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.
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.