Every website I've come across is completely biased.
It's either god.com or its atheist.com, each having their own obvious articles that always contradict what the other side says.
So is there actually any records of a jesus running around healing and getting crucified?
Occam's razor says he existed and was one messianic cult leader among many of the era, who was eventually put to death for being a nuisance. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work if he didn't exist at all?
>>1328281
Yep. The apostles all made it up and were martyred for literally no reason at all.
Listen, if you can't understand the fact Jesus is God, that He is the divine Logos and that His existence is a miracle, then there's no reason why you should reckon his existence, otherwise you will become a muslim and you don't even need to assume it.
>>1328291
Good point, I suppose he could've just been a messianic cult leader among many of the era as another anon said.
There well could have been plenty of 'apostles' sucked in by charismatic leaders and even died for them
>>1328297
But he was, no one denies that.
>>1328306
Yeh I know that now, was just looking for Proof or hoping someone could provide actual proof rather than just opinion, gut feelings or fantasies.
>>1328322
But, again, no one denies that jesus was a charismatic leader, but It has nothing to do with the Truth of Jesus, desu.
Read Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman.
tl;dr yes
There isn't a single accredited historian who in a peer reviewed work of historiography has claimed that Jesus didn't exist.
It's just not a historically tenable position. It's like Flat Earthers or Phantom Time.
>>1328322
You came to 4chan to find "proof" of the reality of Christ?
>>1328281
The argument isn't whether he existed, it is whether he was truly divine
Only retards argue that he didn't.
The vast majority of historians agree that he was a real person.
>>1328291
>he apostles all made it up and were martyred for literally no reason at all.
sources on apostles besides the bible? genuinely curious.
>>1328399
OP here, good point
>>1328389
OP here, thats where I'm at now.
Although I don't like doing it, Ive come to accept he most likely was a real person in that time and place ,without seeing any proof or records for myself.
Whether he was divine, thats for another board
>>1328281
I don't understand. It must be you who obviously has inferior research skills. There are plenty of atheists who believe in the existence of the historical figure, Jesus. Duh!
>>1328354
I feel like it's a tenable position to doubt his existence just because the evidence isn't solid enough.
You can't really say with certainty that he didn't exist because it would be impossible to really prove and Jesus' historical existence isn't all that grand of a claim either but it's not like either phenomena you've mentioned.
It's probably less tenable of a position than Jesus of the bible being based on a possibly messianic cult leader though.
>>1328281
Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned by Tacitus, one of the pre-eminent Roman writers of the 1st century AD. The guy existed, and he was crucified by the governor of Judea.
>to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
The Annals of Tacitus 15.44
>>1328291
The gospels are certainly made up. What makes you think there were martyred apostles?
>>1328441
It's dishonest to not mention why there are problems with the account of Tacitus.
Let me start with an obvious one:
The original document has been altered to at some point.
You'd have to believe that changing exchanging Christians for Chrestians was purely a typo.
It's also a late discovery and this passage is unreferenced until the 8th century copy is discovered.
>>1328441
Thanks this is the kind of thing I was looking but I've hard of the controversies related to Tacitus and the authenticity of his writings as another anon mentioned too.
>>1328436
That's because you're insanely retarded. He's quite literally the most famous fucking person on earth.
>>1328281
Just read Wiki? For all the stick it gets, its at least neutral.
>>1328458
>>1328455
There are controversies with Josephus, where it's accepted that Christians interpolated some stuff that made it appear as though Josephus wanted to convert to Christianity, but the mention of Jesus itself isn't an interpolation.
Tacitus is accepted as being pretty watertight, though.
>>1328467
There are plenty of famous figures that don't exist.
I don't see your reasoning.
I don't particularly care either way but it's a moderately tenable position.
Not on par with the conspiracy theories you've mentioned.
Not going to reply to this for a while.
>>1328441
Stupid Christcuck.
Tacitus is merely mentioning the beliefs of the Christcucks as he knew them: it is hardly a confirmation of Jesus' existence, any more than my describing the beliefs of any other group in a discussion is confirmation that they are 'real'. Is Zeus' existence confirmed because I posted in a mythology thread the other day and described folk beliefs concerning Zeus?
Second, Tacitus' account is believed to have been edited by later Christian scribes. Third, Tacitus is writing a complete century after the supposed ministry and death of Jesus.
>>1328487
>>1328477
Because you're insanely fucking retarded.
Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
>>1328487
Fucking retard day on /his/ or what?
Recording the beliefs of the people following the teachings of Jesus means Jesus didn't exist?
No evidence whatsoever that Tacitus was edited in every extant manuscript exactly the same way?
Historians write about the past? Therefore their subjects didn't exist? Are you kidding me?
Are you allowed to cross streets on your own?
>>1328399
>sources on apostles besides the bible?
