First of all, there is no real proof Jesus was historical, the best one is contested, especially by catholic church since it violates the later dogma about Mary being perpetual virgin.
Jesus remains legendary character like for example Ragnar Lodbrok or polish founder Piast the Wheelwright - there is very high probablity of such character existing, as evidenced by christians reffering to Jesus or by existence of historical people called sons of Lodbrok in the second case and the Piast dynasty in the third, but details are unclear and uncertain - legends.
In case of Jesus specifically, the sheer number of preachers in contemporary Judea was so high (it was period of social and religious turmoil after all) that the probability he really existed is basically 1, but for all we know the biblical Jesus might be single character or amalgam of many of them, sprinkled with magic later. I would call him "stochastic Jesus" - the "prohpet" card is played so many times that you can choose whatever you like especially that all those cards are nearly blank historically.
No dude , its historical , watch the videos and read the scholarly articles of real secular historians . Claiming Buddha , Muhammad , Jesus didn't exist at all because of religious persecution is ahistorical and nihilism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CD5DwrgWJ4&t=2091s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRfFLjWLybA
Well I have no personally enmity towards who don't follow antique history . but yeah thats it
He isn't claiming Jesus for certain didn't exist, but that there's no decisive evidence that he existed, specially as a single person or like he is in the gospel. There are a lot of theories about who or what was the historical Jesus, but his legend is probably partially based on actual material events. The burden of proof that he did actually exist falls upon the Christ historicists.
A lot of people at the time and region were illiterate, believed in very diverse sets of superstitions and spoke different languages. That's prime time for a lot of sincretism and mythmaking. We know so little about historical Jesus, that I think it's fair to assume that he didn't exist until some trustworthy primary source is found. Even Tacitus is not that trustworthy due to some apparent doctoring of the oldest surviving manuscript by monastery scribes.
And there are so many "Christ Myth" proponents that they have a whole Wikipedia category, so I don't think it's fair to paint them as basically nonexistent.
Again you are all falling into this cyclic loop of jesus existed but he didn't. The thing is... As Bart D Ehrman says the consensus among ancient historians judging the biases and perception about writings.... There are tacitus, josepheus , Suetonius etc , that jesus existed. The early Gospel which is of Mark also provides a historical account it has zero theological interpretation and was written in 70CE. One thing for sure, Romans hated the christians and jews for political reasons and why would they fabricate of such. Let's move to Arabia, why would Muhammed who was the prophet of Islam mentioned jesus positively and his mother. They are included in his revelations in Quran. According to him, he was prophet but not a "son of God".
3rd. I don't want to argue senselessly but rigid verified proof of such things don't exist. Can you prove the existence of Alexander the great? Simply because some ancient historians wrote it? I am not here to enforce any religion here but yeah... It's upto you to think all history is nonsense and nihilistic.
There are tacitus, josepheus , Suetonius etc , that jesus existed.
Secondary sources about Jesus himself, they primarily talk about what is believed at their time, not necessarily attesting for the existence of Jesus the Guy.
The early Gospel which is of Mark also provides a historical account it has zero theological interpretation and was written in 70CE.
Again secondary source, and Christian one at that.
One thing for sure, Romans hated the christians and jews for political reasons and why would they fabricate of such.
This is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that the Romans randomly invented Jesus, but rather the most common Christ Myth theory is that earlier Christians (who had lots of other non-religious threads tying them together) synthesized the mythical story of Christ the Guy from stories about both real events and people as well as those o previous religions.
It's also very reductionist to portray the Romans as uniformly hating Christians. Lots of the Early Christians were Roman citizens and once the Church got integrated into the Roman state by the time of Constantin they obviously had incentives to rethink or rewrite the myths in ways that benefited state power. They had some 500 years post Christ where they constantly argued over the meaning of theological things due to their cultural and philosophical implications, like Arianism and Myaphitism.
Let's move to Arabia, why would Muhammed who was the prophet of Islam mentioned jesus positively and his mother. They are included in his revelations in Quran. According to him, he was prophet but not a "son of God".
Muhammed is said to have his revelation in the early 7th century. The Qur'an was codified in the mid-7th. Putting aside the idea that you can prove the historicity of certain myths by assuming other myths are true and engaging with it in a pure skeptical perspective, people in the 7th century already believed Jesus was real. It would follow that that people could be able to reference Jesus then without it proving Christ the Man ever actually existed as such.
