Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?

[Indrid Cold]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

But you have read up on her critics in the meantime, like a good boi(ntellectual) I suppose

Well, look, of course. But besides that (permission to go off-topic?), I can't believe my position is unique: I'm less concerned about whether the miracles and preachings of Jesus really happened as much as that there's just anything, any story, that can distract us from the greedy, ugly vibe that pervades life on Earth. Y'know. If there was a religion that doted on Tina Charles songs, I'd be there.

[pe7erpark3r]

@spaceboy said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I mean @pe7erpark3r here and not an apostle. And my thoughts were relates about Jesus mentioning in early Christian's apocrypha. And the ideas of these texts are far different from the official version. Fog cannot appear without a fire. That make me think, that someone existed. Yeshua or maybe he had another name. Someone was crucified. It was very popular type of execution in Rome of those time. And the execution of these man, became a start point of Christianity religion. That what I mean under words 'Historical Jesus'.

A very good point, and I like the analogy (fog + fire).

P. S.: Unfortunately we won't know the truth about those events. I mean the real story-line, the real chain of events.. Maybe Zarathustra will know, or Abdul Alhazred.. But not we..

You will see, that there is quite a bit of evidence, that the ghospel's accounts (in large parts) are in fact historical, when the debate procedes. I hope @Vex-Man returns :sweat_smile:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

Here is what Josephus wrote-
18.3.3 — “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the
truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when,
upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those
who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored
to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

First let me quote wikipedia on the testamonium flavianum:

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum. Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration. The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.

I agree with this definition. I too am convinced, that Flavius Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah.

20.9.1 — “...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James...”
The point should be noted the phrase “was called Christ” is awful and some transcriber inserted it. The later lines which Josephs referred to Jesus was the son of Damneus. That sentences looks like a christian was hoping to prove that Jesus existed.

The phrase "who was called Christ" is a perfectly common phrase. And this is why (quoting wiki again:)

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.

Josephus, when he wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 AD, clearly must have known about christians, if not Jesus himself, since there is enough (archeological + other) evidence that they were present in israel. If he didn't mention christians at all, that would have to be considered unbelievable.

There was never ever a “tribe of Christians”

The name christian was first used in a derogatory way to denote the followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. With this in mind it becomes clear why Flavius Josephus – who did not believe in Christ to be the messiah – could use the term in this way. He too saw Jesus as a nobody, and he spoke in the language that the people of his time used. Tribe of Christians sounds rather derogatory in my ears, so it fits the idea.

If you did read his texts carefully, you would know his texts were out of the context. There was a paragraph around his texts and it really interrupts his story line. This is how next paragraph begins from, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder...". It was referred to the previous paragraph in which Pilate along with his soldiers did massacre of Jews in Jerusalem

In the whole chapter (and the paragraph before) Josephus speaks about Pilates' reign in Jerusalem, and the things he dealt with. Thus speaking about Jesus at this place makes perfect sense. And to introduce the next important event during Pilates' time with "About the same time..." makes perfect sense. Of course I acknowledge that "another sad calamity" might still belong to the christian addition. Also a backreference to two or three paragraphs before is a perfectly normal thing.

Josephus did write about minor-minor people of his time extensively. A single paragraph written on Messiah is impossible.

As said before, I do agree with the majority of scholars that Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah, nor consider him to be of great importance.

[Zack Williamson]

@spaceboy said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

My counter question to you- If Spiderman did not exist, why children or even adults talk about him now ?

Spiderman was appeared first in comics nearly 40 years ago, and we can discuss him now, because of mass media. Will he be so popular in 4019?

1962 plus 2000 = 3962. Yes, he may become the most famous character.

In classical logic, we call it argument from Popularity though.
Popularity of someone does not justify truth or reason.

Or maybe next crusade will be done in a name of Tony Stark? Who knows.. :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:

Those people who fought for the name of their religion, believed in lies. When they cannot and could not give any evidence for their supported beliefs, they initialized a fight. Your analogy is absurd here. People do not fight because spider-man has given a commandment for “I am true and other fictional characters are false.” Suppose a group of kids believe in spider-man only and second group believes in Batman only. The doctrine of spider man instructs his followers to fight and fight until the followers of other religions do not get ceased. (My last three sentences contain surah no 9 verse no 13 and 14 of the Koran; One commandment of Biblic God)

Muhammad lived nearly 1500 years ago, and people are speaking about him today.

Muhammad did not exist. There is no proof of his existence either. People are talking about harry potter too today.

Yeshua lived nearly 2000 years ago, and people are speaking about him today.

I say he did not. Prove me wrong ! People are talking about superman too today.

Siddhartha lived nearly 2500 years ago, and he is also well known.

Siddhartha existed as a person and he was a skeptic. He was neither a God nor a messenger of God. We are talking about a theist’s existence, not a skeptic’s. He himself rejected any fictional character or God.

I have a video for you (for most characters)-

Others also can be mentioned here in this list.

I like your last line- Others also can be mentioned here in this list. There were more than 10 deities of Egypt, Persia and Greece before the birth of Jesus. All those deities have same stories like Jesus.
Under the rule of Constantine, Faith-head Christians burnt off their teachings and did not let them to copy their books.

And those events were happened, when humanity have no ability to communicate so fast and worldwide as now,

100 percent true

but at the same time all these persons become world known. Personally for me it means, that the event had a historical-cultural weight, and persons which are related to these events can not be excluded, like a fictional characters.

Show me those historical-cultural evidences first. You have shown me only 2 writers, as far as I know- Josephus and Tacitus. Both were not even contemporary eye-witnesses for giving any evidence for Jesus existence who supposedly lived on our earth. There is around 100 years of Gap between their earliest writings and Jesus' alleged birth.

Nice points about Josephus and Tacitus, I like that. I wish to divein more in it.

Thank you.

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

As Peter mentioned, besides the Gospels at the beginning of the first century, there were lot's of apocrypha that were also based on the events that happened to Jesus. (Lately all this books were banned, by the church, but some of them have been saved to the present day. The Nag Hammadi library for example.)

