Hey guys do you think Jesus was a real historical figure?
>>52917
Nice b8, OP. How many threads is that now?
The image would be far more offensive and powerful if it didn't have the demon. Just the ideas that Jesus never left the cross, that the whole Resurrection is a lie and the cross is a symbol of his defeat.
That's powerful.
>>52977
The picture was just to keep out people who might have a biased view.
Well, yeah.
Does anyone of any note actually believe the Christ myth theory?
>>52917
Yes. The Christ myth idea is debunked.
>>53301
I know that Christopher Hitchens often used to repeat the Christ myth idea.
>>52917
The man known to us as Jesus Christ was actually an infamous Cretan pederast and necromancer who had arrived in Judea fleeing from the imperial authorities. There, he earned his living by performing magic tricks and selling quack remedies. Coming across the legends that foretold the arrival of the messiah, 'Jesus' saw his big chance. He used the messiah schtick to gain a moderately large following. For a while all was good, but things got out of control pretty quickly. Despite his best efforts, he ended up becoming a symbol of the growing Judean national movement. He was arrested in a roman raid and they decided to make an example of him
>>53362
Did he really believe that there wasn't a historical jesus at all?
Like not even the barebones Baptized/Crucified Jesus?
That's silly.
>>53519
He often used to argue that it was the case, I don't know how serious he was about it because when he argued he would often get carried away.
mods ban anything related to WWII. But this is allowed?
Yes, there are roman documents about an execution of a vary powerful man among the Jews around Jesus life time
>>53096
Except that didn't happen.
>>53301
John Lennox, William Lane Craig, and then nearly every important scientist and statesman down through the ages.
>>53333
No it really hasn't been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY
>>53362
Hitchen's was shitfaced most of the time.
>>53612
Yeah, how is insulting the faith of billions of people not to be thought of as politically incorrect and disrespectful to other users?
>>53682
>No it really hasn't been.
Your video agrees with me. The Christ myth idea has been debunked.
>>52917
More importantly: was he black?
>>53646
Tacitus accepted as fact that the Romans killed a man named Jesus for acts of sedition. Coming from a Roman official such as Tacitus, there's little reason to assume otherwise, unless you're a tin foil hat kind of guy.
The testimonies of Josephus are much more problematic because they have what biblical scholars call interpolation, that is, Christians inserted their own words into Josephus's history. But even then it's easy to separate Christian interpolation from what he actually wrote, because it's clunky and forced.
>>53612
Mods are being very careful that this doesn't become /pol/2.0, much like they're very careful that /aco/ doesn't become "/fur/:Fur Real this Time"
They don't realize by fighting one side so heavily that they give the other full rein.
/aco/ became /d/: But more, and /his/ will become anti/pol/.
They really should have emphasized nonpartisanship instead of NOT /pol/ YOU GUYS.
That said, I'm perfectly fine with a thread like this.
The Historicity of Jesus is a big question, seeing as how he's the most influential person who may have existed.
>>53682
>John Lennox, William Lane Craig
>Two well-known Christian apologists think that Jesus Christ never existed
Go home, you're drunk.
>>53682
There are no important scientists.
>>53795
Josephus is a really interesting case for the denial of a historical Jesus because if his accounts are totally fake, there would be no reason for his writings to have existed at all. Literally the only reasons the histories of Joesphus survived was because he wrote about Jesus. The Romans didn't care about Jewish history, and Jews thought of him as a repugnant traitor. Christians preserved his writings because he mentioned Jesus. Yes, they embellished a little, but that doesn't mean the completely invented a passage that made them preserve that book in the first place.
>>53932
Exactly. especially since he wrote such detailed histories of other seditious figures in the region, like Judas the Galilean who also had an active ministry that was viewed as a threat. It's also important to mention that his biography of Jesus doesn't exactly mesh with the canonical gospels of Mark or Matthew either, which if it was a complete Christian fabrication, it probably would.
>>53801
JEsus was real.
But also the insulting pic is offensive
He's a historical figure, alright. Perhaps a fictional being, but still historical and credited with assisting in shaping the history of the world. Say what you want about Christianity, but it's obvious how much part it has in the world's history.
I don't know how to feel about his existence. Many scientists believe in the existence of Christ, but to be fair they're mostly Christian apologists. Life becomes so simple when you're able to pin so much on a deity instead of questioning the creation of everything.