In fact the Jesus of Islam is a significantly different figure, so if you choose to engage with historical texts with so much trust, you'll inevitably get some really odd contradictions. It doesn't help that there are also a lot "Muhammed Myth" theorists out there, like Tom Holland, who dispute the idea that Muhammed himself existed. Which leads to my following point.
I don't want to argue senselessly but rigid verified proof of suchlike athings don't exist. Can you prove the existence of Alexander the great? Simply because someone ancient historians wrote it?
Because unlike Christ the Man, both Alexander and Muhammed led movements that had immense and immediate impact on many different lands and cultures. Although it's actually difficult to provide incontrovertible proof of either existing, the existence of the movements they led and their impacts on the world is undeniable and unlike Jesus they lived out in the open for all to see, so most historians find it easier to believe that these figures had actually existed.
Meanwhile the deeds of living Jesus are not mentioned by his contemporaries, and historians mostly only note them as relevant lator on to explain the actual impactful post-Jesus Christian movements. It is not, in fact "simply because ancient historians wrote it," but because we can find evidence that isore convincing than just the words of ancient historians transcribed multiple times by ecclesiastical scribes.
And Alexander himself is a really bad example because not only is there much written about him, but a lot of referenced but lost works from his time, including letters and journals that are mentioned by future historians. It is such a large body of evidence that there'd need to be a large scale dedicated effort to forge it all, and unlike the existence of Jesus or God, no future organisation depended on the belief in Alexander to exert imperial authority.
I am not here to enforce any religion here but yeah... It's upto you to think all history is nonsense and nihilistic.
I have no horse in this game, I'm not a huge proponent of "Christ didn't exist" theory, but to throw out actual historical theories because of some evidence (which is usually accounted for in those theories) is pretty ahistorical. I can assure you that I don't take that view of history.
Sure man, Jesus, Muhammad never existed., You can believe all you want. I am fed up of arguing the same thing over and over. Regarding jesus of Islam significantly not different because ebonite Christians and Gospel of Thomas also existed which followed non canon new testament.
Again, that is not what I said. In all words: "there is not enough evidence to posit that the existence of Jesus the Man as an undeniable fact."
Some (probably most Western) historians believe that he did exist in some form, some believe that he was organically constructed after the fact from stories and common experiences. Some scares ones even believe that the entire thing was concocted by the Roman State Church to co-opt the movement into looking like the previous Imperial Cult.
But history is not a "believe all you want" situation and you can't just come here with all that self-righteous arrogance based on one YouTube video and a lot of faith and think you can just discredit serious historiographical theories while being taken seriously. You can have your faith personally, but to put it above historical investigation is anti-materialist and if you can't handle actual history discussion with civility this forum might not be for you.
Bro dont get overwhelmed by your historical analysis. I don't know you and you are no credible historian of antiquity. I follow Bart Ehrman and saw the credible information and I posted it. I come from Asia and I am not a born Christian or anything. We hate Christians btw. So don't just assume what my faith is and don't assume you are just a great historian of any kind. You are entitled to your "materialistic" Analysis. I don't give much damm about it. Problem of the West is some commies have read few things here and there and they think they have become judges and historians.. It's same like AntiVaxxers speaking about vaccines and conspiracy theories about mRNA vaccines. Lol. Sure you can believe he either existed or non existed Or you can argue endless forever. It's either to your bias of judgement. Sure there are racist historians in the West who thinks Muhammed didn't exist because Muslims would have faked the entire history and also the Tomb of Muhammed in Medina. Such racists and foolish historicity can only be expected from westerners and their shenanigans. Or for another thing I am not a muslim. Regarding debate with you about the historicity of jesus, sorry dont have time and western idiotic ideological skepticism. I rely on clear cut ancient historians who are more credible than you and me and I try to educate people. If you have a bias that all history about Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed is all messed up I can't do much change. I have enough civility and straightforward ness to tell you, you go with your skepticism bias and become a famous historian I will read your book some time later.
