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.
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.