Paul and Peter never referred to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha or any other pilgrim. Paul did not write about earthly existence, life and his teachings. The epistles which were the part of paul’s writing, were written after 48 CE. Both did not mention any type of miracle which worked, his trial, his virgin birth, his disciples or the empty tomb

I mean @pe7erpark3r here and not an apostle. And my thoughts were relates about Jesus mentioning in early Christian's apocrypha.

Christian’s apocrypha was written by his disciples, not by his messengers. We do not even know his disciples existed or not.

And the ideas of these texts are far different from the official version. Fog cannot appear without a fire.

Fog cannot appear without a fire through gaps. His first two disciples (peter and mark) supposedly existed a long time after Jesus’ death.

That make me think, that someone existed. Yeshua or maybe he had another name. Someone was crucified. It was very popular type of execution in Rome of those time. And the execution of these man, became a start point of Christianity religion. That what I mean under words 'Historical Jesus'.

Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus/Dionysus, Attis, Isis, Hermes, Romulus, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Zalmoxis, Tammuz, Asclepius, Krishna, and Prometheus.- All had same character like Jesus. Many of them were got died by violence and resurrected. One God among them might be existed. All had a divine mother and a divine father. All of them were tried to be killed by monsters/tyrants when they were infants. Many of above gods' birth was announced by their stars.

Adonis, Inanna, Osiris, Romulus, Zalmoxis --- got 'a type of baptism or communion', all 5 Gods won over their deaths, all 5 Gods were son or daughter of a God and they all predates Christianity. Even though all five were savior Gods and went thru struggles or thru sufferings.

Before the execution of Christians and in 4 to 5th centuries their scriptures were burnt. The Opponents and religion people of those Persian, Greek and Egypt mythologies and non-orthodox competing christian versions were compelled by threat of death and prison, or of dispossession to fall in line.

P. S.: Unfortunately we won't know the truth about those events. I mean the real story-line, the real chain of events.. Maybe Zarathustra will know, or Abdul Alhazred.. But not we..

Agree.

The following reply is for pet, not for spaceboy-

@pe7erpark3r Start a new thread and make rules of a debate first. You did not make any rule of this debate. You won't define my position, I will. You are not vex man. That debate will be pursued between 1 on 1 (only you and me). I won't educate you every time. If you don't know how to make a thread, I can make one. You cannot invite me and get my position yourself.

I am not here to educate you. I hoped that you know general English. Here is a Wikipedia article for defining which statement is affirmative and which is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation

Affirmative sentence- vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date.
Negative sentence- vex man does not go with his girlfriend on a date.
Interrogative sentence- Does Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Interrogative negative- Doesn't Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Imperial sentence- Go vex man with your girlfriend on a date
Exclamatory sentence- Aha ! vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date

A negative sentence consists of ----------Does not, did not, may not, shall not, will not, were not, was not, was never, is never, is not, are not, am not, am never etc
A positive or affirmative sentence consists of --------Does, do, might, may, shall, will, can etc.

I also hope you will behave in a new debate. Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.
@AbhiKerala, @Indrid-Cold, @spaceboy, @Kaneki-kun, @Sij All 5 users behave with enough respect and manners.

P.S. if you dont know what a theistic god is, you cannot misinterpret anyone's position. You can ask me or you can look for Google. A 'Theistic god' is always related to philosophy, not to any specific religion. I was debating about philosopical god in that thread. In this debate, we had to debate jesus existed as a person or not. The problem with you is, you dont read between the lines and you always want to go ahead.

I never said Christ (as a person) did not exist with/without absolute certainty. We were debating Jesus as a person exist or not. We weren't debating Jesus existed as a god or not or a philosophical god existed or not in this thread. These are three different thesis. I hope you understand the difference among all 3 thesis. If you had presumed something into your mind, you would not have imposed your presumption on your opponent. My thesis for Mr. Jesus' existence will be-

Jesus' (as a person) existence seems to be improbable to me [Edited: just like you misinterpreted I too misinterpreted]

[A Former User]

@AllAboutGay I thought you were going to explain a theory about Jesus being gay. XD 👍

[Zack Williamson]

@Indrid-Cold said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I skimmed these pages and @spaceboy should probably get most kudos just for staying on-topic. But I'm not criticizing. As a veteran of debates like these, I can confirm that everyone has their own hobby-horse to shoe-horn into the debate. Would we really have it any other way?

Me, I long ago had my head turned by the books of Barbara Thiering, whose forensic, ultra-scholarly writing took in both the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi and contemporary apocrypha, to suggest the J-Man was 'just' part of some Jewish-cult-to-end-all-Jewish-cults. The research not only seems detailed enough, but it also fits my personal level of pessimism about a tangible, interventionist God.

But if there's one thing I hate in religious debates (and sorry to the above users who've done it), it's when people draw a parallel between fictional characters like Batman, Spider-Man, etc, and Jesus / God. God, if He / It exists will necessarily transcend context. So if there's a story where Batman breaks down the fourth wall and boldy presumes to give the reader religious instructions (and even with the freak-out stories of Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman, I don't think there has been), you can legitimately compare him to Jesus. But not until then.

In the Bible, Yahweh (not Jesus) gives instructions to others. Jesus was the last Adam and was created by Yahweh.
Batman is instructed by me in Gotham series game. I compared Batman with Jesus, not with Yahweh. My analogy is still in the context. By the way, God punished Bruce Wayne's parents and destructed Krypton for blasphemy and heathens for defying him. "Thou shouldst have used thine prep time to pray!"

Here have a meme

[pe7erpark3r]

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

The following reply is for pet, not for spaceboy-

@pe7erpark3r Start a new thread and make rules of a debate first. You did not make any rule of this debate.

I assumed the rules of the debate to be the same as for the last one. We talked about debate rules in the PMs and in our last discussions.

If you feel I am not adhering to the general principles of a friendly debate, you always are free to correct me, as you did. I saw my mistake and thus apologized and corrected my error. You can also always ask me to change the tone, or use less words, or anything that improves our discussion mid-way. Not everything needs to be defined rule by rule as we do in germany. I'm not here to debate about debating. I will always try to adapt and change what I can make better, even in the middle of a discussion. I'll adhere to new rules if you introduce them mid-debate and I agree with them. This makes discussions like these here possible in the first place.

