Hi all 
I have a concern about Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate on the cross.
When I read up about 'when was Jesus first mentioned' I get a few bible versus which obviously gives me a reasonable date when there are mentions about Jesus Christ. But, it seems Tacitus’s mentioning “Christus” was in fact 'evidence' of Jesus on the cross, which is reasonably strong evidence that he did exist.
When investigating Christians claims on this, I have found the historian viewpoint (which could be looked as an atheist's biased viewpoint) is that he was persuaded by Jews to mention Christus after the fact, even though this Roman had full access to who was previously crucified.
My concern is: Why would a Roman be persuaded by mere peasants to lie? Wouldn't it be MORE reasonable to state that he was NOT lying and actually stated a fact about Jesus Christ?
I'm hoping I have all the names correct and given a clear concern on the matter.
This concern was raised to me within a debate with a Christian, where I mentioned IF you can supply proof that Jesus Christ existed, I'll agree that this person stated he was the son of god. Well he did! And what's more is his argument that a 'Roman wouldn't lie for a peasant' seems justified.
If you could please let me know where I am incorrect in stating that this constitutes evidence that Christ existed. Actually I am hoping you can, but from what I have read online, the Christian is correct :
I shudder the thought).
Thank you
I have a concern about Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate on the cross.
When I read up about 'when was Jesus first mentioned' I get a few bible versus which obviously gives me a reasonable date when there are mentions about Jesus Christ. But, it seems Tacitus’s mentioning “Christus” was in fact 'evidence' of Jesus on the cross, which is reasonably strong evidence that he did exist.
When investigating Christians claims on this, I have found the historian viewpoint (which could be looked as an atheist's biased viewpoint) is that he was persuaded by Jews to mention Christus after the fact, even though this Roman had full access to who was previously crucified.
My concern is: Why would a Roman be persuaded by mere peasants to lie? Wouldn't it be MORE reasonable to state that he was NOT lying and actually stated a fact about Jesus Christ?
I'm hoping I have all the names correct and given a clear concern on the matter.
This concern was raised to me within a debate with a Christian, where I mentioned IF you can supply proof that Jesus Christ existed, I'll agree that this person stated he was the son of god. Well he did! And what's more is his argument that a 'Roman wouldn't lie for a peasant' seems justified.
If you could please let me know where I am incorrect in stating that this constitutes evidence that Christ existed. Actually I am hoping you can, but from what I have read online, the Christian is correct :
I shudder the thought).Thank you
