response came fm the people I had read earlier in the thread that had basically frustrated me (and yes, sadly, it was a college literature class). Yeah, I agree, Twain is a genius of wit and satire, and its a huge influence on my general style of comedy.

[dai the flu]

again, ill repeat what i said.
dont pretend jesus didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

dont put words in my mouth. i never asked you to follow his teachings or put faith in the different accounts of his life. you can believe whatever you want to, jesus was of divine origin or jesus was just a normal man.
my point is only this:
there is more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
you dont doubt those others existed, so why do you doubt jesus?
because you think that would make you almost christian.
(and really, whether you feel he was gods son or not, looking at his teachings, can you really think following what he said is a bad thing?)

[ClapClapSnap]

again, ill repeat what i said.
dont pretend jesus didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

dont put words in my mouth. i never asked you to follow his teachings or put faith in the different accounts of his life. you can believe whatever you want to, jesus was of divine origin or jesus was just a normal man.
my point is only this:
there is more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
you dont doubt those others existed, so why do you doubt jesus?
because you think that would make you almost christian.
(and really, whether you feel he was gods son or not, looking at his teachings, can you really think following what he said is a bad thing?)

you know what? i'm Catholic, proud of it. i went to a Catholic school and was brought up that way, but it took years for me to really think about my religion and choose to be what i am. i absolutely hate it when people like you try to force your way of thinking onto others. there is no need at all.

[dai the flu]

you know what? i'm Catholic, proud of it. i went to a Catholic school and was brought up that way, but it took years for me to really think about my religion and choose to be what i am. i absolutely hate it when people like you try to force your way of thinking onto others. there is no need at all.

how on earth am i forcing my way of thinking on others?
its a simple statement.
theres more historical evidence that jesus existed.
what is wrong with that statement?

[ClapClapSnap]

(and really, whether you feel he was gods son or not, looking at his teachings, can you really think following what he said is a bad thing?)


there's no need to say that. this discussion shouldn't have anything to do with what Jesus taught.

[dai the flu]

there's no need to say that. this discussion shouldn't have anything to do with what Jesus taught.
sorry i got off topic. just a little side note that i find hard to understand.

[ClapClapSnap]

sorry i got off topic. just a little side note that i find hard to understand.

yeah i know, i'm sorry. just that's tough for me. only four years of Catholic school, and i felt like they were throwing stuff like that down my throat, and i couldn't stand it. i would have rather made my own decisions back then [which i did end up doing, years later] instead of being pushed into Catholicism.

[ClapClapSnap]

my bad, it's early [for me] and i'm being a bitch.

[dai the flu]

my bad, it's early [for me] and i'm being a bitch.
nah its alright. its one thing to be religious because your parents force it on you. but i have respect for someone thats looked into things on there own and drawn their own conclusions. and that goes for anybody whether they're religious or not. i just need to be more open to the idea that other people think differently.

[ClapClapSnap]

nah its alright. its one thing to be religious because your parents force it on you. but i have respect for someone thats looked into things on there own and drawn their own conclusions. and that goes for anybody whether they're religious or not. i just need to be more open to the idea that other people think differently.

yeah, i know what you mean. when i went into public schools in the fifth grade, it was like, "whaat? where are all the white people?" because i went to a school where white people were a minority. sad to say, but before then i was pretty sheltered, and it just opened my eyes to other races and religions. it kind of made me mad that there was no mention of other religions in my life until then, and i stopped going to church. it wasn't until my junior year in high school that i found my way back.

[preppyak]

again, ill repeat what i said.
dont pretend jesus didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

dont put words in my mouth. i never asked you to follow his teachings or put faith in the different accounts of his life. you can believe whatever you want to, jesus was of divine origin or jesus was just a normal man.
my point is only this:
there is more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
you dont doubt those others existed, so why do you doubt jesus?
because you think that would make you almost christian.
(and really, whether you feel he was gods son or not, looking at his teachings, can you really think following what he said is a bad thing?)

Well, I thank you for responding by putting words in my mouth, but I actually see your point, it's just the response by Spiltsecond that angered me.

I don't care about being labeled a Christian, because I know that though my parents went to church and followed their faith that way, I don't actually follow the same beliefs.

But, I do agree with you in this case being a historical debate, but I don't see how they can possibly prove it in court when so much of the evidence is largely textual and not physical.

[justinevans]

He existed, but he was of darker skin than people believe. Just came with the territory he was from.

[cantnokdahustle]

again, ill repeat what i said.
dont pretend jesus didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.

dont put words in my mouth. i never asked you to follow his teachings or put faith in the different accounts of his life. you can believe whatever you want to, jesus was of divine origin or jesus was just a normal man.
my point is only this:
there is more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
you dont doubt those others existed, so why do you doubt jesus?
because you think that would make you almost christian.
(and really, whether you feel he was gods son or not, looking at his teachings, can you really think following what he said is a bad thing?)

please, answer my question. What is this evidence you speak of? Outside of Scripture, and a somewhat suspect mention in Josephus, there is zero historical evidence for the existance of jesus. I absolutely invite you to receive my comments with the utmost skepticism. Please, go and research it yourself, as well as the most beloved deities of the time, and just how similar they are to the christ. If i am missing information i would be most appreciative to be pointed in the correct direction.

And your statement about, me denying the christ existed, because if i did not it would make me almost xtian is just ridiculous. I only have to reject his divinity to not be a xtian. The Muslims believe jesus (Issa) existed, they just don't believe he was the "Christ." And certainly "they" are not xtians.

[cantnokdahustle]

(and really, whether you feel he was gods son or not, looking at his teachings, can you really think following what he said is a bad thing?)
Yes, and here are a couple of examples why.

Matthew Chapter 10 verse 35: Think not that i come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

this is the one i have a major problem with in Matthew : 10:37


He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[oldwirehands]

please, answer my question. What is this evidence you speak of? Outside of Scripture, and a somewhat suspect mention in Josephus, there is zero historical evidence for the existance of jesus. I absolutely invite you to receive my comments with the utmost skepticism. Please, go and research it yourself, as well as the most beloved deities of the time, and just how similar they are to the christ. If i am missing information i would be most appreciative to be pointed in the correct direction.

And your statement about, me denying the christ existed, because if i did not it would make me almost xtian is just ridiculous. I only have to reject his divinity to not be a xtian. The Muslims believe jesus (Issa) existed, they just don't believe he was the "Christ." And certainly "they" are not xtians.

Paintings and plenty of them. What about the Gospel of Thomas? Also, almost every civilization has their story much like Jesus'. Somewhere in history, there was a form of Jesus.

[Saves The Night]

This isnt exactly something that a court can just make a decision on. That would be like the courts deciding whether a particular band was good or not...its jut not the kind of thing courts need to be worrying themselves with.

[cantnokdahustle]

Paintings and plenty of them. What about the Gospel of Thomas? Also, almost every civilization has their story much like Jesus'. Somewhere in history, there was a form of Jesus.

1)paintings made 100's of years after the supposed existence of jesus are not what i would call evidence, as there are non that are from the period spanning what we would call 0- 33ADish.

2) I disagree, since jesus is mostly a melding of Mithras, prometheus, and Dionysus, and surely they did not ever exist... woah....wait... do you just mean some fellow named Jesus, or do you mean The "Christ"?