You won't define my position, I will. You are not vex man. That debate will be pursued between 1 on 1 (only you and me). I won't educate you every time. If you don't know how to make a thread, I can make one. You cannot invite me and get my position yourself.

When I started this debate and I wrote down your position as I had understood it from your PMs to me. You are always free to correct me. I will change your position on any topic I make. However you did take indeed the position I wrote down as yours. This is a quote from your first reply, which anybody can look up who does not believe me (and in case you think about changing it now, there is a menu button under which one can see the history of a post). It's on page 1 of this thread:

I hold the position that Jesus was a fictional character.

This was your position. Now you changed it to

Jesus' (as a person) existence seems to be improbable to me

Please refrain from insulting me either, by saying I impose something on you. You can always correct me, if I have missunderstood you. I will apologize when I do something wrong, as I have done. But I have not imposed anything.

I am not here to educate you. I hoped that you know general English. Here is a Wikipedia article for defining which statement is affirmative and which is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation

Affirmative sentence- vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date.
Negative sentence- vex man does not go with his girlfriend on a date.
Interrogative sentence- Does Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Interrogative negative- Doesn't Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Imperial sentence- Go vex man with your girlfriend on a date
Exclamatory sentence- Aha ! vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date

An Affirmative claim, is not the same as an affirmative sentence. You can formulate an affirmative claim as a negative sentence. "Jesus did not exist" is a negative sentence but an affermative claim. This is basically what the article you sent me explains.

It took me a while to understand this myself, but along with @spaceboy's great analogy it makes sense now: The existence of the largest column of smoke in the history of humanity (Christianity), implies that there was a fire. Thus saying "The fire was not real" (= Jesus is not a historical person) is an active claim, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming this.

This is similarly true for "That there was a fire is impropable" (= the existence of Jesus as a person is impropable).

We weren't debating jesus existed as a god or not or a philosophical god existed or not in this thread.

I did not impose anything on you: we were indeed debating the historical existence of Jesus as a human being. When I used religious language to talk about the religious God, I was only replying to other users in this thread. Since we cannot limit who can reply to a topic, we cannot do anything against other's going off-topic. You will note however if you read carefully again, that in my replies to only you I stayed on-topic.

As a sidenote: I hope you can see, that if I could show you the existence of Jesus as God, I would have given you strong evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person. This argument, given by @Kaneki-kun is a rational argument too, that should not be ignored. Nonetheless I concede, that I cannot prove the existence of Jesus as God to you in a logical way. You can only experience Him. Thus I did not introduce this argument into the debate, and I do not expect you to answer to what @Kaneki-kun or I wrote.

Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.

• I used a single insulting word close to the beginning of the debate and I apologized.
• This is an exaggeration. Exaggeration is not something an intellectual should do: I insulted you once, just once, without any need to for it.
• I was wrong, I had no reason to use this word, I apologized and I apologize again now.

[AbhiKerala]

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I also hope you will behave in a new debate. Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.
@AbhiKerala, @Indrid-Cold, @spaceboy, @Kaneki-kun, @Sij All 5 users behave with enough respect and manners.

I'm sorry If I have acted without respect. Good luck to everyone.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Majestic-Catfish said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

The following reply is for pet, not for spaceboy-

@pe7erpark3r Start a new thread and make rules of a debate first. You did not make any rule of this debate.

I assumed the rules of the debate to be the same as for the last one. We talked about debate rules in the PMs and in our last discussions.

You did not say to me and suddenly you made one topic. You eagerly made one. You never said I am going to make a topic in which my/your rule/(s) is/are same as previous. However the maint point is, you misinterpreted my position with absolute certainty . You chose correct position of mine when you made this thread.

I hope you wont do that in future. I too promise I wont misinterpret my position.

If you feel I am not adhering to the general principles of a friendly debate, you always are free to correct me, as you did. I saw my mistake and thus apologized and corrected my error. You can also always ask me to change the tone, or use less words, or anything that improves our discussion mid-way. Not everything needs to be defined rule by rule as we do in germany. I'm not here to debate about debating. I will always try to adapt and change what I can make better, even in the middle of a discussion. I'll adhere to new rules if you introduce them mid-debate and I agree with them. This makes discussions like these here possible in the first place.

You won't define my position, I will. You are not vex man. That debate will be pursued between 1 on 1 (only you and me). I won't educate you every time. If you don't know how to make a thread, I can make one. You cannot invite me and get my position yourself.

When I started this debate and I wrote down your position as I had understood it from your PMs to me. You are always free to correct me. I will change your position on any topic I make. However you did take indeed the position I wrote down as yours. This is a quote from your first reply, which anybody can look up who does not believe me (and in case you think about changing it now, there is a menu button under which one can see the history of a post). It's on page 1 of this thread:

As I have said, you eagerly started one. You sounded to be so curious. And I am not saying you did not write my position as it is. You wrote whatever I said in pm- true.

I hold the position that Jesus was a fictional character.

This was your position. Now you changed it to

Jesus' (as a person) existence seems to be improbable to me

Please refrain from insulting me either, by saying I impose something on you. You can always correct me, if I have missunderstood you. I will apologize when I do something wrong, as I have done. But I have not imposed anything.

Vex-Man is of the opinion, that Jesus was not a historical person.- It is a negative position of mine (according to you)
^ Your first reply in this thread. However you say it is a positive claim, but it is not.

I am not here to educate you. I hoped that you know general English. Here is a Wikipedia article for defining which statement is affirmative and which is negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation

Affirmative sentence- vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date.
Negative sentence- vex man does not go with his girlfriend on a date.
Interrogative sentence- Does Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Interrogative negative- Doesn't Vex man go with his girlfriend on a date ?
Imperial sentence- Go vex man with your girlfriend on a date
Exclamatory sentence- Aha ! vex man goes with his girlfriend on a date

An Affirmative claim, is not the same as an affirmative sentence. You can formulate an affirmative claim as a negative sentence. "Jesus did not exist" is a negative sentence but an affirmative claim. This is basically what the article you sent me explains.

