#2 Evidence of Jesus Christ

Con"s (Chases) response: Christus Pro assumes Con meant Christos? And notices this on the web. What were the disciples and followers of the Messiah called after supposed death, burial and resurrection? Were they called Christians, as the Bible translators state in Acts 11:26 "And when he (Barnabas) had found him (the Apostle Paul), he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." http://www.plim.org... Pro"s claim seems to be contrary to the Christian bible, the best I can do is to allow this contradiction Pro placed before me is to let each of them to cancel each other out. I see no evidence (Historical or otherwise) of Jesus Christ in either, since both are NOT contemporary historical accounts and therefore do NOT qualify as being historical evidence by any sense of the term, I make the leap of "faith" and consider this a game of semantics?. OR, is Pro attempting to establish Jesus Christ was Greek? Pro uses (or attempts to) Tacitus. Con looks up Tacitus as a Roman historian and finds this, "Tacitus is most famously known for the Annals, which covers the Roman Empire from 14-68 C.E. and includes information about the reign of Nero. He records Nero"s probable arson of Rome in order to implement his own architectural designs and how he passed the blame to Christians as a ready scapegoat. As a result of this blame, Nero heatedly persecuted Christians and Tacitus wrote the following about this, "But neither human effort nor the emperor"s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called "Chrestians." The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate."[xiii] Indeed, emperor Nero used Christians as a scapegoat to explain the fire, which broke out in Rome (64 A.D.). Tacitus mentions that the Christians were likely not the cause of the fire, but used the fire as an excuse to persecute Christians. The Annals do not prove that Jesus Christ existed but merely that Christians existed in the First Century A.D., which no scholar has ever disputed. Since Tacitus recorded The Annals one hundred years after Jesus" proposed existence, this lacks historical reliability(Con NOTES that this is a depiction of a non-contemporary account). It is important to remember that the negative evidence cited above is not "absence of evidence," but rather "evidence of absence." In science, negative evidence is often as important as positive evidence. Source: http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com... (Pro offers this next, and I quote) A relatively contemporary historian had, in fact, referenced Jesus. Con respond to Pro: A relatively contemporary account? So a non-historical account confirms what historically? Con considers Pros, statement further". A "relative/almost contemporary historical rendering"".here is a definition of the term "Historical" and its source. his"tor"i"cal [hi-stawr-i-kuhl, -stor-] Adjective of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research. Having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus. http://dictionary.reference.com... Pro seems to have missed the mark".. (Pro offers this next, and I quote) Addressing the problem of why Christ had never appeared in many Roman records during his lifetime, the Empire most likely did not want his infectious ideas spreading and therefore censored or destroyed records written within Christ's own lifetime. Only later would the censor be repealed. However, that is only an inference of mine, and whether or not such a censor existed is still a mystery. Pro offers Con a popular Christian apology for the lack of historical evidence of Jesus in a non-historical rendition based in unsupported anecdotal evidence and abstract conjecture? I see no evidence of Jesus Christ in Pro"s confession there is a lack of evidence". Dose Pro wish to try again(?), because admitting there is a lack of evidence does not further Pro"s claim "that there is evidence." Con rests".. : )