[dai the flu]

please, answer my question. What is this evidence you speak of?

ready to do some research?
ancient writers tacitus, suetonius, josephus, pliny the younger, all mention jesus as being an actual person.
new encyclopaedia britannica:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
plus the gospels, eyewitness accounts, all bear witness to him.

this is more evidence than any other historical figure that you no doubt accept as being real.
so why dont you accept it? answer my question now. what drives you to try and prove he didnt exist?

[Cal Smith]

You take an ancient history class that cover that time and you'll study Jesus. I find it funny that a couple of idiots can cause such a stir.

[cantnokdahustle]

ready to do some research?
ancient writers tacitus, suetonius, josephus, pliny the younger, all mention jesus as being an actual person.
new encyclopaedia britannica:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
plus the gospels, eyewitness accounts, all bear witness to him.

this is more evidence than any other historical figure that you no doubt accept as being real.
so why dont you accept it? answer my question now. what drives you to try and prove he didnt exist?


I am rather curious as to how it is your logic works? You cite Suetonius who is most famous for his writings entitled, get this, "The Twelve Caesars," In which he makes numerous references to Caesar Julius. In one of his writings he does, one time, make reference to a "Chrestus," who may refer to Christ, but the dates for Suetonius are 70 AD- 130AD, so again, NOT A CONTEMPORARY. So one refernce to what might be christ, while an entire work on the Caesars, and that makes you believe that there is more evidence of Jesus than there is of Caesar Julius. Now, No Suetonius, obviously, was not a contemporary of caesar, but there are those pesky writings caesar himself left us, as well as numerous official roman records with his signature.

Pliney the younger- 63-113Ca- again not a contemporary of jesus.
Tacitus- 56- 117Ca

Why i do not accept that "the Christ" ever existed is the same reason i do not believe that Zues, the titans, Mithras, Dionysus, etc... ever existed. They are characters that humans have invented.
It is not specifically Jesus, but there are many reasons not to believe that "The Christ" ever existed due to the lack of physical historical evidence. No evidence has ever been found to be contemporary with jesus. ever.
If there had been someone such as Jesus, as the bible describes him, the Romans would have had numerous records of him, being as how they did not take kindly to those who stirred up any type of "trouble."

[Cal Smith]

Looking at everything rationale there is really no way to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with actual physical evidence that Jesus was a real person. You wouldnt expect there to be a lot of physical evidence. He was simply a Jewish carpenter, I'd challenge anyone to prove any specific Jewish carpenter of that time existed with physical evidence? Yet, we know they did exist.

Jesus was not a Pharaoh, Emperor, nor King. Had he been you might have burial tombs, documents, etc.... So why do 99% of history accept and teach Jesus as being a real person? Because there is so many accounts of him and what he did. Whether you believe the Bible is The Word of God or not, the historical accounts in the Bible of people and events are very compellling. That is why Jesus is commonly accepted as being real, and is taught in University's around the globe.

[dai the flu]

what do you want? pictures?
this is retarded. you claim that jesus is a myth. but everything else in the bible in reference to jesus' lifetime is consistent with accepted proven history. the dates, the people, the events, all of it is consistent with outside sources, yet you believe that the one man it all revolves around is a myth.
you want contemporaries? the gospel accounts. josephus. nothing they say can be disregarded as being inconsistent with whats commonly known about that time. everything they talk about is historically accurate.
but no, those arent good enough for you.


and i do not care whether julius caesar was real or not, thats not my point. the point is, there is more evidence that jesus exists than all those other people mentioned, yet you do not doubt their existence. so why jesus?

[cantnokdahustle]

So why do 99% of history accept and teach Jesus as being a real person? Because there is so many accounts of him and what he did. Whether you believe the Bible is The Word of God or not, the historical accounts in the Bible of people and events are very compellling. That is why Jesus is commonly accepted as being real, and is taught in University's around the globe.

I have taken numerous courses in Roman history, as a classics and philosophy major, and no class has ever mentioned a historical "Christ."

Now, you are correct in saying that it is widely held that jesus was a real person, i disagree that the percent is 99% of historians (i think that is what the word was supposed to be). it's really more in the realm of 75-80%, still well in the majority though.

what exactly do you mean by "compelling?" Easy to identify with?

[cantnokdahustle]

what do you want? pictures?
this is retarded. you claim that jesus is a myth. but everything else in the bible in reference to jesus' lifetime is consistent with accepted proven history. the dates, the people, the events, all of it is consistent with outside sources, yet you believe that the one man it all revolves around is a myth.
you want contemporaries? the gospel accounts. josephus. nothing they say can be disregarded as being inconsistent with whats commonly known about that time. everything they talk about is historically accurate.
but no, those arent good enough for you.


and i do not care whether julius caesar was real or not, thats not my point. the point is, there is more evidence that jesus exists than all those other people mentioned, yet you do not doubt their existence. so why jesus?

Josephus was born four fucking years after the supposed resurrection of "The Christ."
The Gospels did not surface until several decades after the supposed resurrection of 'The Christ"

Outside of the BIBLE there is NO evidence that "the christ" ever existed. NONE

One poorly written piece of literature with numerous contradictions and historical inaccuracies is not enough to prove anything.

You keep saying that there is more evidence of jesus than there is of Caesar Julius, yet you have come up with nothing that would compare to the plethora of historical evidence for the existence of Caesar Julius.

[Cal Smith]

I have taken numerous courses in Roman history, as a classics and philosophy major, and no class has ever mentioned a historical "Christ."

I'm not arguing him as Christ or not. Are you to insecure to realize it's an argument based on the person Jesus, and not whether you or I accept him as Christ?

Now, you are correct in saying that it is widely held that jesus was a real person, i disagree that the percent is 99% of historians (i think that is what the word was supposed to be). it's really more in the realm of 75-80%, still well in the majority though.

what exactly do you mean by "compelling?" Easy to identify with?

Name me THREE higher institution of learning that teaches Jesus was not an actual person? By your numbers you've got a 25-20% shot of finding one.

[TBSguitar]

yeah, christ was a real person. but the real question is if what happened in the bible is really true? are supposed facts like jesus was born on december 25th really true or that he was purely white with long hair? well he wasn't born on december 25th, i mean christians celebrate a holiday called "immaculate conception" or whatever for the day that he was supposedly conceived. and this holiday happens in december. he was actually born in the spring, but the christians said dec. 25th because it was a celebrated holiday in the middle ages for some guy named mithrias or something, i think. and because it was such a popular holiday, christians claimed it for jesus to probably gain popularity.

and the guy lived in the middle east. and he was jewish. most jewish people from the middle east arent white. and it has been said that jesus wouldn't have long hair during the time he lived because it wasn't viewed right by other jews.

so again, the real question isn't if jesus existed, because he did. the question is if all the stories said about jesus are true. don't get me wrong, i believe jesus existed.

[Cal Smith]

Josephus was born four fucking years after the supposed resurrection of "The Christ."
The Gospels did not surface until several decades after the supposed resurrection of 'The Christ"

Outside of the BIBLE there is NO evidence that "the christ" ever existed. NONE

One poorly written piece of literature with numerous contradictions and historical inaccuracies is not enough to prove anything.

You keep saying that there is more evidence of jesus than there is of Caesar Julius, yet you have come up with nothing that would compare to the plethora of historical evidence for the existence of Caesar Julius.

That's flat out wrong, and I'll even make a deal with you. If i can show you source OUTSIDE the Bible that have accounts of Jesus and are considered reliable. You agree to admit you're putting you own religious beliefs (or lack there of) in front of what the history shows.