>>53362
>anyone of any note
>Hitchens
Pick one
>>53795
I'm actually surprised that when they run into Tacitus and Josephus, the Jesus Mythers don't actually pull consistent standards and claim Jospehus and Tacitus are also myths.
>>54328
Most people except that Christ was real.
The most spartan version of Christ is that his Baptism and Crucifixion are absolutely historical and literally everything else is up in the air.
I personally believe that the Historical Jesus is most similar to the Gospel of Mark.
Mark features a rougher, more human Christ, whose miracles are imperfect and unromanticized, and his gospel also lacks the fanciful birth and childhood narratives.
Mark's Christ is a virtual nobody until he is baptized by John the Baptist, and that seems reasonable and likely.
>>54453
*Accept, rather.
It's late, kouhai
>>54453
I feel the same way. Since Mark is probably the earliest of the gospels it makes sense. It reads more like a book about someone that actually existed.
His birth and childhood aren't mentioned because nobody cared. No one really cares about him until John baptizes him and gives him legitimacy, which makes sense because John was very well-renowned. He doesn't perform a ton of miracles. The entire gospel, he basically tries to keep his divinity a secret, which makes sense if he was an actual person and didn't do that stuff, since it explains why people didn't see it. The original ending didn't even include a resurrection, just a cliffhanger ending about an empty tomb.
>>54911
>His birth and childhood aren't mentioned because nobody cared
Or more likely that no one knew, which necessitated the invention of the mystical birth narrative. The lost Christ in the Temple served to show that Jesus was the chosen one from an early age and not a prophet who began his ministry as an adult.
I do find it interesting, though, that Jesus first became relevant at thirty which is also the age when Zoroaster received his revelation.
>>52917
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Bart Ehrman showed in his studies that a historical Jesus did exist. Many secular sources backed it up.
>>55516
Bart Ehrman is also an atheist, so it's not like he's a Christian apologist who has a vested interest in believing Christ was real.
>>53932
beyond that, I don;t see how Christianity could exist at all without some central prophetic figure, and let alone that the Crucifixion/Resurrection (however it happened) was a public event
>>54328
>Life becomes so simple when you're able to pin so much on a deity instead of questioning the creation of everything.
I'd say the opposite, life is far easier when there is no higher power than Man, the universe is an orderly machine, and there is nothing to answer too after death.
its a very comforting egocentric ideal.
Historical Jesus
by Stanford Continuing Studies Program
Description
Who was the historical Jesus of Nazareth? What did he actually say and do, as contrasted with what early Christians (e.g., Paul and the Gospel writers) believed that he said and did? What did the man Jesus actually think of himself and of his mission, as contrasted with the messianic and even divine claims that the New Testament makes about him? In short, what are the differences—and continuities—between the Jesus who lived and died in history and the Christ who lives on in believers’ faith? Over the last four decades historical scholarship on Jesus and his times—whether conducted by Jews, Christians, or non-believers—has arrived at a strong consensus about what this undeniably historical figure (born ca. 4 BCE, died ca. 30 CE) said and did, and how he presented himself and his message to his Jewish audience. Often that historical evidence about Jesus does not easily dovetail with the traditional doctrines of Christianity. How then might one adjudicate those conflicting claims? This is a course about history, not about faith or theology. It will examine the best available literary and historical evidence about Jesus and his times and will discuss methodologies for interpreting that evidence, in order to help participants make their own judgments and draw their own conclusions. Presented by the Stanford Continuing Studies Program. Released with a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911?mt=10
>>55621
I know. I don't agree with all of his conclusion, but even as a Christian I just wanted to point out that according to secular scholars such as Ehrman believes in the personhood of Jesus.
>>55781
Great course, took it myself. Examines from the traditional textual criticism point of views of agreement, embarrassment, comparison with apocryphal texts and the anemic non-christian sources.
Plus the professor is kind of a bro
>>55690
I'm of the opinion that the Christ cult took off specifically because of an event that ended in his death for sedition against the Roman state. This I think was an impetus for early followers of Christ, especially in the years before Mark and Saul of Tarsus committed ink to the life and belief of Jesus.
>>55908
If there was ever not a jesus, it was the focus of the Christ Cult in Syria. The Jesus People of Antioch and Jerusalem under James were obviously not initially part of that worship.
>>53445
Nice fanfic
>>52917
yes
>three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Despite being an insufferable SJW. Richard Carrier has done pretty convincing work supporting the christ myth theory.