You did not choose your thesis, "Jesus was not a fictional character". 'Jesus does not exist' is a negative claim and a negative sentence. You can formulate whatever you want, it is not about your belief.

It took me a while to understand this myself, but along with @spaceboy's great analogy it makes sense now: The existence of the largest column of smoke in the history of humanity (Christianity), implies that there was a fire. Thus saying "The fire was not real" (= Jesus is not a historical person) is an active claim, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming this.

I said there should be no gap between fire and smoke. Did not you read that ? Life of his first two disciples (peter and other one )and Mr. Jesus' death has a long gap. We call it argument from ignorance. We do not even know his disciples existed or not. Here is a logical proof-
Premise 1- It is perceived that fire is not caused by fire
Premise 2- Mr. Space boy says smoke comes from fire.
Conclusion- Fire must have a cause too.

This is similarly true for "That there was a fire is impropable" (= the existence of Jesus as a person is impropable).

Improbable*
And it is not my new thesis. I have just interpreted my thesis which you misinterpreted earlier. You misinterpreted my thesis and I interpreted more :joy:

We call it argument from ignorance. Thank you. Fog can come from fire without gaps only. There must be no gap. I said "improbable" because you misinterpreted my position "it is insane to say that 95 percent people did not exist with absolute certainty." -your reply to me.

- You tagged me in this post and wrote absolute certainty. I proved that a philosophical God did not exist in that philosophical debate. EDIT- I hoped that you might have misunderstood me.

Of course people who historical existed or not, include your 'Jesus'.

We weren't debating jesus existed as a god or not or a philosophical god existed or not in this thread.

I did not impose anything on you: we were indeed debating the historical existence of Jesus as a human being. When I used religious language to talk about the religious God, I was only replying to other users in this thread. Since we cannot limit who can reply to a topic, we cannot do anything against other's going off-topic. You will note however if you read carefully again, that in my replies to only you I stayed on-topic.

You chose my thesis without letting me reply to your pm. You were so curious to make a topic. You could ask me, "Vex what your actual position will be in a new debate ?". But you did not.

As a sidenote: I hope you can see, that if I could show you the existence of Jesus as God, I would have given you strong evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person. This argument, given by @Kaneki-kun is a rational argument too, that should not be ignored. Nonetheless I concede, that I cannot prove the existence of Jesus as God to you in a logical way. You can only experience
Him. Thus I did not introduce this argument into the debate, and I do not expect you to answer to what @Kaneki-kun or I wrote.

Where it is ? Which post I should reply ?

Whenever you run out of rational arguments, you clutch personal offenses.

• I used a single insulting word close to the beginning of the debate and I apologized.
• This is an exaggeration. Exaggeration is not something an intellectual should do: I insulted you once, just once, without any need to for it.
• I was wrong, I had no reason to use this word, I apologized and I apologize again now.

It is not about personal offenses or not. Even though you thought in your mind that rules of previous debate will be same in future, you violated your own rule. If you want me to stick with my thesis with/without interpretation "Jesus was a fictional character". I will. It is indeed a negative claim because it is claimed for non-existence of someone.

However you too have to stick your position for "Jesus was a historical figure'. your thesis is indeed affirmative. I kept in my mind, "whoever does not follow his own rules, will be disqualified. how it feels when I don't say it to someone ?

Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something. Negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false. Negative claims may have a positive counterpoint that asserts the existence or inclusion of something and which requires evidence to verify that the claim is true. Quoted from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_negative_claims

I say Jesus is fictional character - Affirmative sentence but it is all talking about non-existence of him.
Your thesis- "Jesus was indeed a historical figure" your claim is talking about his existence. You hold the burden of proof because you were claiming that he exists. You are not claiming about his non-existence.

My thesis are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false.

Rules should be followed strictly or they wont be called rules. You cannot apologize and cannot break your own rules either in this debate or that debate.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@AbhiKerala said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man I'm not trying to prove he existed.

It is alright mate. Thanks for defining your position.

@Kaneki-kun said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man I said search your heart not follow your heart. And Christians ( born again people in Christ) and the rest of the world truly don't know how to pray, but it doesn't mean they don't know who to say a prayer.

I have searched my heart since 12 years but I did not find any type of God. I myself was studied in a catholic christian school, mate. We had to do prayer twice a day.

(What is prayer? Prayer normally is a communication between man and God. But the people doesn't even know that. They think prayer is making noise and jumping around in the name of God and prayer. God is in constant listening mode on every heart, as a matter of fact the bible says "our souls (thus our hearts) are the very heart beats of God. So If you just humble yourself and seek God with the heart and mind of a baby you will definitely see His presence in your life)

Now what that scripture means in saying Christians don't know how to pray is I) they don't know what to pray for and ii) don't have the words to please God with their prayers unless led by the Spirit of God.

That's why He (The Holy Spirit) intercedes for us before God. In other words, He shapes our (Christians, born again people in Christ) prayers to the form and format that is pleasing to God.

And I can testify to that, when I became a born again Christian I knew shit about prayer, I didn't even feel like saying a prayer. When everyone else was praying my eyes were just closed and I'd be like an illiterate, just listening to others praying or I'd say a little prayer and that's it.
But then as I grew in Christianity (living like Christ) through the Spirit of God and His teachings I began to know how to pray. And when the need to pray comes He tells me exactly what to pray for, He gives me the words.

I too testify my words. As I have said, I studied in a christian school. We had to present in our school for 210 days per year. I had studied in both schools for 12 years continuously. 2x 210x 12 = 24x 210= around 5000 times. I have tried to search 5000 approx times into my heart, but of course I could not. Your God never replied me.

PERSONALY I don't need anyone on here to believe or even listen to what I'm saying. But this is my experience, this is my experiment, I tested the waters and The Truth revealed itself to me. I don't even come from a Christian family first of all but this is my testimony. Whoever wishes to say is bs can say #freedomofspeech..