Deal............?

[cantnokdahustle]

I'm not arguing him as Christ or not. Are you to insecure to realize it's an argument based on the person Jesus, and not whether you or I accept him as Christ?



Name me THREE higher institution of learning that teaches Jesus was not an actual person? By your numbers you've got a 25-20% shot of finding one.


not all historians are college professors, i stated an estimate of historians (ambiguous). And without him being "the Christ" (ie no miracles, not the son of god, no prophecy, etc...) no body gives a shit about some carpenter named jesus.

[Darren McLeod]

This whole arguement is ridiculous. First of all, calling the Bible a poorly written piece of literature is simply bizarre. It has been translated numerous times, the chances of it having the same impact in English as it does in its original tongue is highly unlikely. Not only that, but it was (supposedly) written by followers. These men weren't educated linguists, they were ordinary men who felt inspired by a man with a mission of good will. Giving two excerpts from the Bible that try to paint Jesus is a poor light is useless when the rest of the text displays him as a pacifist who clearly loved his fellow man. Not only that, but you completely misinterpreted the text. If you read the rest of the chapter, you'll see that when Jesus says he is a "sword,"he is using is a simple metaphor, saying that his teachings will cause disrupt in the households around him, and that the Apostles (who will be going into villages to spread the word of Christ) will have a lot of hardship to go through. Nice attempt, though.

This trial is ridiculous.

[cantnokdahustle]

That's flat out wrong, and I'll even make a deal with you. If i can show you source OUTSIDE the Bible that have accounts of Jesus and are considered reliable. You agree to admit you're putting you own religious beliefs (or lack there of) in front of what the history shows.

Deal............?

yes, please show me one shred of evidence that is contemporary with the supposed life of jesus, that would show he did in fact exist, i will of course conceed the argument if you can do this.

keep in mind, that even the most conservative historian dates the gospels to 80AD almost 50 years after the life of jesus.

[Cal Smith]

not all historians are college professors, i stated an estimate of historians (ambiguous). And without him being "the Christ" (ie no miracles, not the son of god, no prophecy, etc...) no body gives a shit about some carpenter named jesus.

The idea of him being Christ is an important one when it comes to faith obviously but not this. The story this thread is about, and the argument is about whether a person named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Plain and simple. Yes, some believed him to be the son of God which in turn has changed our world since that time. Some believe he was simply a prophet, and some believe him as a con artist. You pick what you want to believe. Either way it doesnt change the argument at hand.

[dai the flu]

Dude, ya wanna explain to me how theres is TONS of evidence jesus existed outside of YOUR bible?
outside of the christian bible?
try the talmud.

[Cal Smith]

yes, please show me one shred of evidence that is contemporary with the supposed life of jesus, that would show he did in fact exist, i will of course conceed the argument if you can do this.

keep in mind, that even the most conservative historian dates the gospels to 80AD almost 50 years after the life of jesus.

Check out The Annals by Tacitus.

Here's the actual Annals (http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.1.i.html)

here's an excert (http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russian/Bulgakov/public_html/Tacitus.html)from the part you should focus on.

"Part of this passage (Bk 15) in the Annals (109) reads
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 Judaea, 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."

So there you have a shred of evidence discussing Jesus outside of the Bible. Now your end of the deal............

[cantnokdahustle]

The idea of him being Christ is an important one when it comes to faith obviously but not this. The story this thread is about, and the argument is about whether a person named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Plain and simple. Yes, some believed him to be the son of God which in turn has changed our world since that time. Some believe he was simply a prophet, and some believe him as a con artist. You pick what you want to believe. Either way it doesnt change the argument at hand.

it most certainly does change the argument at hand. Though there is evidence of a historical king arthur, we know that he is not what the mythos has said of him, and that is important.

[Darren McLeod]

The argument at hand is whether Jesus Christ existed or not. It is not whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, died on the Cross, or anything like that.

[cantnokdahustle]

Check out The Annals by Tacitus.

Here's the actual Annals (http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.1.i.html)

here's an excert (http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russian/Bulgakov/public_html/Tacitus.html)from the part you should focus on.

"Part of this passage (Bk 15) in the Annals (109) reads
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 Judaea, 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."

So there you have a shred of evidence discussing Jesus outside of the Bible. Now your end of the deal............

again, not fucking contemporary to the time of JESUS CHRIST! he was born ca 56AD, perhaps you can find more? I will offer my concession if you can stick to the format.

[Darren McLeod]

It's also notable that Tacitus was opposed to Christianity, and thought of it as mischief and superstition, meaning that it wouldn't have been in his interest to write about Jesus, yet because he was a historian (considered one of the greatest historians of Rome, I believe), he did mention it.

[jsteil]

what do you want? pictures?
this is retarded. you claim that jesus is a myth. but everything else in the bible in reference to jesus' lifetime is consistent with accepted proven history. the dates, the people, the events, all of it is consistent with outside sources, yet you believe that the one man it all revolves around is a myth.
you want contemporaries? the gospel accounts. josephus. nothing they say can be disregarded as being inconsistent with whats commonly known about that time. everything they talk about is historically accurate.
but no, those arent good enough for you.


and i do not care whether julius caesar was real or not, thats not my point. the point is, there is more evidence that jesus exists than all those other people mentioned, yet you do not doubt their existence. so why jesus?

Actually certian events are being challenged today about some of the accuracy of the bible. There are compelling arguements about certain settings and things that happened. One of them is when Jesus went to Guatemala and had crowds of people (mostly poor peasants that could afford to take the day off to walk with Jesus) following him. The scriptures talk of jesus walking up a mountain to talk to a crowd of people. In another gospel it says hillside and not mountain, with a flat plain were he could talk to everyone (which would be the 5000 people he fed). Science and historians have done some research on this and it would take almost every town around Galilee concisting of 1000 people for 100's of miles.

Another one is about the beheading of John the Baptist and Jesus knowing his time was coming.

There also doing some dna testing on the dead sea scrolls so they can accuratly put everything together.

There are many more, but to be honest this doesnt really matter just do what you do and what feel right to you spiritually.

To the person saying that there is more evidence that Jesus existed than most of the roman ceasars is not accurate, but thats from what I've researched. To be blunt I think the Roman Catholic church fucked up things along time ago, not just for the Catholics but for the other secs that branch off of it.

[cantnokdahustle]

The argument at hand is whether Jesus Christ existed or not. It is not whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, died on the Cross, or anything like that.
i have a friend named jesus, but guess what with out the mythos, no one cares.

[Cal Smith]

again, not fucking contemporary to the time of JESUS CHRIST! he was born ca 56AD, perhaps you can find more? I will offer my concession if you can stick to the format.

Wait.........why don't you want a source from the Time of Jesus? I would figure the closer the source to his time the better?

[Cal Smith]

It's also notable that Tacitus was opposed to Christianity, and thought of it as mischief and superstition, meaning that it wouldn't have been in his interest to write about Jesus, yet because he was a historian (considered one of the greatest historians of Rome, I believe), he did mention it.

Thank you for posting!

[Cal Smith]

i have a friend named jesus, but guess what with out the mythos, no one cares.

Seriously..........are you that dense to not recognize the argument?

The question is of Jesus being a real person, it's the same Jesus if you believe him to be Christ or not. They're referring to both ideas of Jesus trying to establish if he was a real person.

