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.
Pretty sure most historians agree Jesus existed. Was he the son of God and as described in the Bible? That’s the question.
Polls aren’t proof except what people are willing to say to pollsters. Show me the evidence.
I’m not the one saying it, the historians who are much more qualified than me or you are, so go argue with them not me.
Argument from authority < arguments from evidence
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.