>>56465
As historians we can't ever know anything with 100% certainty, especially when dealing with antiquity. We have to rely on fragmentary and incomplete extant records. We have to go with what is probable and what is likely. The claims of divinity and miraculous powers, however, are subject to scrutiny; since that which is vigorously asserted must be vigorously denied. Generally the corroboration of disparate sources passes muster.
I find it odd that most of the skepticism regarding Jesus concerns the absence of first hand sources.
Is it really odd that there'd be no direct documentation of his life? It's not like he was Buddha and spent decades of his life spreading his message; his ministry was supposedly only three years in length and all of one week was spent in a large city.
Adding to that, he spent most of his life among the poor and destitute.
>>56903
An antiquities professor of mine once said that we could fit all the extant first hand sources of Alexander the Great into maybe a page or two. I want to say it's remarkable that anything about Jesus was written at all, but it makes perfect sense. Peasants rarely made it into the official record, unless they did something unsavory or crossed the authorities. Jesus's life fits that historical pattern.
>>57097
It's kind of humorous to me that so much fuss has been raised over trying to prove the existence of one preacher.
The worst part about it is that it will never end unless they find a signed affidavit from the Romans who crucified him or something.
At this point in history, it doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not. He's already changed the course of the world so much that it's irreversible.
well there were plenty of would-be prophets at the time and Jesus was a very common name
>>55746
>God will short everything out in the end
>Only man can solve his own problems
Gee which one has more complexity and responsibility.
>>55746
See, as an atheist I find that fucking nuts. I'd be overjoyed if there was credible evidence for the existence of a god, because ceasing to exist is literally the worst thing a self aware organism can suffer.
>>57943
You don't cease to exist.
That's physically impossible, you retard.
You simply exist in a state you're unfamiliar with currently. It'll literally be no different than before you were born.
Also, parts of universe are unconscious at one time and conscious at another, so your constituent parts can regain consciousness at another time.
Stop being such a faggot and use your brain for a minute.
>>52917
I think he really was. Jews are trying to discredit this fact though.
what is the rationale for there not being a jesus? If early christians were so heavily prosecuted, why did they invent a figurehead?
>>52917
We have no evidence that Jesus or Muhammad ever existed, that's all.
>>58808
People have invented deities since the birth of mankind.
>1 jackass says that something magical have happened
>Other people believe it
>They spread it to their children
>Their children spread it to neighboring tribes
>Even though the belief is false, they don't know it is false
>>58245
And the time before I was born was horrible, as I didn't exist. Also considering that we live linear to the 4th dimension, quibbling over semantics over how technically you still exist is nonsense. You're dead and gone.
I believe that most historians accept that Jesus did exist. Whether he was a divine being is another question entirely.
>>52917
OP's pic brings back memories
I first saw it on enemy.org back in the 1990s
not quite /his/ though
Yes, without any doubt.
NOBODY would have invented the story of their so-called messiah being tortured and killed as a common criminal. It only seems to make some sense to people now because Christianity has had two thousand years to try and make sense of it.
>>54453
This makes sense to me as well. The whole childhood of Christ in the Bible is pretty clearly invented from whole cloth: it's meant to satisfy all the expectations of how a messiah should have been born, and it included elements that are easily disproven (like having to travel to Jerusalem for a census, which is simply nonsense, ditto the 'massacre of the innocents' which is utter and total BS)
Can anyone expand on the idea that Jesus and most of the old testament stories were adapted from similar older religions at the time?
>>64153
There seems to be pretty broad agreement that Jesus was a real person, so not invented out of whole cloth. A lot of the (pretty obviously made up) details about him are meant to conform to old testament prophesy.
As for the old testament, it includes a lot of stories that were shared by non-Jewishing peoples in the levant, and the middle east generally. In the Jewish bible itself you can see the evolution from very early "Judaism" which was polytheistic (Israel had many gods), to one where Israel had one national god but that didn't invalidate the gods of other peoples, to one where the Jewish national god becomes the only worldwide god.
Lookie what's written of the messiah:
His appearance was marred more than any man And His form more than the sons of men.
He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted
the despised One, To the One abhorred by the nation, To the Servant of rulers,
-Isaiah 49
Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send?
-Isaiah 42
AND THE BEST
I have called you by name. I have given you a title of honor, although you DON'T KNOW ME.