[Darren McLeod]

i have a friend named jesus, but guess what with out the mythos, no one cares.
Yes, nobody would care about Jesus without the mythology surrounding him, yet that's not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not a man named Jesus existed when people believe he did, because that is what the courts are deciding. The courts are not deciding if Jesus walked on water, they are just in some trial to decide if he existed or not.

[Darren McLeod]

Cal, go on AIM.

[cantnokdahustle]

Wait.........why don't you want a source from the Time of Jesus? I would figure the closer the source to his time the better?
perhaps we should look up the meaning of contemporary and how it was used in the sentence.

a contemporary of jesus is someone who was around at the same time as he is stated to have been.

[Darren McLeod]

This argument is going to continue going in circles.

[Cal Smith]

perhaps we should look up the meaning of contemporary and how it was used in the sentence.

a contemporary of jesus is someone who was around at the same time as he is stated to have been.

Yes, and between Jesus and Tacitus you are talking 20-30 years between. It's be like me writing a history lesson of the 60's or 70's in modern time.

20-30 years is very contemporary. Will you keep your end of the deal up?

You said there was no source outside the Bible that has evdience of Jesus, and this Tacitus is clearly within a good time frame, considered reliable, and talks of Jesus.

[cantnokdahustle]

from the article:
"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will to decide if Christ exists or not."

[Darren McLeod]

Yes, that's the point. We're arguing over his existence, not over his lifestyle.

Honestly, I could hold an apple in front of you, and tell you it's an apple, and you'd still argue that it was a banana simply because you're stuck in your ways. I realize you're anti-Christian, it's apparent from your demeanor and from your signature, but that doesn't mean you can't understand a simple argument.

[cantnokdahustle]

Yes, and between Jesus and Tacitus you are talking 20-30 years between. It's be like me writing a history lesson of the 60's or 70's in modern time.

20-30 years is very contemporary. Will you keep your end of the deal up?

You said there was no source outside the Bible that has evdience of Jesus, and this Tacitus is clearly within a good time frame, considered reliable, and talks of Jesus.

20-30 years? how do you figure? The Annals were published in 109AD.

and no you, nor i, would be a credible source for the history of the 1960's, though certainly better than even 5 years after the "death" of christ, due to the inferior ways in which data travelled at the time.

[dai the flu]

just as a side note, in looking up julius caesar, i did find numerous historical references to him existing.


but guess what?
its tacitus, suetonius, josephus....all the people that you discredit when it comes to corroborating jesus' existence.

[cantnokdahustle]

Yes, that's the point. We're arguing over his existence, not over his lifestyle.

Honestly, I could hold an apple in front of you, and tell you it's an apple, and you'd still argue that it was a banana simply because you're stuck in your ways. I realize you're anti-Christian, it's apparent from your demeanor and from your signature, but that doesn't mean you can't understand a simple argument.

las casas was a xtian, jackass!

[Darren McLeod]

Are you so afraid of the word Christ that you have to put an X through it? It's not going to kill you, buddy.

[Gabe Gross]

Yeah im gonna go recycle all my history books because no matter what happens in this case...i only believe the history handed down by my own self-knowlege

[cantnokdahustle]

just as a side note, in looking up julius caesar, i did find numerous historical references to him existing.


but guess what?
its tacitus, suetonius, josephus....all the people that you discredit when it comes to corroborating jesus' existence.


please reread post #53 and try to realize that the sources that those men, who are all distinguished, sans Josephus, had to deal with involving Caesar were historical documents by caesar, and members of the senate, while what they had to work with one jesus was only word of mouth and the gospels, which again surfaced (at the most conservative estimate) at ca 80AD.

[cantnokdahustle]

Are you so afraid of the word Christ that you have to put an X through it? It's not going to kill you, buddy.

holy shit, look at the numerous times i have written jesus, christ, and the combination. It is just much simpler to write an x when it comes to christians.

[Gabe Gross]

holy shit, look at the numerous times i have written jesus, christ, and the combination. It is just much simpler to write an x when it comes to christians.

where would 'holy shit' come from if it were more than just a saying?

[boekebong]

please reread post #53 and try to realize that the sources that those men, who are all distinguished, sans Josephus, had to deal with involving Caesar were historical documents by caesar, and members of the senate, while what they had to work with one jesus was only word of mouth and the gospels, which again surfaced (at the most conservative estimate) at ca 80AD.

What historical standard are you using to prove the existence of Jesus? If you are using the standard that he was written about contemporaneously I think that is a somewhat unrealistic standard. Jesus was certainly not a powerful figure during his somewhat brief life, so it seems strange that he should be written about during that time. Once his followers had made a much larger impact it seems to make more sense that he would be documented later on to contextualize their existence.

[dai the flu]

those men wouldnt be as "distinguished" if they were known to pass along myths as historical fact.
so when they say jesus existed, i tend to believe them.

[Paul Tao]

where would 'holy shit' come from if it were more than just a saying?
holy armadillos, batman

[Darren McLeod]

Yeah, it seems strange that historians just 30-40 years later would start saying Jesus was real if he wasn't.

[cantnokdahustle]

Yeah, it seems strange that historians just 30-40 years later would start saying Jesus was real if he wasn't.
perhaps this board has a bit of a problem with math the 30 40 years later applies to most of the historians birth dates, they were all well into their 40's when they started writing, so that puts us at atleast 80 years, and that is a way too long.

[cantnokdahustle]

What historical standard are you using to prove the existence of Jesus? If you are using the standard that he was written about contemporaneously I think that is a somewhat unrealistic standard. Jesus was certainly not a powerful figure during his somewhat brief life, so it seems strange that he should be written about during that time. Once his followers had made a much larger impact it seems to make more sense that he would be documented later on to contextualize their existence.

with the absence of any sort of physical artifact, this is the only standard that seems valid.

[Gabe Gross]

with the absence of any sort of physical artifact, this is the only standard that seems valid.

coughdeadseascrollscough

[boekebong]

with the absence of any sort of physical artifact, this is the only standard that seems valid.

That's not really the historical standard that we use now. In the creation of many of the so-called "identity" histories (Chicano/Latino, African American/Slave, Women's, etc.), oral traditions have been recognized by most major universities as valid historical traditions. In the absence of understanding the importance of a person (or people group) at the time, historians have used what they deemed reliable oral traditions to account for the existence of an event or person. This is much more analagous to Jesus of Nazareth than comparing him to, say, the existence of Caesar Julius.

[cantnokdahustle]

coughdeadseascrollscough

and do we know the dates of the dead sea scrolls, which by the way have nothing of the new testament (ie having to deal with jesus)

the earliest dead sea scrolls date somewhere between 21 BCE and 61 AD. again these are hebrew texts (the torah/old testament)

[cantnokdahustle]

That's not really the historical standard that we use now. In the creation of many of the so-called "identity" histories (Chicano/Latino, African American/Slave, Women's, etc.), oral traditions have been recognized by most major universities as valid historical traditions. In the absence of understanding the importance of a person (or people group) at the time, historians have used what they deemed reliable oral traditions to account for the existence of an event or person. This is much more analagous to Jesus of Nazareth than comparing him to, say, the existence of Caesar Julius.

but the anthropology is not limited to the oral tradition, usually it is backed up by artifacts.

[boekebong]

but the anthropology is not limited to the oral tradition, usually it is backed up by artifacts.