If you have a bias that all history about Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed is all messed up
Odd, I have actually never said anything like that. In fact I never mentioned Buddha (because I don't know much about him or really care tbh), and I even pointed out how a historical Muhammed was way more likely than a Jesus. I'm pretty sure I also haven't been rude to you, and not sure if my country counts as "Western" (Brazil). Nor have I claimed that I'm a "great historian" by pointing out that there are actually a lot of Christ Myth historians out there and that their theories don't fall apart with such well know texts like Tacitus's Annals. Putting words into other people's mouths to frame them as idiots or bigots is not exactly respectful.
I answered most of your remarks with why they're not a silver bullet against Christ myth theory, you responded with ad hominem, strawmanning my arguments or arguments of authority with Ehrman. Much as you follow Bartman and posted what you thought was credible information, I've read a lot of early Roman history and pointed out how you were misinterpreting that information. I don't see the need for hostility, though I admit I was partly at fault there for assuming you're Christian.
Also none of the myth theories involve entire societies faking entire histories. As I pointed out, a lot of it involves taking actual stories and shared experiences, pre-existing beliefs and myths and merging them in a syncretic fashion, often purely organically. For example in Brazil we have a set of very modern and specific religions that were formed by mixing Christian and West African figures and stories while under suppression. Later on they went on to become closer to Kardecism due to this one being similar but not banned. There wasn't a concerted effort to "fake" that Oxalá is related to Jesus, this was born out of the encounter of two diverse sets of beliefs colliding within the horrible conditions of slavery, genocide and religious suppression.
Claiming Buddha , Muhammad , Jesus didn’t exist at all because of religious persecution is ahistorical and nihilism
Nice strawman. I didn't even said Jesus didn't exist, not to mention Muhammad who was confirmed historical figure though Buddha is in pretty much same place as Jesus (i didn't studied Buddha historicity though so i refrain from anything further), i even agreed he most likely did, but he was very different figure, or maybe amalgam of figures, than in bible. I mean duh, when we take out the magic there not much left except the run of the mill apocalypse preacher who just got lucky and get made a central figure in religion that went and become wildly popular.
The consensus among reputable historians is that he was in fact a historical figure. The details of his life are very much in question, the evidence that he did in fact exist is pretty sound and not widely disputed. This is a simple objective statement on the state of current scholarship. I am an atheist, so whatever else anyone wants to claim about Jesus doesn't hurt my feelings at all.
Look at my answer to Salad and the saintly patience of Albigu trying to discuss with the strawman guy.
I am an atheist, so whatever else anyone wants to claim about Jesus doesn’t hurt my feelings at all.
Sure, but whatever you read about might (and i'm pretty certain that it does, considering the nature of debacle) come from the religious people being very invested in it.
Would you mind linking any of your sources? For all intensive purposes the historicity of Jesus is a very much an open and shut case with the vast majority of historians agreeing that a radical reformer man who we now know as Jesus, existed and was baptized, and crucified. There are camps that say that he does not exist, but they are legitimately extremely small fringe outliers with little credibility.
Whether he was the messiah, a prophet, or the Son of God is an entirely different conversation, but he most certainly did exist as a historical figure.
Whether he was the messiah, a prophet, or the Son of God is an entirely different conversation, but he most certainly did exist as a historical figure.
Iirc there are two main evidences cited each time:
His brother Jacob - translation and uniqueness of the title suggest Jacob was his real brother, so that's one that mostly convince me, this is also the one disputed by catholic church
Mentions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus Flavius and Pliny - Josephus was ridiculously falsified by later christian scribes, and all of them don't even speak about Jesus, they speak about christians revering Jesus and all of them are secondary sources, all of them very brief, and most likely using the same unknown source, especially Tacitus and Suetonius seems very similar. While this is a point (though Taticus also show signs of being doctored, Suetonius in this case is more believable), it don't confirm the historicity of Jesus any more than Anonymous Gall confirm the historicity of Piast the Wheelwright or Saxo Grammaticus confirming historicity of Ragnar Lodbrok. Again, the argument premise is that all thee existed because Ivar the Boneless certainly had a father, Mieszko the First had great-great grandfather and christians had to have some preacher(s) at the start.