-Isaiah 45
>>52917
nice blasphemy, heretic
[spoiler]i think jesus was an amalgam of many myths and perhaps a couple of real dudes[/spoiler]
>>64153
Some of the stories in Genesis, particularly the flood story, are well known to be based on older stories.
I'm fairly certain that's by design, though. They're familiar stories altered to make ideological points(specifically, pro monotheism). Jesus's parables are the same.
historically, there are accounts of a prophet around the time Jesus was supposedly alive, the whole messiah thing I find hard to believe but in the academic world it is believed there was someone name jesus who went around prophesying
>>64867
There were lots of messiahs in Judea back then. He does seem a bit like a composite character.
>>53445
This is bullshit but I choose to believe it.
Why are Christ Mythers allowed on this board? They will ruin it. It's just biased plausible deniability bullshit with no substantial basis. Jesus was a historical figure. Claiming otherwise is not actual history.
Daily reminder that anyone who thinks Carrier makes "interesting points" or that Jesus was a composite figure are buying into anti-Christian pseudoscholarship because they're just atheists with an axe to grind.
They are also from /pol/, who are psychotically anti-Christian.
>>65380
Christ Mythicism should be a litmus test for actually knowing about history desu senpai
>>65278
The parts I think are most likely true are
>baptized by John the Baptist
>traveling preacher and teacher
>got arrested and crucified
John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus separate from Jesus and his account matches up somewhat to the biblical account, so he's probably real. Traveling preachers were common, and the crucifixion story is so central and striking it's hard to believe someone made it up.
>>57850
>complexity and responsibility
I think it's time to define those terms.
>>65297
Unnecessary for Jesus to be a composite character, since he didn't do much of anything but preach a bit in the sticks, go to the capital for passover, and promptly get himself executed. Any complete retard could have done the same.
how do we convince the mods to ban christ-mythers? do we make a poll or something?
>>65486
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism
These folks are big into John the Baptist but want nothing to do with Jesus.
>>65297
Most of the messiah claimants of the time were military leaders and rebels. O don't know of any that were like Jesus.
>>65524
There's no direct evidence either way. This isn't like holocaust denial or saying the earth is flat. But it's certainly much less likely than Jesus simply being real (Occam's razor being what it is)
>>65531
There were probably tonnes of schitzos claiming to be the messiah. There are probably no less than thousands of people currently living in the United States who think they are the messiah...
>>65380
how long until you animu fags get tired and go home?
>>52917
>Hey guys do you think Jesus was a real historical figure?
Yes, he is a well documented historical figure, but not the son of god.
>>65550
christ-mythicism just dismisses evidence for political purposes. anyone unbiased would acknowledge jesus as historical.
it is completely /pol/ tier
>>64842
Oh yeah, I have a translations that mentions the messiah will be sickly
>>61253
yeah but not so many people, pauls says hundreds say Jesus risen, in the same place where the events were said to have occurred so that they could easily have been contradicted by anyone in the area who cared. yet christianity would go on to take over the entire roman empire.
>>65609
"Well documented" is really pushing it. Aside from the original source author(s) of the new testament accounts, is there anything?
I believe Jesus is real since that's a lot easier to explain then why it would have been made up, but well documented?
>>65510
what are you getting at?
>>65963
YOU DON'T KNOW ME.
Yet Jesus is displayed as knowing God since the beginning
I could be wrong of course.
I some translations he is also depicted as sickly, and sickness in the bible is related to sin.
>>65380
this x 1,000
The one fact that confirms jesus's existence is the acknowledgement of him by other religions. Once you have both jews and muslims agreeing that jesus was real, it's impossible to disprove.
>>54225
>insulting pic is offensive
oh go cry more somewhere else about something offensive.
IM SO FUCKING TIRED OF THIS SHITTY 19TH CENTURY CHRIST MYTH MEME
THERE IS LITERALLY NOT ONE FUCKING ACTUAL HISTORIAN OF ANTIQUITY WHO TAKES IT SERIOUSLY
NOBODY WHO THINKS JESUS WASNT REAL IS EVER ABLE TO FIND A HISTORIAN WHO SUPPORTS THEIR VIEWS
THEY ALWAYS TRY TO PASS OFF SECOND RATE BLOGGERS LIKE RICHARD CARRIER OR THE AMAZING ATHEIST AS 'HISTORIANS'
ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO POSIT THIS TIRED, OLD, DEFEATED HYPOTHESIS IS AN ENEMY OF HISTORY AS A FIELD AND AN ENEMY OF COMMON SENSE
I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CHRISTIANITY BUT THE ARGUMENT THAT JESUS WASNT A REAL PERSON SIMPLY CANT BE MADE IN GOOD CONSCIENCE
REEEEEEE
>>66010
That confirms literally nothing.