I'm not strictly talking about anthro, but rather the historical existence of a person. If anything, the Gospels being faulty geographically would have been evidence against Jesus's existence.

[Gabe Gross]

and do we know the dates of the dead sea scrolls, which by the way have nothing of the new testament (ie having to deal with jesus)

the earliest dead sea scrolls date somewhere between 21 BCE and 61 AD. again these are hebrew texts (the torah/old testament)

the old testament predicts the coming of a messiah whose name is Christ Jesus

you want oral tradition? check
you want artifacts? check
you want a strong historical reference from all over the world? check

i'm not arguing the the divinity of Christ but according to your stadards for a person's existence, it seems as if this Christ guy checks out.

[dai the flu]

the gospels are faulty geographically? since when?

[Darren McLeod]

This thread was more fun when Cal was around.

[Gabe Gross]

This thread was more fun when Cal was around.

Christiandom is not a party, Darren. Christ called his followers to suffer. C'mon man.

[Darren McLeod]

He turned water into wine. If he's not a party animal, then I don't know who was.

[Gabe Gross]

He turned water into wine. If he's not a party animal, then I don't know who was.

You got me. Jesus loved a good party. I was just listening to a sermon from Mark Driscoll on alcohol and Christianity and blah blah blah...he made about the same claim.

Anyone interested in his sermons check Mark out at www.marshillchurch.com

[Darren McLeod]

That site confused me.

[MLLMillenium]

My god what did I start.

[jsteil]

They havent even gotten an accurate account from the dead sea scrolls yet, their still doing dna testing on what it was written on to piece it together accuratly.

[Gabe Gross]

if anyone wants to talk about this stuff feel free to im me

thepenmaywaltz

[Darren McLeod]

Don't IM him, all he does is send virii and porn.

[MLLMillenium]

hahaha

[splitsecond]

I considered entering this debate, but I have had it online so many times that I am honestly bored of it. I really don't understand why athiests are so intent on proving what is essentially hopelessness. I just don't get it.


Anyways, for athiests who actually WANT to challenge themselves intellectually and try and see the other viewpoint, I highly recommend a book called "The Case for Christ". It was written by an athiest who essentially set out to prove what all of you are trying to prove here, and ended up completely changing his viewpoint. Its a good read, and will at least provide you with a viewpoint that you can identify with.

And if you dont want to read it, think about this: if one believes he knows the truth, but does not have enough faith in his own beliefs to put them to a challenge, then what good are his beliefs?

[Manbotisdead]

NO!
Jesus is a melding of Mithras, Dionysus, Prometheus, and other famous deities of the time.

And No! nothing will change if the court rules that Jesus, in fact, never existed. People have deluded themselves for a couple thousand years, this will not stop them.

No repercussions for the vatican either. If you can sign an accord with hitler, the reichsconcordat, and get away with it then you can do no wrong.
There is historical evidence that dictates him to have existed. Whether of not he was the son of god is up for debate.

[preppyak]

There is historical evidence that dictates him to have existed. Whether of not he was the son of god is up for debate.
Well, I think he could have easily existed, but things like the crucifiction, resurrection, etc are where you have to distinguish betwen faith and historical evidence.

[cantnokdahustle]

I considered entering this debate, but I have had it online so many times that I am honestly bored of it. I really don't understand why athiests are so intent on proving what is essentially hopelessness. I just don't get it.


Anyways, for athiests who actually WANT to challenge themselves intellectually and try and see the other viewpoint, I highly recommend a book called "The Case for Christ". It was written by an athiest who essentially set out to prove what all of you are trying to prove here, and ended up completely changing his viewpoint. Its a good read, and will at least provide you with a viewpoint that you can identify with.

And if you dont want to read it, think about this: if one believes he knows the truth, but does not have enough faith in his own beliefs to put them to a challenge, then what good are his beliefs?

i'm sorry , living for your loved ones and treating people as "ends rather than means" is propagating hopelessness? how so? The absence of belief in an afterlife, to me is quite a hopeful (and yes, liberating) thing. Heaven sounds like a dreadful place, while to be fair, so does hell;). A place where you are eternally happy, while others suffer, needlessly here on earth sounds a bit self important to me. And if your loved one's happen to be in hell till the "second coming" do you not weep for them?
while i can not make a blanket statement in regards to those who are believers... fuck it... here's one: Atheist/Secular humanists/ liberal christians/ deists are usually worried a hell of a lot more about humanity, while those who are into the main 3 (islam, xtianity, judaism) care a bit more for heaven.

real quick, to those arguing that the court must only find at a historical jesus existed, i would ask you to consider this... The Charges are:

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona," or impersonation.

The first crime does not happen if people believe jesus was just a man, ergo, the church must prove that not only did jesus exist but that their characterization of him is correct.

- with that said, i think the case will end up getting thrown out.


"... if he had decided that god and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form of atheism taken today. It is the question of the tower of babel built without god, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth" - The Brothers Karamazov

[Cal Smith]

perhaps this board has a bit of a problem with math the 30 40 years later applies to most of the historians birth dates, they were all well into their 40's when they started writing, so that puts us at atleast 80 years, and that is a way too long.

I have to rethink everything now!!!!!

I hate to say this but you're more than likely correct. I mean scholars throughout the centuries have determined Tacitus's written history to be reliable and resourceful, but with you pointing out a time gap between Jesus and Tacitus that trumps everything they've determined and studied over the past centuries.

I can't believe none of them noticed the time gap between Jesus and Tacitus's writings and automatically threw out his writings like you have done.

[Cal Smith]

I also find it strange that Peter would follow this "myth" as one of his disciples and die for a myth.

[cantnokdahustle]

I have to rethink everything now!!!!!

I hate to say this but you're more than likely correct. I mean scholars throughout the centuries have determined Tacitus's written history to be reliable and resourceful, but with you pointing out a time gap between Jesus and Tacitus that trumps everything they've determined and studied over the past centuries.

I can't believe none of them noticed the time gap between Jesus and Tacitus's writings and automatically threw out his writings like you have done.

actually quite a few of them have noticed. Though Tacitus is highly respected for his historical accuracy when he has taken from his primary sources (the senate records and the rest of the Roman Archives), there are numerous problems when he has listed events from secondary (word of mouth), rather dubious sources.

Not only this, but why the hell is a xian arguing for the validity of Tacitus? Even early xians doubted the accounts of Tacitus. Tertullian had this to say about Tacitus "ille mendaciorum loquacissimus," in the Apologeticus... and since we had a bit of trouble with definitions earlier, I'll translate for you: "he [Tacitus] is the most loquacious of liars!" he said this in regards to his inability to decipher jews from xians.
While the catholic encyclopedia states "the credulity with which he [Tacitus] accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of the Hebrew people."

[oldwirehands]

Josephus was born four fucking years after the supposed resurrection of "The Christ."
The Gospels did not surface until several decades after the supposed resurrection of 'The Christ"

Outside of the BIBLE there is NO evidence that "the christ" ever existed. NONE

One poorly written piece of literature with numerous contradictions and historical inaccuracies is not enough to prove anything.

You keep saying that there is more evidence of jesus than there is of Caesar Julius, yet you have come up with nothing that would compare to the plethora of historical evidence for the existence of Caesar Julius.

Do you KNOW what the Gospel of Thomas is? Its not in the bible.