I respect anyone, I don't say it is bullshit.
Yes, You have been given freedom of speech. Can I investigate your personal experience claim please ?

There is a three year studies on prayers which are enough to show prayers do not work. In a hospital, there were two groups were kept. First who did not pray. Second who prayed. Doctors never prescribe any type of prayer for those patients who suffer from various diseases. Their conclusion was prayer makes people thoughts' negative. Prayers make people more anxious and it caused higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias for second group. This experiment was done on total 1800 patients who were going under bypass-surgery.

but know y'all should know this *1 John 4:2-3 Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. Let he who has an ear hears wisdom and seize from foolishness.

John was an unknown writer of Bible. We cannot trust on any unknown person. Sorry

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r
@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

But the Bible says even Christians do not know how to pray.---- In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. (Romans 8:26)

Correct, the bible says that the spirit will help you pray.

Yeah and what is the proof of holy spirit ?

You wrote a verse written by Paul. That is nice but Paul himself originally never wrote Jesus’ story in his gospel. The original gospels have been changed according to time for editing and improving the omissions by the transcribers. It was added in the medieval time. Btw Paul himself never met with Jesus -
Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. (Acts 9:8), The Jewish name of Saulus was Paul.

But Paul met and spoke with those who did.

Paul was an unknown writer. You need to mention some verse for your argument. Even if granted there was a verse. I already stated law of contradiction makes statement false. I really wrote in bold texts for indicating this rule.

But the Bible states nobody has ascended into the heaven - No man hath ascended up to heaven.” Not even Enoch or Elijah? (John 3:13).

And the bible states that the heavenly kingdom is among them in Jesus Christ.

Which verse says so ? Could you please mention any verse ? Law of contradiction makes statement false.

But the Bible states we should not follow our hearts-
Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring (Num 15:39)
And Lamentations 3:18 and 3:44 state he doesn’t listen to your prayers until you don't cover out yourself from clouds
Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer. (Lamentations 3:18 NIV)
You have covered yourself with a cloud so that no prayer can get through (Lamentations 3:44 NIV)

I followed my heart and found Batman in it. Yes I meditated on Batman’s comic book to make sense out of it. Thank you. Second point- a preposition must be true, if there is no contradiction in it. It is one law of logic.

You do not believe in batman to be real.

I believe in batman. How would you know I am lying or not ?

You did not find batman in your heart the same way we did find Christ...

I found batman into my heart. How can you refute this claim ?

Burden* Probabilities*
Ad-hominem argument. First respect you opponent and then you may debate.

I am very sorry. You are absolutely right. I should not have said it in this way...

to say people who cannot be proven to have existed with absolute certainty did not exist.

I said theistic God (with certain properties) does not exist with absolute certainty (in that debate, not this one). God of philosophy is different from God of religion. However, you have always inserted your christian God into a philosophical God.

Lets not return to the other discussion please. In this discussion the christians have spoken of the God of religion, and we spoke of Him in the language of religion, for this is how you can find Him.

You were talking about God of religion. The whole topic was made on a philosophical God. And here we are talking about Jesus did not exist as a person or not. However I repeat myself- I said a philosophical God did not exist in that debate with absolute certainty. I stick with thesis and I hope you will not misinterpret it. I wont misinterpret it either.

The main proof can be fossil evidence of him. 95 percent of humans existed- we can date their dead bodies with several scientific methods. We have dated 4 billion years ago paintings and our ancestors’ fossils too. We could date his fossil which existed 2000 years ago. Of course scientists have not found any fossil evidence of him- https://medium.com/predict/the-fossil-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-historical-jesus-11d7cdd4a5e7

This article argues that the people saying "Jesus does not exist" are making a positive claim and thus have the burden of proof. So yeah, good article.

He thinks negative claim is positive claim. But he did not say he is logically correct. Because negative claim talks about non-existence of someone as per as Wikipedia article states. Indeed, I apologize for sending incorrect weblink.

So I'll say again what I said before: you cannot expect to find a lot of documents on Jesus, because he was not at all a big political figure.
You never said to me so. Maybe you said to someone else. You are debating with me rn, not with ‘someone else’.

Woops sorry, that was in the topic's draft only. My mistake. I deleted that...

Fine.

Point holds however: it cannot be expected to find much: Jesus was a relatively unknown figure in the roman empire... even many of the prominent figures in the Israel of that time are not mentioned in non-religious texts, and they also existed. Many high priests of Israel are not mentioned at all, there names are all lost. And yet they were the most prominent political figures at their times...

Your argument is not hold sound. Can you please cite one contemporary name when Jesus existed ? I said please. Can you please name those Israel priests ? Can you please name one political figure of that era ?

And the documents that existed are lost in 2000 years of history. You simply cannot expect to find much other than religious texts.

There will be no reason to debate on this topic if we do not find anything else than his religious texts.

Yes, a religious text is enough for a debate about wether the person existed, but there is a lot more.

A comic is enough for a debate about whether the batman existed, but there is a lot more.

This is history. History is not science. Sadly :joy:

A straw-man argument. You cannot refute your own claim. I never said history is/was science or vice-versa. An evidence is something which can be provided for supporting one’s assertion in any type of debate.

Yes, but you will not find proof of many many historical events. Evidence yes. Proof no. And for many many historical events you will find an utter lack of evidence other than religious texts...

It is not my fault if he has lack evidences other than his religious texts. Show a single evidence first.

So consequently, even if you were right, that Jesus was added to Josephus Flavius writings and Tacitus writings, your claim that He did not exist is at best circumstancial.

Circumstantial*

Wehuuweehuu grammar police :yum:

you bear the burdon of proof.

I repeat myself- you started the debate with your assertion, I didn’t. I hold the negative position- Jesus did not historically existed. You cannot shift this burden towards me and it is argument from ignorance. You think your thesis is true because it is not proved to be false (supposedly). Until he is not proved true, it is reasonable to say that he did not exist.

No, there is enough evidence of him in the religious texts. It is reasonable to think he exists, since quite a few other clearly historical figures wrote religious texts about him. It is not true, that a religious text cannot count as evidence.

