But the tl;dr is that his existence is attested by non-Christian sources and further details can be filled in by critical analysis (such as early Christians having no theological interest in making up him getting baptized by John). He was prominent enough as an itinerant preacher to be mentioned by the histographers of his time.
Frankly speaking Buddha is on more shaky grounds, though his historicity is also widely accepted.
Personal insults won’t convince me. Evidence will.
But the tl;dr is that his existence is attested by non-Christian sources
Hearsay written decades later.
and further details can be filled in by critical analysis
Critical analysis shows forgery. The multiple surviving accounts don’t agree with each other. Just like any liar, they couldn’t keep their story straight.
such as early Christians having no theological interest in making up him getting baptized by John)
Yeah this is bull. John the Baptist was widely respected in the area at the time of the jesus con. Connecting him with Jesus would have been good old fashion name dropping.
He was prominent enough as an itinerant preacher to be mentioned by the histographers of his time.
Ok who in his time named him? Please show me the contemporary writing that says anything about Jesus.
Frankly speaking Buddha is on more shaky grounds, though his historicity is also widely accepted.
Connecting him with Jesus would have been good old fashion name dropping.
Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.
The multiple surviving accounts don’t agree with each other. Just like any liar, they couldn’t keep their story straight.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
Ok who in his time named him? Please show me the contemporary writing that says anything about Jesus.
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later” but the guy is generally reliable and had access to Roman state archives, which we don’t, so we have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so (“Christians who accuse the State of crucifying their idol”) because he had the opportunity, and habit, to check sources, and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.
He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.
To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
What the? Do you know what gospels mean?
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later”
If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.
but the guy is generally reliable
The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?
and had access to Roman state archives,
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?
If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so
How did you establish that?
and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.
Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
Standards of citation had not been established yet. Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you? And if so, can it be realistically attained? Do you apply the same method and standard to the existence of other historical figures? Can you even spell out your method and standards.
Standards of citation had not been established yet.
Not really my problem. If I was trying to convince you of unicorns being a real thing in the 9th century I don’t win the argument because record keeping was bad. You are making a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence.
Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
And now we are mind reading. You have no idea what my reaction would be to a document that says (and was verified) “I Tacticus talked to Pilot and he admitted all the details in the account were true”. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of arguing what a hypothetical me would do?
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you?
Sure.
And if so, can it be realistically attained?
Again not my problem. Just because you can’t prove your myth doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
Do you apply the same method and standard to, say, the existence of Nero? Akhenaten?
False comparison. The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary. And like all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It isnt exactly shocking that kingdoms have kings. What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
Hey quick question. If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb? This is man who is the best authority we have and he has a basic detail so very wrong.
The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary.
What, that some guy got baptised, was a travelling preacher with a following, and got crucified is extraordinary? Also this isn’t about Bible scholarship (as such). The Bible doesn’t contain The Book of Tacitus.
What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb?
Noone is talking about the historical veracity of resurrection here, miracles, or anything of the sort. You’re getting religion all mixed up with history.
You see just because it’s reasonable to believe that Steven Segal can’t knock someone out with zero physical contact doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes sensible to deny the existence of Steven Segal. His Bullshido is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, his existence very much not so.
Don’t be lazy. If you want to see evidence then look at what the authorities say. Historians don’t argue by pulling shit out of their arse.
Pretty sure I have. Why don’t you cite literally any of this supposed evidence?
Because you’re an unfathomably lazy motherfucker who needs to be spoon-fed the most basic of research skills such as fucking opening wikipedia and looking at the sources section.
But the tl;dr is that his existence is attested by non-Christian sources and further details can be filled in by critical analysis (such as early Christians having no theological interest in making up him getting baptized by John). He was prominent enough as an itinerant preacher to be mentioned by the histographers of his time.
Frankly speaking Buddha is on more shaky grounds, though his historicity is also widely accepted.
Personal insults won’t convince me. Evidence will.
Hearsay written decades later.
Critical analysis shows forgery. The multiple surviving accounts don’t agree with each other. Just like any liar, they couldn’t keep their story straight.
Yeah this is bull. John the Baptist was widely respected in the area at the time of the jesus con. Connecting him with Jesus would have been good old fashion name dropping.
Ok who in his time named him? Please show me the contemporary writing that says anything about Jesus.
I didn’t say he existed either.
Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later” but the guy is generally reliable and had access to Roman state archives, which we don’t, so we have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so (“Christians who accuse the State of crucifying their idol”) because he had the opportunity, and habit, to check sources, and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.
To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.
What the? Do you know what gospels mean?
If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.
The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.
How did you establish that?
Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.
Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept%2Ftake as gospel
Standards of citation had not been established yet. Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you? And if so, can it be realistically attained? Do you apply the same method and standard to the existence of other historical figures? Can you even spell out your method and standards.
Not really my problem. If I was trying to convince you of unicorns being a real thing in the 9th century I don’t win the argument because record keeping was bad. You are making a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence.
And now we are mind reading. You have no idea what my reaction would be to a document that says (and was verified) “I Tacticus talked to Pilot and he admitted all the details in the account were true”. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of arguing what a hypothetical me would do?
Sure.
Again not my problem. Just because you can’t prove your myth doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
False comparison. The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary. And like all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It isnt exactly shocking that kingdoms have kings. What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
Hey quick question. If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb? This is man who is the best authority we have and he has a basic detail so very wrong.
What, that some guy got baptised, was a travelling preacher with a following, and got crucified is extraordinary? Also this isn’t about Bible scholarship (as such). The Bible doesn’t contain The Book of Tacitus.
Noone is talking about the historical veracity of resurrection here, miracles, or anything of the sort. You’re getting religion all mixed up with history.
You see just because it’s reasonable to believe that Steven Segal can’t knock someone out with zero physical contact doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes sensible to deny the existence of Steven Segal. His Bullshido is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, his existence very much not so.