[mps]

There is historical evidence that dictates him to have existed. Whether of not he was the son of god is up for debate.
Who says historical evidence is true? Especially 2000 year old historical evidence.

[dai the flu]

Who says historical evidence is true? Especially 2000 year old historical evidence.
good point. lets throw out all our history books, its worthless now.

[mps]

good point. lets throw out all our history books, its worthless now.
Or lets all question the validity of what is in them, and consider how some things could have changed as the books were rewritten over the last 2000 years. At some points in time society has been known to exagerate certain events. In certain cases recording history over time is like playing chinese whispers.


Or on second thoughts, since it is obvious that you are insinuating that books hold the truth, let's all open up our science books and understand that god does not exist, and the world was not created by him.

[Cal Smith]

actually quite a few of them have noticed. Though Tacitus is highly respected for his historical accuracy when he has taken from his primary sources (the senate records and the rest of the Roman Archives), there are numerous problems when he has listed events from secondary (word of mouth), rather dubious sources.

Not only this, but why the hell is a xian arguing for the validity of Tacitus? Even early xians doubted the accounts of Tacitus. Tertullian had this to say about Tacitus "ille mendaciorum loquacissimus," in the Apologeticus... and since we had a bit of trouble with definitions earlier, I'll translate for you: "he [Tacitus] is the most loquacious of liars!" he said this in regards to his inability to decipher jews from xians.
While the catholic encyclopedia states "the credulity with which he [Tacitus] accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of the Hebrew people."

Look what you're doing though. You have totally completely dismissed what Tacitus has said. You're not even entertaining his account as evidence. You're being so narrow minded.....hard headed........difficult......stick in your own adjective here, that you've completely tossed out something that scholars throughout centuries have regarded as reliable.

I'm not saying you have to believe Jesus was a real person, as a matter of fact I don't believe you'd change your mind if he was at your front door, but I am saying you have to be realistic regarding what's out there and what's valid evidence. Tacitus is valid evidence of Jesus existance outside the Bible, and yes, there is other valid evidence outside of the Bible regarding Jesus. There will always be nay sayers who claim them to be false or forged because they are like you and no matter what will say that. On the flip side of the coin there are Christians out there who would never admit things like ossuary of james or the shroud of turin could be false. You would think they were idiots, and hard headed for not following what the scientific evidence is showing. You are being no better though..............

[dai the flu]

yeah cuz science has shown us exactly where life came from.
but anyway lets not start that debate.

you cant look at accepted history and start picking and choosing what parts you believe and what parts you dont. like those ancient writings. you cant say he's a "distinguished writer" and accept what he says about one thing, then in the next sentence say he's propogating myths and he cant be reliable. this is ridiculous.

[mps]

yeah cuz science has shown us exactly where life came from.
but anyway lets not start that debate.

you cant look at accepted history and start picking and choosing what parts you believe and what parts you dont. like those ancient writings. you cant say he's a "distinguished writer" and accept what he says about one thing, then in the next sentence say he's propogating myths and he cant be reliable. this is ridiculous.
Science has helped us understand where we came from andhow the universe was formed. Refuting that is being purely ignorant. Evolutionism is widely regarded in the scientific community as correct over Creationism.

I am not saying to pick and choose which parts of history to believe. I am just saying that not all history is neccesarily correct, and we have no way to justify this. In my opinion believing something as obscure as some 'higher being' mystically creating the universe (although I never saw writtings of this, just that he created the world, although I don't understand how a christian explains where the rest of the universe came from) is purely absurd.

(Sidenote - when did I say he was a 'distinguished writer' ?)

[Cal Smith]

Science has helped us understand where we came from andhow the universe was formed. Refuting that is being purely ignorant. Evolutionism is widely regarded in the scientific community as correct over Creationism.

I am not saying to pick and choose which parts of history to believe. I am just saying that not all history is neccesarily correct, and we have no way to justify this. In my opinion believing something as obscure as some 'higher being' mystically creating the universe (although I never saw writtings of this, just that he created the world, although I don't understand how a christian explains where the rest of the universe came from) is purely absurd.

(Sidenote - when did I say he was a 'distinguished writer' ?)

I would just say that not all science is neccesarily correct either. Scientific racism has changed our world forever, and I'm sure you'd agree with me that it was incorrect?

[mps]

I would just say that not all science is neccesarily correct either. Scientific racism has changed our world forever, and I'm sure you'd agree with me that it was incorrect?
I'm not justifying all science, because science evolves with time. A prime example is the flaws of newtonian physics, only discovered by Einstein, years later. But science rules supreme in the grand scheme of things, because things can be proved and justified, whereas religion is based on faith and belief, rather than facts and evidence. I'm not entirely sure what you are implying by 'scientific racism' though.

[Cal Smith]

I'm not justifying all science, because science evolves with time. A prime example is the flaws of newtonian physics, only discovered by Einstein, years later. But science rules supreme in the grand scheme of things, because things can be proved and justified, whereas religion is based on faith and belief, rather than facts and evidence. I'm not entirely sure what you are implying by 'scientific racism' though.

You're trying to say history is not always correct, and we have no way of proving this. I'd say to an extent your right, but much of history can be proven with science and learing more about that history.

Also not all science is correct either, and not all science can be proven correct i.e.-evolution. Both history and science will always be debatable in there validity in some aspect, but your holding science up and beyond history for some reason.

[mps]

You're trying to say history is not always correct, and we have no way of proving this. I'd say to an extent your right, but much of history can be proven with science and learing more about that history.

Also not all science is correct either, and not all science can be proven correct i.e.-evolution. Both history and science will always be debatable in there validity in some aspect, but your holding science up and beyond history for some reason.
Evolution has waaay more evidence backing it up that Creationism does. I am holding science up and beyond history because a lot of science can be proved by experimentation and you can directly see the results. I don't understand how much of history can be proven with science?

[Cal Smith]

Evolution has waaay more evidence backing it up that Creationism does. I am holding science up and beyond history because a lot of science can be proved by experimentation and you can directly see the results. I don't understand how much of history can be proven with science?

the validity of artifacts is often done through science like the shroud of turid.

[cantnokdahustle]

Look what you're doing though. You have totally completely dismissed what Tacitus has said. You're not even entertaining his account as evidence. You're being so narrow minded.....hard headed........difficult......stick in your own adjective here, that you've completely tossed out something that scholars throughout centuries have regarded as reliable.

I'm not saying you have to believe Jesus was a real person, as a matter of fact I don't believe you'd change your mind if he was at your front door, but I am saying you have to be realistic regarding what's out there and what's valid evidence. Tacitus is valid evidence of Jesus existance outside the Bible, and yes, there is other valid evidence outside of the Bible regarding Jesus. There will always be nay sayers who claim them to be false or forged because they are like you and no matter what will say that. On the flip side of the coin there are Christians out there who would never admit things like ossuary of james or the shroud of turin could be false. You would think they were idiots, and hard headed for not following what the scientific evidence is showing. You are being no better though..............


I accept Tacitus' account that there is in fact a group of people running around calling themselves christian at this time (roughly 109 AD). What i do not accept (and neither do secular scholars), is that THAT in itself is evidence of the life of jesus , anymore than xians today are evidence of the historiocity of jesus.

I would absolutely admit that jesus existed if he showed up at my door.... well you know after he showed me some form of legal identification. what i would not do however, is follow him. I just don't agree with many (not all) of "his teachings."

