10 ms·

Besides the bible what other source is there? Maybe Josephus? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Je

Besides the bible what other source is there? Maybe Josephus? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus I'm not a historian but it says most accept the authenticity of the name mentioned and being persecuted but that it's been manipulated over time. At best you can argue Jesus existed. So what? At the time there were a number of apocalyptic preachers, hence the format of the book of Revelation. I'm shocked that a religion didn't form around this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhb Who actually formed a sorta Jewish state for three years after beating the romans. I wonder if his story isn't as good because he created the promise land but failed to maintain it. Almost like it's better to be vague like Jesus and avoid doing anything that you could end up losing. Though they could have just said it was on purpose, like Jesus. People talk about the actions of Jesus and quotes as if it's historical certainty because of how long and how many people believe

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AlbertCory 4y ago
Did you actually read the article? Or any of the other historical scholarship?
- delecti 4y ago
  I did read the article, and it seems to be entirely things like "there's no evidence Jesus was there, but historians say he could have been" or "according to the Gospels". Neither of those rise remotely to the level of what I'd call "evidence". The former establishes that the historical Jesus is plausible, but that could just as easily mean that the authors who invented Jesus were aware of the real-world setting their character occupied. The whole article reads much more like a believer going on a quest to develop a more personal connection to events which they have faith occured. That's fine, and I'm sure is interesting to believers, but it did nothing to convince me of the historical Jesus.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    No, it isn't. The historical Jesus did exist, and as they say, no scholar believes otherwise. Bethlehem, miracles, etc. do indeed have no proof. Why he was crucified: no proof there either.
    - delecti 4y ago
      I'm not sure which of the many things I said your "No, it isn't" is in response to. I care less about what the scholars believe, than I do about wanting to hear some scrap of evidence for it. There's a ton of evidence that the stories in the bible could have happened (churches existed at the right places and right times, it references real-world people and places), I just haven't seen any evidence that they did.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        > I'm not sure which of the many things I said your "No, it isn't" is in response to. It was the very top: "it seems to be entirely things like ..." "a scrap of evidence" -- you mean like video or something? What do you expect? No one can provide a link that'll convince you. For something this ancient, scholars spend their lives weighing all the evidence and determining what's most probable. So if you think that just dismissing all that as "no evidence" is reasonable, then there's nothing to debate here.
        delecti 4y ago
        The apocryphal Jesus traveled a fair bit, led a religious sect, was a somewhat known public figure, and was publicly executed with some amount of fanfare. Basically anything contemporaneous would be a good start. Given that multiple of the supposed references to him refer to multiple people by the name, it seems far more likely that a variety of Jewish men named Yehoshua were after the fact agglomerated into one historical invention.
        AlbertCory 4y ago
kcplate 4y ago
> Besides the bible what other source is there? What’s strange to me in this whole debate is that there are folks that will take a single mentioned name on a incomplete stone tablet as absolute evidence of a person to exist thousands of years ago, but demand many contemporary non-biblical references for the existence of a man named Jesus from Nazareth. It seems strange that such effort is made to deny his existence, almost as if he existed then his divinity did too? It’s not an all or nothing equation. Question the claim of his divinity…of course that requires extraordinary proof (or perhaps simply faith), but is it really that difficult to believe that the man existed?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AlbertCory 4y ago

Did you actually read the article? Or any of the other historical scholarship?

delecti 4y ago
I did read the article, and it seems to be entirely things like "there's no evidence Jesus was there, but historians say he could have been" or "according to the Gospels". Neither of those rise remotely to the level of what I'd call "evidence". The former establishes that the historical Jesus is plausible, but that could just as easily mean that the authors who invented Jesus were aware of the real-world setting their character occupied. The whole article reads much more like a believer going on a quest to develop a more personal connection to events which they have faith occured. That's fine, and I'm sure is interesting to believers, but it did nothing to convince me of the historical Jesus.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  No, it isn't. The historical Jesus did exist, and as they say, no scholar believes otherwise. Bethlehem, miracles, etc. do indeed have no proof. Why he was crucified: no proof there either.
  - delecti 4y ago
    I'm not sure which of the many things I said your "No, it isn't" is in response to. I care less about what the scholars believe, than I do about wanting to hear some scrap of evidence for it. There's a ton of evidence that the stories in the bible could have happened (churches existed at the right places and right times, it references real-world people and places), I just haven't seen any evidence that they did.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      > I'm not sure which of the many things I said your "No, it isn't" is in response to. It was the very top: "it seems to be entirely things like ..." "a scrap of evidence" -- you mean like video or something? What do you expect? No one can provide a link that'll convince you. For something this ancient, scholars spend their lives weighing all the evidence and determining what's most probable. So if you think that just dismissing all that as "no evidence" is reasonable, then there's nothing to debate here.
      - delecti 4y ago
        The apocryphal Jesus traveled a fair bit, led a religious sect, was a somewhat known public figure, and was publicly executed with some amount of fanfare. Basically anything contemporaneous would be a good start. Given that multiple of the supposed references to him refer to multiple people by the name, it seems far more likely that a variety of Jewish men named Yehoshua were after the fact agglomerated into one historical invention.
        AlbertCory 4y ago

kcplate 4y ago

> Besides the bible what other source is there? What’s strange to me in this whole debate is that there are folks that will take a single mentioned name on a incomplete stone tablet as absolute evidence of a person to exist thousands of years ago, but demand many contemporary non-biblical references for the existence of a man named Jesus from Nazareth. It seems strange that such effort is made to deny his existence, almost as if he existed then his divinity did too? It’s not an all or nothing equation. Question the claim of his divinity…of course that requires extraordinary proof (or perhaps simply faith), but is it really that difficult to believe that the man existed?