Your question rests on a faulty premise - that the Biblical accounts are so biased as to be completely unreliable. The gospels and Acts have many details backed up by archaeology, so you cannot just dismiss them out of hand. But if you must know, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius all mention early Christian martyrdom. Early Christian writers like Clement of Rome mention the martyrdom of the apostles. We even have an ossuary of James which reads 'James the son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus'. Doesn't say that he was martyred, but it proves he existed.
>>1328560
They also have many details so obviously wrong that it's eminently clear that they weren't written by people native to Judea. Constant misquotation of extant Jewish law and scripture, mislabeling the titles of local notables, mentioning places that have no corroboration of existence, and making basic language mistakes like claiming Aramaic words are in fact Hebrew.
Not even the guy you're responding to, but the Gospels are unreliable as all hell.
>>1328574
> Constant misquotation of extant Jewish law and scripture, mislabeling the titles of local notables, mentioning places that have no corroboration of existence, and making basic language mistakes like claiming Aramaic words are in fact Hebrew.
[citation needed]
http://ingermanson.com/mad_science/james_ossuary
Why would anyone doubt the existence of the historical figure of Jesus? It has nothing to do with religion. There is no reason to think Jesus never existed. Was he a mere human or a god is an entirely other matter.
>>1328574
Name one. Just one.
>>1328281
>Every website I've come across is completely biased.
>So lets ask this anonymous internet forum, im sure they won't have bias's
>>1328530
You still havn't given me a reason to give up defending the notion that Jesus could have potentially never existed as a historical figure.
You've really just called me a retard and said that no one else does it.
Mostly I just took offense to the fact that you put it on par with flat earthers and such.
It's entirely possible to defend the position based on the doubtworthy evidence, there's just not significant reason to do so.
>>1328537
>
It doesn't mean he didn't exist but if that's the point that he's putting forward then it means that it isn't proof that he did.
>
There's the i/e problem in the copy that it derives from. Unless you can show that this isn't the case of course. The late christian copied manuscript that it derives from casts the suspicion of forgery or editing too I guess but I don't entirely believe that since only the i/e issue has any proof beyond "Hey isn't that suspicious?".
>
Well a historian writing about the past may need to use evidence or a contemporary source if they're writing about the past.
>>1328808
Yes. Now you understand. You are on par with flat earthers.
Satisfy yourself that the word Christus and the word Chrestus can both easily fit Jesus.
Anointed One.
Righteous One.
I didn't mean to be harsh on you earlier, but you're fucking retarded, and it's Friday.
>>1328830
>Righteous one
It's my understanding that Chrestus doesn't mean righteous one.
Wikipedia is telling me it was a more common name, especially among slaves, meaning good or useful.
However this is refering to how Suetonius uses the word in a passage that Christians assume applies to Jesus so I'm not necessarily sure how much this applies here.
I guess they can probably both fit Jesus, depending on how you look at it, but it's not really definitive.
>>1328689
>>1328753
>misquotation a of Jewish law and scripture
Mark 10:12 has Jesus talking about a woman divorcing her husband separate from her husband divorcing her in the previous verse. Women did not, and among religious Jews still do not have the right to initiate divorce.
Matthew 2:23 quotes a non-extant prophecy
John 18:29 says that entering Pilate's palace would render them impure and unable to bring a Passover offering. Unless Pilate had a dead body laying around that nobody thought to mention, they wouldn't be impure.
>mislabeling titles
Mark 6:14 calls Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, a king, a big no-no under Roman rule
>made up places
Find me ANY mention of Golgotha before the gospels.
>language mistakes.
Speaking of Golgotha, John claims this word and gabbatha are Hebrew in chapter 19, they're clearly Aramaic words, since the etymologies he gives don't match up with Hebrew words.
>>1328929
Oh, God, another idiot.
Show me in the OT where a woman cannot get a divorce. Woman Can Initiate
The right of the wife to demand a divorce is as legally entrenched as is the right of the husband to demand a divorce. This legal entrenchment goes all the way back to biblical times, and is not merely an adjustment to more modern contingencies. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/560111/jewish/The-Wifes-Grounds-for-Divorce.htm
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Isaiah 11:1
Righteous Reign of the Branch
1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
Jesus, son of David, son of Jesse, is that branch.In Hebrew, the word for "branch" is netzer, "NZR" which letters are included in NaZaReth.
John 18
They led, therefore, Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium, and it was early, and they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the passover;
The Praetorium had been scrubbed of all leaven? TOPKEK
Is this shit for real what you believe?
About 4 bc Herod Antipas inherited part of his father’s kingdom after the Roman emperor Augustus had adjusted his father’s will. He restored the damage caused in the period between his father’s death and the approval of the will, restoring two towns, one of which he renamed in honour of the Roman imperial family.
Golgotha. Place of the Skull.