[cantnokdahustle]

the validity of artifacts is often done through science


WEEEEEHOOOOOO! We Agree.

[Cal Smith]

I accept Tacitus' account that there is in fact a group of people running around calling themselves christian at this time (roughly 109 AD). What i do not accept (and neither do secular scholars), is that THAT in itself is evidence of the life of jesus , anymore than xians today are evidence of the historiocity of jesus.

I would absolutely admit that jesus existed if he showed up at my door.... well you know after he showed me some form of legal identification. what i would not do however, is follow him. I just don't agree with many (not all) of "his teachings."

You don't think it's evdiecne when he talks about the person, "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"? You don't find that at all in correlation with the "myth" of Jesus?

[cantnokdahustle]

Do you KNOW what the Gospel of Thomas is? Its not in the bible.

you are correct that the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible, but it is still a gospel and though it is debated as to whether it was one of the first or last of the gospels to have been written, what is not debated is that it was written during the times of the other gospels. It is only not in the bible because it was found in the 19th century (and science has given us much evidence to the fact it is in no way forged), and would not have been part of the 4 cannonicals in the first place.

[cantnokdahustle]

You don't think it's evdiecne when he talks about the person, "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"? You don't find that at all in correlation with the "myth" of Jesus?

he sure as hell didn't get that bit from the Roman Archive, ergo it had to have been a secondary source, which he (tacitus) does not give us to stand up for scrutiny.

[Cal Smith]

you are correct that the Gospel of Thomas is not in the bible, but it is still a gospel and though it is debated as to whether it was one of the first or last of the gospels to have been written, what is not debated is that it was written during the times of the other gospels. It is only not in the bible because it was found in the 19th century (and science has given us much evidence to the fact it is in no way forged), and would not have been part of the 4 cannonicals in the first place.

Do you know you are making this stuff up or does it just come out? It's heavily debated when it was written. There's even much argument that Thomas even wrote it.

How can you possibly say there is no debate about that?

[Cal Smith]

he sure as hell didn't get that bit from the Roman Archive, ergo it had to have been a secondary source, which he (tacitus) does not give us to stand up for scrutiny.

How do you know it was from a secondary source? How are you positive this info. didnt come from the Roman Archive? Also why must it be a seondary source if it didnt come from the Roman Archive?

Seems to me you are assuming a whole bunch.

Just tossing this out there, but is it not plausable that he did get info. from the Roman Archive and seen that time this info. has been lost?

[mps]

the validity of artifacts is often done through science like the shroud of turid.
Is that not archeology? Anyways, we all know about thing such as carbon-dating and whatnot, but that is not history in the sense we are discussing - the existance of jesus and how god created the world (or didn't).

[dai the flu]

Is that not archeology? Anyways, we all know about thing such as carbon-dating and whatnot, but that is not history in the sense we are discussing - the existance of jesus and how god created the world (or didn't).

umm, we're not discussing how god created the world?

[cantnokdahustle]

Do you know you are making this stuff up or does it just come out? It's heavily debated when it was written. There's even much argument that Thomas even wrote it.

How can you possibly say there is no debate about that?

it is heavily debated within about a 50 years period between the conservative camp and the less so, with the conservatives saying that it was written in about 50 AD while the others saying that it was written about 90 AD. Outside of that short period there is not much debate about the time.

Whether Thomas wrote it or not is really not a concern here, just as many of the epistles seem to have at theleast to have been dictated (not all, but some).

[mps]

umm, we're not discussing how god created the world?
Yeah, well my original discussion led to that. Anyways, sorry if it's off topic.

[Cal Smith]

Is that not archeology? Anyways, we all know about thing such as carbon-dating and whatnot, but that is not history in the sense we are discussing - the existance of jesus and how god created the world (or didn't).

All I was saying is that you're positive of yourself that evolution, big bang, etc...., etc..... is factual and that religious faith should be thrown out. Your reasoning for this is because it's science and it can be proven. I was just pointing out that science is not always correct either just as with history. The only difference is you're only seeing one side not being correct, that being history.

[cantnokdahustle]

umm, we're not discussing how god created the world?


I still happen to be waiting for you explanation of how it is you could say there is more evidence in favor of the existence of Jesus than that of Caesar Julius.

[cantnokdahustle]

Do you know you are making this stuff up or does it just come out? It's heavily debated when it was written. There's even much argument that Thomas even wrote it.

How can you possibly say there is no debate about that?


you know what, i apologize, I should have said Cannonical gospels. I'm Sorry.

[Cal Smith]

I still happen to be waiting for you explanation of how it is you could say there is more evidence in favor of the existence of Jesus than that of Caesar Julius.

As we are waiting for you do explain how you can say there is "No evidence" outside the Bible for Jesus existance.

[mps]

All I was saying is that you're positive of yourself that evolution, big bang, etc...., etc..... is factual and that religious faith should be thrown out. Your reasoning for this is because it's science and it can be proven. I was just pointing out that science is not always correct either just as with history. The only difference is you're only seeing one side not being correct, that being history.
No I totally accept that there are always two sides to things. I am just biased towards one obviously. I have written many papers on this as it's something I'm interested in, so I do understand that I cannot just dismiss one side completely. But I can support the other side of the argument because I believe that overall one side has more reasoning behind it.

[cantnokdahustle]

As we are waiting for you do explain how you can say there is "No evidence" outside the Bible for Jesus existance.

As i have explained, the evidence outside of the bible, only points to a group of people running around referring to themselves as christians ca. 50 or so years after the supposed death of jesus. That is NOT direct evidence that there was a historical jesus.

[Cal Smith]

What you're trying to do is to keep setting the bar higher and higher. Anyone else notice this?

First it was.........there's no evidence outside the Bible of Jesus.

Then.........

When presented evidence you one up the stake by saying.........."well it has to be contemporary to his time"

Meaning........... If it's not contemporary you won't accept it in your own little world

Then........

You set standards and assumptions on other things.......

If Tacitus did not get his info. from the Roman Archive and it's notarized by blah, blah, blah, then it's no value and not credible.

Anyone else see this?

[Cal Smith]

No I totally accept that there are always two sides to things. I am just biased towards one obviously. I have written many papers on this as it's something I'm interested in, so I do understand that I cannot just dismiss one side completely. But I can support the other side of the argument because I believe that overall one side has more reasoning behind it.

That's fine to think science has more overall reasoning then history (i myself don't see where reasoning and history come into play), but I just wish you'd keep in mind that science is not always right and has cause us many, many problems that still affect our world today. For the simple reason peopel were so, so, sure there science was correct.

[mps]

That's fine to think science has more overall reasoning then history (i myself don't see where reasoning and history come into play), but I just wish you'd keep in mind that science is not always right and has cause us many, many problems that still affect our world today. For the simple reason peopel were so, so, sure there science was correct.
I do know that. But I do know that it is probably the best bet we have right now at understanding the world.

[cantnokdahustle]

YAY, another Vocabulary lesson:

Evidence- To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

[jsteil]

Do you know you are making this stuff up or does it just come out? It's heavily debated when it was written. There's even much argument that Thomas even wrote it.

How can you possibly say there is no debate about that?


there is alot of debate about it because it is written totally different compared to the other gospels. It states that Jesus was married and that he had kids. It is apart of the Gnostic gospels. It wasn't introducted into the bible because when constintine made christianity the religion of the empire he closed the bible pretty much and Thomas left for egypt which is were they found it I believe. The catholics don't want anything to do with the gospel.

