I’m Jewish and have been told very angrily that I killed Jesus more than once. It’s fun.
Prove it instead of casting doubt.
You’re the wrong party here, your search will prove it.
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
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.
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.
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?
I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.
There isn’t any and even the discussions in the wiki on the historicity of jesus are full of arguments to authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-Jesus_existed-4
It can be summed up as, “People who have made their livelihood around a potentially fictitious persons of history all claim that said person exists because reasons.”
However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. There are several hypotheses as to what sources he may have used.
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?