However I concede that it is reasonable to say he did not exist after providing good arguments as to why the religious texts are not enough evidence.

Religious texts are not even a claim, forget about the evidence. Come on. A book like the bible is not even a weak evidence for someone’s existence. Batman, Spiderman, Superman all those characters have books. We do not say they are “not enough evidences”. There is no evidence of them.

I would even say that the history that follows after Jesus death allows me to say, There is so much literature on him, so many people who follow his teachings, not only in the roman empire,

There are more than 12 Gods who were born on the same day of Jesus. And those birth of all 12 Gods were celebrated by the Romans. Romans followed their teachings too.

Yeah, they follow somebody's teachings about those Gods, which tend to be hundreds of years old. They did not follow a person's teaching, who lived only a few decades ago.

“A few decades ago” - here is a gap man. Thank you for describing it.

but also in the holy land, which is basically christian after the Jews are driven out by the romans in 70 AD. There is so much reason to assume that Jesus was indeed historical, simply by the impact he had in isreal alone,

Israel*

Israel is just as an ambivalent term as holy land. People know what holy land means. You know what it means. I will continue to use this term.

Argument from popularity - Impact never shows his existence. Non-impact of someone can show his existence too.
Yes I know what holy land stands for. Impact in Israel in 70 AD :joy: . Mesopotamian, Greek civilizations are so much older than your holy site.

Take one particularly weird-beard example, Spiritualism in the 19th century. This séance-and-ectoplasm set gained 3 million followers in the United States in just ten years; 13 by comparison it took Christianity nearly two hundred years to
come anywhere close.

Go back to more past (in 4th to 5th centuries). There were some non-orthodox religions which could not reside with Christianity. The scriptures of those religions (awesome books especially in 4th to 5th century) were not copied or destroyed by the Christians. In the fourth century, under the rule of Constantine, his opponents were compelled by threat of death and prison or by dispossession to fall in line.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190723132715/https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13812

So? Seems off-topic to me.

that you need to find more than just the lack of mentioning him in official roman writers, to say he did not exist.

Did they even mention originally ? Cite a credible website for your claim ‘original lack of mentioning’.

"Lack of mention" means that he wasn't mentioned. It is your argument that there is a lack of mention, not mine. I allowed this claim, despite not agreeing. And I said even if it was true, this is not enough.

I gave you six reasons. However, you chose only one reason. Why though ? Did you fall in love with one ? :joy:

Unless you don't learn how to respect someone, I cannot debate. Therefore, I leave both debates.

I am very sorry for my use of the word insane. I need to learn to not use such harsh language. It is not just insulting, but an exaggeration too. Exaggeration is a rhetorical trick, and as you know I despise those. Sadly its an old habit of mine to speak like this (also about myself) so please forgive.

Apologies accepted man. I am sorry for misinterpreting my thesis because you might have misunderstood my position (certainty one). I had no right to make anyone's fun. I am really sorry man.

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

One of the main reasons to why there is today (almost) a scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure is an archeological one: that there have been found many many christian house churches in Israel from the first century .

This means, that people who heard little of St. Paul, believed in christ. Many of them have propably known Jesus in person, or at least their parents have.

Oh scientific consensus ! What is the proof of that scientific consensus ? Scientific consensus are never based on argument from ignorance.

People had made a lot of temples for their Greek gods, Persian Gods, Egyptian Gods before the birth of Jesus. All have same stories like him. I described you so many Gods. I copy your argument for humor :joy:

One of the main reasons to why there is today (almost) a scientific consensus that hermes, Krishna, promenthus, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus/Dionysus, Attis, Isis, Hermes, Romulus, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Zalmoxis, Tammuz, Asclepius, Krishna, and Prometheus were a historical figure are an archaeological one: that there have been found many many Persian/Greek/Egyptian house prayer-places, temples in many places before the birth of Jesus. Again popularity cannot and never justify truth and reason

Saint Paul himself never met with your Jesus (who existed on this earth). He knew Jesus thru his revelations only. Many of them have probably known Jesus as a person or at least their parents have. - What is the proof of it ? - You have to be sure. It is an argument from probability.

As Mr. Carrier states, "archeological evidence secures the case: throughout Palestine, vast amounts of material evidence unmistakably document Jewish occupation and there is considerable evidence of pagan inhabitants but there is no material evidence of any Christian population until centuries later. “In fact, only in the third century does material evidence of a Christian presence anywhere in the Empire begin to match that of even minor pagan cults."

Mr. Saint Paul had schizophrenia. A physiological disordered person did spread rumor in a semi-illiterate society.

If he did never exist, such a presence of believers in the holy land during the first century is inexplicable.

Before the execution of Christians and in 4 to 5th centuries their (Persian, Greek, Egyptian gods) scriptures were burnt off. The Opponents and religion people of those Persian, Greek and Egypt mythologies and non-orthodox competing christian versions were compelled by threat of death and prison, or of dispossession to fall in line Under the rule of Roman Constantine. This is how the huge followers of mr. Christ came. You cannot even name a single eye witness.
By the way they belonged to a semi-illiterate society. It was an era of rumors and fake news. Therefore it was easy to gain followers thru threats and thru no-education.

.

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Vex-Man said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

Here is what Josephus wrote-
18.3.3 — “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the
truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when,
upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those
who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored
to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

First let me quote wikipedia on the testamonium flavianum:

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum. Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration. The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.

I agree with this definition. I too am convinced, that Flavius Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah.

Also it says about ‘interpolations’. Did you check which ones ? Interpolations include non-Josephean vocabulary and misuse of terms. Whole passage had interpolations. None had not listened the name of testimonium since 300 years. Whole testimonium was manipulated in 4th century.

