Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

daley, thank you for your quick response. The term "Christian" was not known in Tacitus' time A mistake on my part: it should have been that the term was not well known in Nero's reign (54-68 AD). It was only in the last third of the 1st century Christianity became a religion known separate from Judaism. As Tacitus lived to 117 AD, he may known of the term in his lifetime. This does not change the fact of course that his passage does not appear until much later in the form of mentioning "Christian." St. Paul himself does not make use of "Christian" in any of his writings. It is doubtful that when the Great of Rome occurred (64 AD) it would have been known outside Christian circles. In any case, the Gospel of Peter has been dated to the mid-2nd century. The Acts of the Apostles has been dated to 62-64 AD and mentions neither Paul's death nor the destruction of Jerusalem, making it more likely to have been written then. The passage quoted is: So it was that for an entire year they met with and taught a great many people, and it was called in Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians." (Acts 11:26, NRSV) Suetonius does not mention a "Jesus of Nazareth" in any of his writings, and his "Chrestus" reference dates to 112 AD. Moreover, "Chrestus" is not Christ, as English suggests, but "The Good" in Greek. The full reference in Twelve Caesars is, (referring to Emperor Claudius who preceded Nero): "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." This was said to occur in 54 AD, a full decade before the Fire. Chrestus was a common name used by both freemen and slaves, attested to more than 80 times in Latin inscriptions. In any case the passage makes clear that this "Chrestus" was a living man, instead of someone who departed. This report is questionable itself, as Cassius Dio gives a better account without a confusing "Chrestus" reference: "As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6. I have already discussed Josephus' reference at length and so will not go over it again. Pliny the Younger made his first alleged reference to Christians in 112 AD, long after the date in contention, and even this letter is suspect, as it appeared with Book Ten, released anonymously after his death unlike the others. Pliny had an uncle who served high in the Roman military under Nero, and would have been aware of any Christian persecutions but they go unmentioned. Later Pliny served on the Imperial staff in Syria, a hotbed of Christian activities we are told, yet they also remain absent from his recollections. Tacitus' reference is not supportive of Christians, no, but it does match their belief. It would seem more credible that opponents be quoted, showing that even "they" agreed it happened, making lack of this reference for many centuries suspicious (and you have certainly mentioned pagans who did so). Yet, it was common belief among Christians, but they were seeking to convince others too, and this would have been helpful. In order that Jesus be both man and divine, certainly he had to exist on earth in the first place. The reference was of use to showing that. 1) Let me reprint the Jamesian reference to clarify: "... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." Speculation is unavoidable here. 2) Now, this "non-Christian terminology" would be easy to understand if the words "who was called Christ" had been inserted after the word "Jesus." I agree the emphasis is not on either Jesus or James, but on Ananus, which makes a passing reference strange at best. 3) "There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation." Tacitus does not praise Jesus, yet that is not an interpolation? 4) Perhaps it was written before Hegesippus did? I do not know when his reference to James' death was written. "This is not what we would expose if this were an interpolation." Yet the earlier Josephus reference "does" give praise to Jesus, yet this is "not" an interpolation? We seem to be on "head's I win, tails you lose" here. The Josephus reference only says Jesus' existed but performed miracles, and this would be useful for all of the Church Fathers to reference, yet they do not. Upon further research, I have found the Church Fathers were not familiar with Antiquities in the main (this debate is certainly helping me to learn more about this period of history, so kudos). I thus concede their lack of reference is not proof. I still contend the passages on Christ is an interpolation though. Yes, Origen and Celsus did not debate his existence (Celsus acceptance of Christ claims at face-value was very foolish and put him in a weak position) but as I said above, it would still be useful. Would would think a passage dated near to the era in which Jesus supposedly lived would be referenced more. For double standards, see interpolations. Sadly, we only have Medieval copies from Josephus' Antiquities, as is common in ancient texts. By then, any interpolation long since would have been faithfully copied down. Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, himself says "Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ" yet Josephus is supposed to have written "he was the Christ." One or the other must be wrong. True, if Origen had not read the Antiquities he might not be aware of the reference, but had this been written before, it would have at least made some think Josephus was Christian. Yet Josephus was thought to disbelieve that Jesus was Christ. Yes, Josephus could have kept the belief to himself-but not, however, by writing it in a published work. This indicates he did not, in fact, write any such thing. There is no passage besides this or the Jamesian reference that he mentions them at all. "What it is specifically about Josephus that would make him want to write more about Jesus?" It was out of character for Josephus not to write more, believing or not. Your mention of John the Baptist is a case in point, as in fact Josephus wrote much more extensively on him along with other figures that would seem to be minor in comparison with Jesus. "If atheists claims are so factual then why do most people believe in God when Science presents so much evidence against religion?" Now that could be a whole debate itself :) "Just because something might be true doesn't mean it will get majority vote." Certainly popularity is no evidence by the fact alone. 1) I contend the Christians in those days did not believe the resurrection happened physically on earth, so again nothing to confess." "Con provides no evidence for this claim like most of his other claims." My apologies for not providing evidence before, in contrast with the other claims-where I have. Like you, I was out of space. I will not have enough room here to fully get into early Christian belief. Would you like to use the next round in finishing up your replies and I could expand on early Christian belief there? (You were right to make this five rounds).