@lednaBM But he did exist and was crucified. Roman records that still exist prove this conclusively. The records say he was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews and the Jewish King objected.
As for walking on water, feeding people and curing the sick, Roman records are not clear.
@BritishTechGuru Sorry.... that's just not true. There are zero eyewitness accounts. The historians of the time never recorded any such thing, only some afterward and as passing references. Now, if some random rabbi named Yeshua was killed back then, well, no big deal. A lot of people were killed back then for any number of reasons. It was a common name. The idea was to create another deity after the fact. Something the Romans and everyone else did a lot of....
@BritishTechGuru @Floppa Those are after-the-fact references that look to be forgeries because they are rando references. None of it backs up the bible.
https://youtu.be/d8n4QSUkH_Y?si=WeA5yFeqK6TkwHp9
@BritishTechGuru @Floppa This is the point... the whole thing is rests with errors, forgeries, and deliberate lies. Josephus makes two references only. The first appears out of nowhere very suspiciously worded, except if you're an apologist, and the other is referring to a rabbi that was named Yeshua and was the brother of another guy, with a different life and lineage.....
Paul would have written about it about 30 years after the crucifixion.
Flavius Josephus would have written about it 90 years later.
Both are within living memory so both are credible.
Tacitus and Pliny the Younger wrote about 112 years later so it is possible that they used records written at the time as their sources or spoke to elderly people who were actually there.
@BritishTechGuru @Floppa @lednaBM
Actual hard-earned, academic knowledge is frowned upon in anti-theist circles. It gets in the way of precious opinions, and what they saw on a youtube video.
Very much like MAGA in that respect.
@riggbeck@mastodon.social @BritishTechGuru @Floppa @lednaBM
Did you seriously just liken us to fascists because we don't accept propositions on bad evidence?
Fuck you too, buddy.
You get it @Floppa
And unfortunately, @BritishTechGuru
does not. No big deal. I will say, though, that the differences here seem to be that those who believe he existed demand volumes and volumes of proof of not; while these same people are satisfied with one or two random references thrown in usually well constructed histories to say see there it is. We know a lot about many historical figures, yet this supposed guy we have two things. A few poor references, followed by a lot of blatant lies.
I want to make clear that I did separate the person Jesus from the Chinese whispers about his acts.
The so-called miracles etc sound rather far-fetched fiction. There is probably something in them (probably) but in the telling and retelling may well have been thoroughly embellished.
As for the man himself, we have references that go back far enough to give a good indication that the man Jesus probably did exist and probably was crucified and for the reasons given.
@BritishTechGuru @Floppa Again, which man? What was the population of people named Yeshua back then? How many of them were rabbis? How many of that population had radical views? It seems to me you are trying to regress to one person as the source of Christianity; however, the problem is that the origin of Christianity was not from one guy. There were all manner of competing cults back then. Those in power needed to take control of it, so they needed some rando name to pretend with...
@BritishTechGuru @Floppa
It's ashame Yeshua A was the man, and Yeshua B was not. Oh wait, we know there were no deities back when inventing them was fairly regular. Holy Hercules, Batman; it was Bill. Let's kill Bill....
The lack of documentation of events is a problem. All we have is based on what information we can get from the oldest manuscripts. The problem there is exemplified in the book of Genesis where Adam and Eve created the human race. Now the problem is - who wrote it all down since they were illiterate. Writing and paper were likely not a priority for at least 1,000 years...
@BritishTechGuru @Floppa I understand your point, but not all people were illiterate. The key here is that the ones with power had the power to have written what they wanted. That's the context. We think of historians as cold, unbiased, scientifically, and logically systematized. It wasn't that way back then; nor was it very honest. That's not to mention the victors ending with control of the narratives...
@Floppa @BritishTechGuru It reminds me of theists, in general. They will go on and on and on about proving there is no god(s), drmanding all manner of evidence. The problem being when the only thing they seem to prove is that anyone can pull a rabbit out of a hat...
@Floppa @lednaBM @BritishTechGuru
It might be simper, but that's no way to discover the truth about anything. It comes down to authority. Most scholars who have studied these texts all their lives, using the best scientific and historical tools available, think that a man called Jesus existed, becoming a basis for the mythological creation of Christ.
So why should a sane, rational person believe someone's mere opinion, based on watching a few youtube videos?