The book was written on 93-94 AD. Jesus died on AD 33. Oh ! 60 years gap. Why did not he write his books 60 years ago though ? He was certainly not an eye-witness. Josephus was born on 37CE. It means he was not even born when Jesus died. :joy: Since we got to know there was a gap he was alleged for spreading the rumors thru oral traditions- Dupuis wrote about him: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors

20.9.1 — “...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James...”
The point should be noted the phrase “was called Christ” is awful and some transcriber inserted it. The later lines which Josephs referred to Jesus was the son of Damneus. That sentences looks like a christian was hoping to prove that Jesus existed.

The phrase "who was called Christ" is a perfectly common phrase. And this is why (quoting wiki again:)

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.

Josephus, when he wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 AD, clearly must have known about Christians, if not Jesus himself, since there is enough (archeological + other) evidence that they were present in Israel. If he didn't mention Christians at all, that would have to be considered unbelievable.

Sir, how you are even arguing here ? Only some scholars do agree with this paragraph’s authenticity. This chapter was originally written in 93-94 AD which was later interpolated. He never used the term Christ or messiah. He used charlatan term for all false messiahs which he described. Even thou he had a personal messiah named Empire Vespasian. Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.
. Josephus was a writer of Rome, not was of Israel. Btw there was no such word like 'Christianity' in that era. https://relevantmagazine.com/god/where-christian-name-really-came/

There was never ever a “tribe of Christians”

The name christian was first used in a derogatory way to denote the followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. With this in mind it becomes clear why Flavius Josephus – who did not believe in Christ to be the messiah – could use the term in this way. He too saw Jesus as a nobody, and he spoke in the language that the people of his time used. Tribe of Christians sounds rather derogatory in my ears, so it fits the idea.

He did not even mention Christ or messiah. Tribe of Christianity was related to an ethnic insult, not a religious insult. According to you, Josephus did contempt Christianity but why he could contempt to a race/tribe ?

Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice.

If you did read his texts carefully, you would know his texts were out of the context. There was a paragraph around his texts and it really interrupts his story line. This is how next paragraph begins from, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder...". It was referred to the previous paragraph in which Pilate along with his soldiers did massacre of Jews in Jerusalem

In the whole chapter (and the paragraph before) Josephus speaks about Pilates' reign in Jerusalem, and the things he dealt with. Thus speaking about Jesus at this place makes perfect sense. And to introduce the next important event during Pilates' time with "About the same time..." makes perfect sense. Of course I acknowledge that "another sad calamity" might still belong to the christian addition. Also a backreference to two or three paragraphs before is a perfectly normal thing.

About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disor- der.” Another sad calamity? But what sad calamity? Josephus has just presented a commercial for Jesus, not a sad calamity! I hope you know we use another when we had mentioned one sad calamity. Without the Testimonium passage, the two passages flanking it flow seamlessly into each other. This fact alone is a tremendous indication that the passage is entirely fraudulent. this passage does not appear until the 4th century. For the first 300 years of its existence, there is no mention of the Testimonium anywhere. His books were popular in whole Europe. 12 guys never mentioned this passage but they gave a lot damn about mr. Josephus- Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alex- andria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius and Lactantius. Origen had never heard of the Testimonium either.
Regrading Pilate thing, none of the contemporary Roman shows that Pilate execute a guy named Jesus.

Josephus did write about minor-minor people of his time extensively. A single paragraph written on Messiah is impossible.

As said before, I do agree with the majority of scholars that Josephus did not believe in Jesus to be the messiah, nor consider him to be of great importance.

The point is not, he was a big figure. I said he wrote things about minor-minor people extensively.
Even though if he was a minor Guy/ non-reputed guy, Josephus must have written extensively about him.

Here have a logical proof-
Premise 1- Josephus wrote extensive things about minor-minor people.
Premise 2- Jesus was a minor people (your premise with -nor consider him to be of great importance.)
Conclusion- Josephus wrote extensive things about Jesus.
Conclusion is not true. He did not write about him extensively.

These are the persons who did not even write testionium flavium word- However they wrote about Josephus but did not about Jesus’ passage-

1. Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165)- He pored over Josephes’ work
2. Theophilus (d. 180),- Bishop of Antioch and more
   You can find my sources from here- http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

[Tag]

@Kaneki-kun @Kaneki-kun
Every religion perform miracles too
Why should anyone believe Jesus Christ as their only Lord and Saviour?
People can't just believe Jesus just like that the same way you can't just believe Islam is the only true religion and whoever disbelieves Islam , will definitelt go to hell .
Question is how in the hell can you find the ultimate truth of the Afterlife in this finite moment of life? Would you believe that Islam is only true and Christians are false?
What if Christianity was wrong? What if Islam was wrong? What if you're all wrong? Cause there are many other religions out there telling the same thing.. Rewards and Punishment.
If God gave us freewill? And Hell really exist? Why prison exists in this so much called intelligent well designed world?

[adolf lim]

umm there are also historical texts aside from the Bible that supports the existence of Jesus. Some of these authors are non-Christians like the Roman Senator Tacitus. He recorded the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Kaneki-kun said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@pe7erpark3r

I said kjv cuz compared to niv, nlt, and some translations there's no omission of verses. But yeah, when you experience Jesus and the Spirit of God personally into your life you don't need any philosopher, google, pastor or whatever to give you proves.

Yes, you should always get a translation that is close to the original! And if you want to compare biblehub.com's interlinear translation is a good place to get a feeling of what's really written in the original greek or hebrew text.

And just a note for @Vex-Man who always claims that we have no orginal of the bible: We have texts (in and out of the bible) that are 3000 years old and have been copied over the centuries. And the mistakes that are introduced over so many years are minuscule. So we can rely around 99.9% on the Greek texts we have of the bible.

You did not provide any evidence for your belief. Original books were never present with Greek words. In the third century, a team of Jews translated it into Greek. Original Bible was Hebrew Bible, not Greek one. Greek language is far different from Hebrew. There was never ever first Bible. By the way, The Bible has 500 contradictions, omissions, errors and most important changes.

Even if it is granted, there was a first edition of Bible, it does not justify someone's existence because whole Bible is full of lies and foolishness-

Premise no.1- Whatever the Bible says, is true
Premise no. 2- The Bible says pigs fly
Conclusion- Pigs fly, is true

[Zack Williamson]

@adolf-lim said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

umm there are also historical texts aside from the Bible that supports the existence of Jesus. Some of these authors are non-Christians like the Roman Senator Tacitus. He recorded the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.