That is, legendary figures, or maybe semi-legendary, which people here seems to wrongly undertand as "nonhistorical". Those cathgories mean the person most likely did exist, but they got so shrouded in legends that it is impossible to certainly say the details. And it isn't even consensus, a lot of this is still disputed, hell some people even still dispute the absurd Josephus forgery as truth.
Sources? Joseph, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny. Though the issue suddenly become very easy if you refuse those, but not as you would like to.
And don't sealion me when it was YOU who claimed absolute massive assumption about legendary character being absolutely historical. How about posting some actual sources other than those second hand ones that would confirm it?
Alright, I’m busy currently but I’ll be back to post sources. I can give you my word on that.
From what I’m hearing you have no historians or sources to back up your claim. I’m not sealioning you, because you made the claims initially. A lot of them too, with no backing.
If you made the claim, then the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just demand I post sources after posting none of your own, and making all your claims initially. Again, no sources.
Just one. One reputable historian with credible backing. One source. Anything.
You can’t make claims about Joseph, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny, and then say it’s “Very easy to refute them” then have no sources to back that up. Those sources are considered credible in large part, so you claiming they’re not doesn’t change much.
I'm tired so i will ignore all your strawmanning and other tricks and try to explain. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius, they are the the closest you can get and the most objective as nonchristian sources (two of them openly hate christianity though rather perfunctory and ex officio than personally, and one admit nearly complete ignorance)
Suetonius: mentions that christians rioted, incited by "Chrestos" - in context of Nero persecution of christians. Pretty obviously not confirm Jesus historicity. Also interestingly enough, such rumour mill and greatly informed man like Suetonius did not know basically nothing about christianity even writing in II century.
Tacitus: in the same context, mentions christians being persecuted, and that Christ was the source of the name, who was harshly punished by Pilatus during Tiberius reign (crucifiction is not explicitly mentioned). Now that is the most straight up by the historian that is usually quite trustworthy. This is the mention that is supposed of being doctored. Or maybe not, since in the same paragraph he also call christianity "mischevious superstition" and straight up "evil", maybe we should believe him wholesalely. More straight up but a secondary source nonetheless - usually insufficient in face of lack of primary ones. Again not saying Jesus did not exist (which i didn't btw) but is still on the status of legendary character, shrouded in myth (which i said).
Pliny: letter to Trajan. He basically says christians worship Christ as a god then describe their ritual. Nothing about historicity.
Josephus: Ah yes, the testimonium flavianum. Devoted Jew (he was a farisee coming from aristocratic priesthood family if i remember correctly) writing something like that out of the blue and then not even mentioning any of this neither previously nor later. Sure.
Second time he mention the brother of Christ, Jacob (also known as James) which i mention in the first post, but still a third hand source for historicity of Jesus (though the entire meaning of the brother of Jesus is issue too by itself).
Again, all those are pointing out to the existence of Christ, founder/prophet/preacher/god/sect leader of christianity, but none of those allow to move him forward from the nebulous Christ legendary character cathgory to the flesh and blood Jesus. Which is something i say from the beginning, not that he definitely didn't exist.
First of all, there is no real proof Jesus was historical, the best one is contested, especially by catholic church since it violates the later dogma about Mary being perpetual virgin.
Jesus remains legendary character like for example Ragnar Lodbrok or polish founder Piast the Wheelwright - there is very high probablity of such character existing, as evidenced by christians reffering to Jesus or by existence of historical people called sons of Lodbrok in the second case and the Piast dynasty in the third, but details are unclear and uncertain - legends.
In case of Jesus specifically, the sheer number of preachers in contemporary Judea was so high (it was period of social and religious turmoil after all) that the probability he really existed is basically 1, but for all we know the biblical Jesus might be single character or amalgam of many of them, sprinkled with magic later. I would call him "stochastic Jesus" - the "prohpet" card is played so many times that you can choose whatever you like especially that all those cards are nearly blank historically.
No dude , its historical , watch the videos and read the scholarly articles of real secular historians . Claiming Buddha , Muhammad , Jesus didn't exist at all because of religious persecution is ahistorical and nihilism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CD5DwrgWJ4&t=2091s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRfFLjWLybA Well I have no personally enmity towards who don't follow antique history . but yeah thats it
He isn't claiming Jesus for certain didn't exist, but that there's no decisive evidence that he existed, specially as a single person or like he is in the gospel. There are a lot of theories about who or what was the historical Jesus, but his legend is probably partially based on actual material events. The burden of proof that he did actually exist falls upon the Christ historicists.