Gol.
Goliath.
Gath.
Goliath of Gath.
Whose head was buried under a hill outside the City.
The Place of the Skull.
Talked about right here, in Genesis:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”
That's what the cross did. It crushed the skull of the devil's champion, while the serpent bruised His ankle nailing Him to the cross.
>>1328929
>Find me ANY mention of Golgotha before the gospels.
You've never heard of David and Goliath?
Is it possible you're an idiot?
>>1328487
I'm not Christian. Saying that there was a nutty prophet out there in Judea who ended up getting himself crucified is not a sign of belief.
>Second, Tacitus' account is believed to have been edited by later Christian scribes
It's an outdated fringe theory.
>Third, Tacitus is writing a complete century after the supposed ministry and death of Jesus.
That has never been an issue in ancient history and is certainly not enough of a reason to dismiss it. Most sources in the period are writing centuries after the events they describe.
>>1328987
>Show me in the OT where a woman cannot get a divorce.
Deuteronomy 24 universally uses the man as being the initiator in both marriage and divorce.
And oh look, Chabad is wrong again. Note, by the way, that they
http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm
>The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later rabbinical authorities took steps to ease the harshness of these rules by prohibiting a man from divorcing a woman without her consent. In addition, a rabbinical court can compel a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical condition or other characteristic, when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse), or, according to some views, when there is sexual incompatibility.
>Isaiah 11:1
I don't see anything there about Nazareth.
>Jesus, son of David, son of Jesse, is that branch.In Hebrew, the word for "branch" is netzer, "NZR" which letters are included in NaZaReth.
Which is not what Matthew is talking about, since he mentions the hometown specifically.
>The Praetorium had been scrubbed of all leaven? TOPKEK
Doesn't cause ritual uncleanliness, and this would have been before the time you can't eat or own it. In any event, coming into contact with leavened products don't disqualify you.
>About 4 bc Herod Antipas inherited part of his father’s kingdom... one of which he renamed in honour of the Roman imperial family.
And was very explicitly called a Tetrarch, not a king.
>Goliath.
Is an IEword, not a Semetic one. But good try.
>Whose head was buried under a hill outside the City.
Uh, what? Jersualem wasn't even a Jewish city when Goliath was killed. They didn't bury his head anywhere near the twon.
>>1328999
>You've never heard of David and Goliath?
You ever actually read 1 Samuel?
וַיִּקַּח דָּוִד אֶת-רֹאשׁ הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי, וַיְבִאֵהוּ יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וְאֶת-כֵּלָיו, שָׂם בְּאָהֳלוֹ.
רֹאשׁ
Head.
Nothing about "Golgotha" in there, nope.
>>1329027
Oh, you're just a reprobate. I see.
The Jews are wrong on Jew laws, but you're right. kek
Nothing in Deuteronomy says a woman cannot initiate a divorce, or that only a man can. Read it again. Er, read it for the first time.
Nazarene. Branch. Root of David. That you can't "see" it doesn't mean it's not there.
Matthew, as all people not retarded, knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth. Matthew said He would be called a Nazarene. And He was.
Yes, it does, to Jews. Real Jews. Not people like you. Just being around Gentiles makes Real Jews unclean. Not like you. You're filthy already.
I quoted that from an historical source, which says the exact same thing Matthew did.
Goliath of Gath is the reason the Place of the Skull is called Golgatha.
As always, your arrogant modern Hebrew obsession caused you to err. Again. And again. And again.
1st Samuel 17, we read about David’s battle with Goliath of Gath. After David slays the giant, he cuts his head off and brings it to Jerusalem. Victors would often decapitate their foe and then set them on a hill or a site that would display victory for all to see.
Seems like David had some balls to celebrate his victory surrounded by Jebusites. Too bad you're not related to him!
>>1329031
Place of the Skull.
See, Jew, the "Skull" is located in the "Head", and "Skulls" are what "Heads" turn into after they are buried under Hills.
Fucking Jews. So lost. So blind.
>>1328281
OP - do you want the real, 100% truthful answer?
We have no fucking clue, and never will. Move the fuck on.
>>1329058
Chabad based many of their beliefs on Kabbalah and codifying whatever was going on in Lubavichi 200-some years ago. The only valid laws in Jesus' time would be the written and oral Torah.
>>1328560
>But if you must know, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius all mention early Christian martyrdom
Do they mention the apostles? I've read them and I only remember reading about early christian persecution nothing in particular about Peter or the others.
> ossuary of James
The one considered forged?
>>1328753
>Name one. Just one.
Census of Quirinius
He was a schizophrenic bastard carpenter
>>1328294
Muslims accept him as Logos, mainly dude to a poor understanding of Theology on the part of Muhammad. They also believe he had a miracle birth, and talked to his mother while in the womb
