Originally Posted by
waterlilly
You will be surprised how convincing those conspiracy theories can be for some one who is already incluced to disbeliefe. Yes the Holocaust was witnessed by millions of people but there are those who say they have "evidence" proving it did not happen. Just like the Christ's existance was witnessed by thousands of people of that day who wrote about it but you will be surprised how many poeple, 2000 years later have "evidence" that he did not exist. Those people to me are just as crazy as those who say the Holocaust never happened. The only difference between the two is that one happen 2000years ago and the other happened 68 years ago.
All these events were noticed and recorded by "someone"..lol So i suppose the Mathew Mark Luke and John are not "someone" The New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document writen on scrolls from thousands of years ago. So just because you choose to dismiss historical data and accounts of His life because of its religious context does not prove he did not exist but just merely like i said a consiracy thoery to suit what you want to believe is true.
are you serious right now?..lol Even secular historians, geologist claim to have found Jesus' family tomb and some (although missled) even go as far as to say they found the remains of Jesus. Biblical accounts of Christ are enough historical evidence of his existance but if you insist on non seeing non biblical accounts, Roman historian Tacitus wrote of Christ: "Nero fastened the guilt . . . 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 . . . 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."
Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus.. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus. Tacitus' statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome. One historian suggests that Tacitus is here was "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." although it could be speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
My beliefe of Christ's existance is based on 100% FACT, while my beliefe that he is God and my savior is based on Faith given the overhelming evidence i have personally that He is God.
You have produced NOTHING of fact. You merely repeat the same 2nd century acknowldgements that there were Christians living at that time. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are names attached to anonymous gospels, by the church, in the 2nd century of the Christian era. NO ONE knows who the actual authors were. Tacitus wrote 117 years AFTER the alleged death of Christ. And it does your argument little good when Tacitus describes the Christians of his time as give to 'filthy depravity'!
Suetonious use of "Chrestus" is also suspect since it does not mean "Christ" or "Messiah"... it was simply a common name denoting a good person.
There are THREE tombs in the Holy Land... all claiming to be the REAL tomb of Jesus... hardly an historical proof of anything.
Why do you insist that those who do not believe in the existence of Jesus are all part of a conspiracy. That is not only ludicruous, but unhealthy. Your faith in Jesus as God should be enough for you, without relying on spurious 'proofs' of his existence.
