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.
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.
He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.
To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
What the? Do you know what gospels mean?
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later”
If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.
but the guy is generally reliable
The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?
and had access to Roman state archives,
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
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”?
If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so
How did you establish that?
and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.
Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.
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.
He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.
To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.
What the? Do you know what gospels mean?
If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.
The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.
How did you establish that?
Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.
Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.