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.
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.