A lot of people at the time and region were illiterate, believed in very diverse sets of superstitions and spoke different languages. That's prime time for a lot of sincretism and mythmaking. We know so little about historical Jesus, that I think it's fair to assume that he didn't exist until some trustworthy primary source is found. Even Tacitus is not that trustworthy due to some apparent doctoring of the oldest surviving manuscript by monastery scribes.
And there are so many "Christ Myth" proponents that they have a whole Wikipedia category, so I don't think it's fair to paint them as basically nonexistent.
Again you are all falling into this cyclic loop of jesus existed but he didn't. The thing is... As Bart D Ehrman says the consensus among ancient historians judging the biases and perception about writings.... There are tacitus, josepheus , Suetonius etc , that jesus existed. The early Gospel which is of Mark also provides a historical account it has zero theological interpretation and was written in 70CE. One thing for sure, Romans hated the christians and jews for political reasons and why would they fabricate of such. Let's move to Arabia, why would Muhammed who was the prophet of Islam mentioned jesus positively and his mother. They are included in his revelations in Quran. According to him, he was prophet but not a "son of God".
3rd. I don't want to argue senselessly but rigid verified proof of such things don't exist. Can you prove the existence of Alexander the great? Simply because some ancient historians wrote it? I am not here to enforce any religion here but yeah... It's upto you to think all history is nonsense and nihilistic.
Secondary sources about Jesus himself, they primarily talk about what is believed at their time, not necessarily attesting for the existence of Jesus the Guy.
Again secondary source, and Christian one at that.
This is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that the Romans randomly invented Jesus, but rather the most common Christ Myth theory is that earlier Christians (who had lots of other non-religious threads tying them together) synthesized the mythical story of Christ the Guy from stories about both real events and people as well as those o previous religions.
It's also very reductionist to portray the Romans as uniformly hating Christians. Lots of the Early Christians were Roman citizens and once the Church got integrated into the Roman state by the time of Constantin they obviously had incentives to rethink or rewrite the myths in ways that benefited state power. They had some 500 years post Christ where they constantly argued over the meaning of theological things due to their cultural and philosophical implications, like Arianism and Myaphitism.
Muhammed is said to have his revelation in the early 7th century. The Qur'an was codified in the mid-7th. Putting aside the idea that you can prove the historicity of certain myths by assuming other myths are true and engaging with it in a pure skeptical perspective, people in the 7th century already believed Jesus was real. It would follow that that people could be able to reference Jesus then without it proving Christ the Man ever actually existed as such.
In fact the Jesus of Islam is a significantly different figure, so if you choose to engage with historical texts with so much trust, you'll inevitably get some really odd contradictions. It doesn't help that there are also a lot "Muhammed Myth" theorists out there, like Tom Holland, who dispute the idea that Muhammed himself existed. Which leads to my following point.
Because unlike Christ the Man, both Alexander and Muhammed led movements that had immense and immediate impact on many different lands and cultures. Although it's actually difficult to provide incontrovertible proof of either existing, the existence of the movements they led and their impacts on the world is undeniable and unlike Jesus they lived out in the open for all to see, so most historians find it easier to believe that these figures had actually existed.
Meanwhile the deeds of living Jesus are not mentioned by his contemporaries, and historians mostly only note them as relevant lator on to explain the actual impactful post-Jesus Christian movements. It is not, in fact "simply because ancient historians wrote it," but because we can find evidence that isore convincing than just the words of ancient historians transcribed multiple times by ecclesiastical scribes.
And Alexander himself is a really bad example because not only is there much written about him, but a lot of referenced but lost works from his time, including letters and journals that are mentioned by future historians. It is such a large body of evidence that there'd need to be a large scale dedicated effort to forge it all, and unlike the existence of Jesus or God, no future organisation depended on the belief in Alexander to exert imperial authority.
I have no horse in this game, I'm not a huge proponent of "Christ didn't exist" theory, but to throw out actual historical theories because of some evidence (which is usually accounted for in those theories) is pretty ahistorical. I can assure you that I don't take that view of history.
