I’m Jewish and have been told very angrily that I killed Jesus more than once. It’s fun.

      • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. There are several hypotheses as to what sources he may have used.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          buddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it’s authenticity, what hope do you have?

          Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources.

          The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don’t act like I’m the one with a crackpot theory.

          Let’s compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test.

            A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration.

            He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Historical Jesus:

      Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

      Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified

      • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        So…

        • A preacher lived around that time.
        • His name was ridiculously common.
        • He was baptized.
        • He was crucified.

        Notably NOT:

        • He was born of a Virgin.
        • He was the son of a supernatural deity.
        • He performed supernatural acts.
        • He was resurrected.

        To call this “Historical Jesus” is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.

        Let’s try the same argument today… “A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge.” How many fit this description? Isn’t it more likely true than false? What does that prove?

        This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.

        • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          What makes a better lie:

          • A 100% fabrication
          • A lie that selects elements from reality, and invents parts of the whole story

          Muhammad was also a known historical figure, as was Joseph Smith.

        • ccunning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t think anyone here claimed historical Jesus was the son of the magical sky wizard.

          Some folk heros are based on historical people; some aren’t.

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.

            • ccunning@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              No one here made that claim. But it’s the claim you’re continually arguing against.

              ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I asked for you to provide some kind of proof.

        You provided a statement that scholars have faith.

        I am being serious here, where is the contemporary record of Jesus existing?

          • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            this conversation is split into so many parts im just trying to chase down this one key point: it’s not enough to say “well I don’t believe them” - I want to be proved wrong here, for my own education. But I want to be proved wrong - with proof. Not just a throwaway comment of “they have not met my (undefined, and unexplained) threshold of proof”

            What do you have to show that Jesus didnt exist as a real human? That isn’t your own belief or thought process as your primary source?

            • supamanc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              You can’t be proved wrong. Noone can ever prove that someone never existed, but you can prove that someone did exist. If you have such proof for the existance for jesus, please share it.