[jsteil]

How do you know it was from a secondary source? How are you positive this info. didnt come from the Roman Archive? Also why must it be a seondary source if it didnt come from the Roman Archive?

Seems to me you are assuming a whole bunch.

Just tossing this out there, but is it not plausable that he did get info. from the Roman Archive and seen that time this info. has been lost?


He probably got it from the writings of Nero. Because Nero wrote of an uprising in the empire against him by the people they call christians because the prosecutor pontius pilot killed their leader christus. Nero (also known as 666 by his numerical number in latin)

Ill try and find the actuall quote so ill bbl

[dai the flu]

i still dont get it. all these people wrote about it way back when the same generation was still alive. they talked as if it were a fact, not a rumor. no myth. commonly accepted to them at the time as the plain and simple truth.
and you dont accept it?
im officially out of this discussion. nothing will ever change no matter what we show you.

[mondeoman]

Well the question isn't whether or not Christ existed (as a person) because they have found that he has. The question is as to whether or not he is the son of God.

[mps]

Well the question isn't whether or not Christ existed (as a person) because they have found that he has. The question is as to whether or not he is the son of God.
Or whether there is such thing as a god?

[oldwirehands]

I hate when people can't admit their wrong.

[cantnokdahustle]

What exactly am i wrong about? I have refuted everything you guys have thrown out and on completely rational grounds.

Sources MUST be able to stand up to individual scrutiny. Word of mouth is not good enough. nor are vague references and mispellings (ex. Chrestus, which was a common epithet for slaves, meaning useful; in reference to Suetonius).

had there been even rumors contemporary to the "existence of jesus," of a man preforming miracles, the roman archives would absolutely hold information on it. They did not Fuck around, when it came to "trouble makers."

i don't expect 99% of you to give what i have to say any creedence considering 3 major religious faiths (the leap from rationality) of the worlds population believe in Jesus (historically): Christianity: as The "Christ" (2.0 Billion people), Islam: as Isa (1.3 billion) and Bahai: as a manifestation of god (0.6 billion). roughly 4 billion people in the world believe in jesus as a religious figure. To put that into perspective, there are roughly 6.5 billion people on this planet. Of fucking course you kids don't care what some jackass secular humanist has to say... It would fucking shatter your worlds to stop living for god, and start living for humanity.

The Truth, is that none of those sources stand up to todays scrutiny.

[Cal Smith]

What exactly am i wrong about? I have refuted everything you guys have thrown out and on completely rational grounds.

Sources MUST be able to stand up to individual scrutiny. Word of mouth is not good enough. nor are vague references and mispellings (ex. Chrestus, which was a common epithet for slaves, meaning useful; in reference to Suetonius).

had there been even rumors contemporary to the "existence of jesus," of a man preforming miracles, the roman archives would absolutely hold information on it. They did not Fuck around, when it came to "trouble makers."

i don't expect 99% of you to give what i have to say any creedence considering 3 major religious faiths (the leap from rationality) of the worlds population believe in Jesus (historically): Christianity: as The "Christ" (2.0 Billion people), Islam: as Isa (1.3 billion) and Bahai: as a manifestation of god (0.6 billion). roughly 4 billion people in the world believe in jesus as a religious figure. To put that into perspective, there are roughly 6.5 billion people on this planet. Of fucking course you kids don't care what some jackass secular humanist has to say... It would fucking shatter your worlds to stop living for god, and start living for humanity.

The Truth, is that none of those sources stand up to todays scrutiny.

I wish you understood living for Jesus is living for humanity

[oldwirehands]

What exactly am i wrong about? I have refuted everything you guys have thrown out and on completely rational grounds.

Sources MUST be able to stand up to individual scrutiny. Word of mouth is not good enough. nor are vague references and mispellings (ex. Chrestus, which was a common epithet for slaves, meaning useful; in reference to Suetonius).

had there been even rumors contemporary to the "existence of jesus," of a man preforming miracles, the roman archives would absolutely hold information on it. They did not Fuck around, when it came to "trouble makers."

i don't expect 99% of you to give what i have to say any creedence considering 3 major religious faiths (the leap from rationality) of the worlds population believe in Jesus (historically): Christianity: as The "Christ" (2.0 Billion people), Islam: as Isa (1.3 billion) and Bahai: as a manifestation of god (0.6 billion). roughly 4 billion people in the world believe in jesus as a religious figure. To put that into perspective, there are roughly 6.5 billion people on this planet. Of fucking course you kids don't care what some jackass secular humanist has to say... It would fucking shatter your worlds to stop living for god, and start living for humanity.

The Truth, is that none of those sources stand up to todays scrutiny.

History is what you make of it. Its personal preference.

There are people out there who don't believe what happened on 9-11, really happened. There are people who don't believe the Hitler's holocaust ever happened. These events are historically accurate because both have recently happened. We have the technology to preserve history better. What you're talking about is ancient history. Texts have been munipulated, forged, and destroyed since then. All for political reasons. Do you honestly think the Romans would try to preserve history of a Jewish carpenter whom they crucifed? The bible that is read today wasn't made until 300 years after his death.

I'm not saying he was the son of God. My arguement has nothing to do with religion. Its history. Proof really doesn't mean shit. Absense of evidence, is not evidence for absense.

Prove there is no invisible dragon in my garage, then disprove Jesus.

[oldwirehands]

I wish you understood living for Jesus is living for humanity

He's not going to understand anything outside of what he choses to read, unless he opens his mind.

[cantnokdahustle]

I wish you understood living for Jesus is living for humanity

if and only if they (other humans) believe in something so very difficult to believe in. check out dueteronomy.

I hope that you understand that if this conversation were being had about about Muhammed, i would be just as adament in my skepticism.

I only believe in one less god (well 3, depending on how you want to count the trinity) than you (plural) do.

[Salomonbz90]

do you believe julius caesar existed? emperor charlemagne? oliver cromwell?
there's more historical evidence that jesus existed than any other person in ancient history.
dont pretend he didnt exist because you dont want to be labeled a christian.
most thought out post ive seen in a while. I agree with you 100%. If you dont wanna be labeled "Christian" then dont practice it, but leave me and others free to do so without intrusion.

[dai the flu]

if and only if they (other humans) believe in something so very difficult to believe in. check out dueteronomy
i know i said i was out of this discussion but this is just plain retarded. if you dont understand the bible and things such as the mosaic law code (deuteronomy) and how it corrolates to jesus' death, then dont even freaking talk about the bible. your bashing something you dont have any idea about, and i know you're too closed-minded to even begin to try and learn about it. so just drop it.

these people that wrote about jesus, yes it is word-of-mouth. but these people saw jesus, they heard what he had to say, they were eyewitness.
lets just say that it was a big hoax. all those people got together and made this story up. why would they do it? what did they stand to gain by making it up? nothing. all they got for saying jesus existed was persecution and death. so why would they willingly chose to be put to death over some fictional person that they supposedly invented? they knew he was a real person, just the same that i know he was a real person.

and why exactly do you think jesus wouldve been wrote about in the roman archives in the first place? the jews were nothing to the romans, and one poor jewish carpenter wouldve meant even less. the roman archives DIDNT EVEN MENTION PONTIUS PILATE, the roman leader in jerusalem at the time. he wasnt confirmed as real until his name was found on an inscription in 1961.

whatever. believe what you want.