Sure man, Jesus, Muhammad never existed., You can believe all you want. I am fed up of arguing the same thing over and over. Regarding jesus of Islam significantly not different because ebonite Christians and Gospel of Thomas also existed which followed non canon new testament.
Again, that is not what I said. In all words: "there is not enough evidence to posit that the existence of Jesus the Man as an undeniable fact."
Some (probably most Western) historians believe that he did exist in some form, some believe that he was organically constructed after the fact from stories and common experiences. Some scares ones even believe that the entire thing was concocted by the Roman State Church to co-opt the movement into looking like the previous Imperial Cult.
But history is not a "believe all you want" situation and you can't just come here with all that self-righteous arrogance based on one YouTube video and a lot of faith and think you can just discredit serious historiographical theories while being taken seriously. You can have your faith personally, but to put it above historical investigation is anti-materialist and if you can't handle actual history discussion with civility this forum might not be for you.
Bro dont get overwhelmed by your historical analysis. I don't know you and you are no credible historian of antiquity. I follow Bart Ehrman and saw the credible information and I posted it. I come from Asia and I am not a born Christian or anything. We hate Christians btw. So don't just assume what my faith is and don't assume you are just a great historian of any kind. You are entitled to your "materialistic" Analysis. I don't give much damm about it. Problem of the West is some commies have read few things here and there and they think they have become judges and historians.. It's same like AntiVaxxers speaking about vaccines and conspiracy theories about mRNA vaccines. Lol. Sure you can believe he either existed or non existed Or you can argue endless forever. It's either to your bias of judgement. Sure there are racist historians in the West who thinks Muhammed didn't exist because Muslims would have faked the entire history and also the Tomb of Muhammed in Medina. Such racists and foolish historicity can only be expected from westerners and their shenanigans. Or for another thing I am not a muslim. Regarding debate with you about the historicity of jesus, sorry dont have time and western idiotic ideological skepticism. I rely on clear cut ancient historians who are more credible than you and me and I try to educate people. If you have a bias that all history about Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed is all messed up I can't do much change. I have enough civility and straightforward ness to tell you, you go with your skepticism bias and become a famous historian I will read your book some time later.
Odd, I have actually never said anything like that. In fact I never mentioned Buddha (because I don't know much about him or really care tbh), and I even pointed out how a historical Muhammed was way more likely than a Jesus. I'm pretty sure I also haven't been rude to you, and not sure if my country counts as "Western" (Brazil). Nor have I claimed that I'm a "great historian" by pointing out that there are actually a lot of Christ Myth historians out there and that their theories don't fall apart with such well know texts like Tacitus's Annals. Putting words into other people's mouths to frame them as idiots or bigots is not exactly respectful.
I answered most of your remarks with why they're not a silver bullet against Christ myth theory, you responded with ad hominem, strawmanning my arguments or arguments of authority with Ehrman. Much as you follow Bartman and posted what you thought was credible information, I've read a lot of early Roman history and pointed out how you were misinterpreting that information. I don't see the need for hostility, though I admit I was partly at fault there for assuming you're Christian.
Also none of the myth theories involve entire societies faking entire histories. As I pointed out, a lot of it involves taking actual stories and shared experiences, pre-existing beliefs and myths and merging them in a syncretic fashion, often purely organically. For example in Brazil we have a set of very modern and specific religions that were formed by mixing Christian and West African figures and stories while under suppression. Later on they went on to become closer to Kardecism due to this one being similar but not banned. There wasn't a concerted effort to "fake" that Oxalá is related to Jesus, this was born out of the encounter of two diverse sets of beliefs colliding within the horrible conditions of slavery, genocide and religious suppression.
Nice strawman. I didn't even said Jesus didn't exist, not to mention Muhammad who was confirmed historical figure though Buddha is in pretty much same place as Jesus (i didn't studied Buddha historicity though so i refrain from anything further), i even agreed he most likely did, but he was very different figure, or maybe amalgam of figures, than in bible. I mean duh, when we take out the magic there not much left except the run of the mill apocalypse preacher who just got lucky and get made a central figure in religion that went and become wildly popular.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
The consensus among reputable historians is that he was in fact a historical figure. The details of his life are very much in question, the evidence that he did in fact exist is pretty sound and not widely disputed. This is a simple objective statement on the state of current scholarship. I am an atheist, so whatever else anyone wants to claim about Jesus doesn't hurt my feelings at all.