And yes, The first edition of Bible never ever existed on this earth. The whole book is interpolated more than 1000 times. This book is full of contradiction, errors and most important changes.

Recorded ? Jesus died on AD 30 and Tacitus was born on 56 AD. That means he was not even born when Jesus died. He wrote Annals in 116 AD. 116- 30= 86 years gap wow !

Edited- Tecitus wrote about “christos” (in 117 CE) and christos were being executed by Pilate. He could have used name ‘Jesus’ but not his religious title ‘Christos’. The second point you could note is, the reference of Tacitus’ was never mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian in 3rd century. Tertullian was the one who quoted Tacitus’ great deal. I have a strong evidence https://web.archive.org/web/20190723132715/http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf which shows the tacitus’ oldest copy was modified to change “Chrestianos” (i.e. "Chrestians" - the followers of Chrestus) to Christianos" (i.e. "Christians" – the followers of Christ). Generally, it was modified or manipulated in 1468 because there was no mention prior to it.
Copy-pasted. Enjoy !

And here is a proof how christian term came into existence-
https://relevantmagazine.com/god/where-christian-name-really-came/
Earlier followers of churches, never be called Christians. It was most often used as "saints", not as Christians.

[Zack Williamson]

@pe7erpark3r said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

@Kaneki-kun said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

😂y'all searching for Jesus on the internet 😂🤦🤦🤦. When you can just get on your knees (even if you don't at least believe) and ask Him to show himself to you.

YOU WANNA SEE JESUS CHRIST? Well then PRAY and WAIT ON HIM the truth is in every single humans heart but y'all too deaf to hear it.

For those of you who believe, believing is good but it's not enough, get to seek Him. Get to know Him!! The internet is just a confusion device, Jesus Christ is in everyone's heart knowing constantly for you guys to open the door. Me personally I Know Jesus Christ is real, He brought heaven to man, He is God (I Am) made man, Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. God was with man in the flesh! but man was too filthy to recognize Him, too blind and too Deaf! I know God doesn't exist but He IS . God IS (you need to meditate on the Bible (kjv) to be able to make sense out of this)

Y'all looking for prove of Jesus and God is real? Just search your hearts respectively, not google (lol).

I've been trying to get this point across to Vex too :grin:

You wouldn't be worrying for lack of Jesus found in some registry, if you had direct experiential contact with Him. You can indeed find Him in your heart, and indeed, as not just the kjv points out, but even many philosophers note that God does not exist: the verb existing is only valid for anything other than God. Instead God is.

There is a three year studies on prayers which are enough to show prayers do not work. In a hospital, there were two groups were kept. First who did not pray. Second who prayed. Doctors never prescribe any type of prayer for those patients who suffer from various diseases. Their conclusion was prayer makes people thoughts' negative. Prayers make people more anxious and it caused higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias for second group. This experiment was done on total 1800 patients who were going under bypass-surgery.

Last point- proofs and evidences come from two different realms. Burden of proof implies on someone who claims about someone's existence. Here is a whole article for positive, negative claims and burden of proof fallibility.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

I gave you one fossil evidence article in this debate. Here is a quote of that article-
I think because of the powerful appeal of a silver bullet, knockdown argument that would destroy Christianity if true. And it’s even better than true from the perspective of a habitual debater; it’s supremely defensible in argument. The two are not always the same.
"The “YOU prove to ME Jesus existed” stance, as with “Atheism is the default” puts the other guy on the defensive and makes him do all the work." When really, “Jesus never existed” is a positive claim, even if it can be phrased as “Show me evidence Jesus existed”. Of course, that evidence does exist. It’s called Christianity.

Ofcourse I sent you wrong article. Sorry. As he says he thinks it is a positive claim. I had another article which I wanted to send you. There was a missing copy-paste of weblinks. Below one was actual weblink-
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/

I don't think you have a proof of his existence. Therefore, there is no reason to debate on this topic anymore.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Original-Satan said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I agreed to make a new debate, and now you spam this here with a flood of information, I cannot possibly answer, because I do not have the time... You really seem to have a lot of time. I think you could use it in better ways.

If you ever want a real debate you can join in on the other one.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Original-Satan said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

I also think you really missunderstand the idea of a negative claim, as a surefire way to win this debate...

A negative claim requires as wikipedia says "the absence of reliable sources to assert their validity".

Of course this now I will counter with giving evidence to why the sources we have are indeed reliable. Bit by bit we can argue this through, if you want. For I do have the arguments to convince people. I might not be able to convince you, but I don't have to convince my opponent to win a debate :yum:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Original-Satan said in Vex Debate: was Jesus historical?:

So to say it clearly again: If you want to debate with me, we can do it slowly, argument by argument, after agreeing on a set of rules.

If you just want to spam a huge load of information as to why you are right... well have fun alone :yum:

[pe7erpark3r]

Ofcourse I sent you wrong article. Sorry. As he says he thinks it is a positive claim. I had another article which I wanted to send you. There was a missing copy-paste of weblinks. Below one was actual weblink-
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/

I don't think you have a proof of his existence. Therefore, there is no reason to debate on this topic anymore.

You seem to believe everything as long as you find an article that fullfills your criteria for reliable. However that article is simply wrong. Your other article was right.

I hope you do know that many authors of articles are wrong, even the reliable ones? I hope you do know that many scientists and historians are wrong? I hope you do know that believing an article or a scientific paper because it conforms with your opinion cannot be called rational, right?

Applying the "burden of proof" to history just simply does not work. You can only apply the "burden of evidence" to history and then weigh up the propabilities. Thus our new debate positions are actually better.

So to say it clearly, this is my last post in this debate. You do not need to answer what I wrote here. If you want to debate, come to the new one, and we'll look at all the arguments I just touched.

If you do not want to debate but instead be right, then do not debate and most importantly do not learn from those who are of other oppinion than you, no matter how rational their reasons :grin:.