Look at my answer to Salad and the saintly patience of Albigu trying to discuss with the strawman guy.
Sure, but whatever you read about might (and i'm pretty certain that it does, considering the nature of debacle) come from the religious people being very invested in it.
Would you mind linking any of your sources? For all intensive purposes the historicity of Jesus is a very much an open and shut case with the vast majority of historians agreeing that a radical reformer man who we now know as Jesus, existed and was baptized, and crucified. There are camps that say that he does not exist, but they are legitimately extremely small fringe outliers with little credibility.
Whether he was the messiah, a prophet, or the Son of God is an entirely different conversation, but he most certainly did exist as a historical figure.
Iirc there are two main evidences cited each time:
That is, legendary figures, or maybe semi-legendary, which people here seems to wrongly undertand as "nonhistorical". Those cathgories mean the person most likely did exist, but they got so shrouded in legends that it is impossible to certainly say the details. And it isn't even consensus, a lot of this is still disputed, hell some people even still dispute the absurd Josephus forgery as truth.
That isn’t what I asked. I asked if you had any sources for historians and sources that agree with what you’re saying.
You’re just repeating the same lines about Joseph and the scribes and calling them absurd, but that’s not sources. What evidence do you actually have?
You’re just making massive claims without any backing.
Sources? Joseph, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny. Though the issue suddenly become very easy if you refuse those, but not as you would like to.
And don't sealion me when it was YOU who claimed absolute massive assumption about legendary character being absolutely historical. How about posting some actual sources other than those second hand ones that would confirm it?
Alright, I’m busy currently but I’ll be back to post sources. I can give you my word on that.
From what I’m hearing you have no historians or sources to back up your claim. I’m not sealioning you, because you made the claims initially. A lot of them too, with no backing.
If you made the claim, then the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just demand I post sources after posting none of your own, and making all your claims initially. Again, no sources.
Just one. One reputable historian with credible backing. One source. Anything.
You can’t make claims about Joseph, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny, and then say it’s “Very easy to refute them” then have no sources to back that up. Those sources are considered credible in large part, so you claiming they’re not doesn’t change much.
I'm tired so i will ignore all your strawmanning and other tricks and try to explain. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius, they are the the closest you can get and the most objective as nonchristian sources (two of them openly hate christianity though rather perfunctory and ex officio than personally, and one admit nearly complete ignorance)
Suetonius: mentions that christians rioted, incited by "Chrestos" - in context of Nero persecution of christians. Pretty obviously not confirm Jesus historicity. Also interestingly enough, such rumour mill and greatly informed man like Suetonius did not know basically nothing about christianity even writing in II century.
Tacitus: in the same context, mentions christians being persecuted, and that Christ was the source of the name, who was harshly punished by Pilatus during Tiberius reign (crucifiction is not explicitly mentioned). Now that is the most straight up by the historian that is usually quite trustworthy. This is the mention that is supposed of being doctored. Or maybe not, since in the same paragraph he also call christianity "mischevious superstition" and straight up "evil", maybe we should believe him wholesalely. More straight up but a secondary source nonetheless - usually insufficient in face of lack of primary ones. Again not saying Jesus did not exist (which i didn't btw) but is still on the status of legendary character, shrouded in myth (which i said).
Pliny: letter to Trajan. He basically says christians worship Christ as a god then describe their ritual. Nothing about historicity.
Josephus: Ah yes, the testimonium flavianum. Devoted Jew (he was a farisee coming from aristocratic priesthood family if i remember correctly) writing something like that out of the blue and then not even mentioning any of this neither previously nor later. Sure.
Second time he mention the brother of Christ, Jacob (also known as James) which i mention in the first post, but still a third hand source for historicity of Jesus (though the entire meaning of the brother of Jesus is issue too by itself).
Again, all those are pointing out to the existence of Christ, founder/prophet/preacher/god/sect leader of christianity, but none of those allow to move him forward from the nebulous Christ legendary character cathgory to the flesh and blood Jesus. Which is something i say from the beginning, not that he definitely didn't exist.