>>66048
Autism
>>65984
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-4.htm
>implying the verse is about Jesus and not about Israel not knowing God
>>55781
Always been interested in the historical Jesus, this looks right up my alley.
Thanks anon.
>>66143
Yeah, I'm not too sure about it, prophecy and all that.
But you will agree that it is strange that he's mentioned as sickly? And that one refers only to the serf.
>>52917
he more than likely existed. he was a jewish man that was highly influenced by the essene and nazarene jewish sects, which would explain why his ideas were so different from mainstream judaism.
he obviously wasn't the son of god or whatever. he was just another cult leader, y'know.
>>52917
Well yes he existed there are records of people talking about him around his time and he certainly had a significant impact on world far after his 'death'.
Whether you believe all the miracles he did, his philosophy, or whether he was God or not I imagine most would agree that he did in fact exist in some form and was rather significant in shaping history after his exit.
>>55222
jesus could have been highly influenced by zoroastrian teachings. he could have known that zoroaster was 30 when he received his revelation before deciding to start preaching at 30 as well.
he could have even lied about his age too.
>>53612
It's because germans are butthurt that they lost. (WWII never happened according to them)
>>65380
>They are also from /pol/, who are psychotically anti-Christian
have you even been to /pol/ for more than 5 minutes you stupid weeb?
>>66424
I post on /pol/ regularly. Every fedora there is a Christ Myther, although they will deny it. Then they shit up threads by posting videos of Carrier masturbating into a microphone.
Christ Mythicism is not history. It's that simple. As someone else mentioned, it should be a litmus test for posting here, it should be worthy of a ban, and it should be mocked extensively.
To do otherwise is to invite the worst kind of shitposting that WILL ruin this board in a similar way to moon landing conspiracies and holocaust denial.
Mark my words. Christ Mythicism will be an insidious cancer on this board.
>>52917
Yes. Tacitus explicitly mentions 'instigations of Chrestus' when talking about the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. I also think his crucifiction mentioned in the Writings of Josephus (from AD 90ish?) as is some reference to Jesus having a brother named James. But i havent read those sources in years so i could be wrong in the specifics but Jesus is generally viewed as a Historical figure.
Was Buddha real too?
Or he was just invented by muslims?
>>65718
Paul wrote 30+ years after Jesus is supposed to have died, never met Jesus himself, and he is the closest source we have.
>>66280
>records of people talking about him around his time
Name one.
>>67763
Mythicists are almost as bad as people who believe religious texts record actual miracles
>>71793
What an awesome post. Remind me why we haven't banned atheists from shitting up this board yet?
>>65328
you basically summed up religion in one sentence
>>71821
I'm just saying, they have limited historical application :)
>>71793
Well, there's the rub. You can't claim with absolute certainty that miracles can't happen because they are, by definition, extremely uncommon.
The only way to say that the texts describing them are false is by first discrediting the text as unreliable. This is primarily done by first stating that miracles are impossible.
I would recommend C.S. Lewis's "Miracles (a preliminary study)" as a resource to flesh out what I just ripped off.
There's more to it, and I oversimplified to a great degree, but then this is an anonymous image board and not fit for legnthy public discourse.
>back to original topic time
>>73464
I almost wish video cameras and general literacy hadn't been invented so I could live in a world with miracles
>>73526
There are still numerous reports of miracles today, I seem to remember something about the pope and some blood a while back. There's at least one people I know personally, and a person I wouldn't call a liar under any circumstances, that claims to have spoken a language he doesn't speak on a couple of occasions, and was only alerted to it by onlookers after the fact.
It really matters were you look and what you acknowledge as a trustworthy source. Again, consider how and why you are denying the premise.
>>73663
Because I have autism and am neurologically incapable of teleological thinking or even making the emotional leaps into supernatural belief that neurotypicals do without a second thought.
>>73729
Whether it is an emotional leap or not is a matter of debate, one which has been waged by more and brighter minds for quite a while. As it stands, there's not a great way of deciding this here.
>Let's try again: back to topic.
>>73858
Mythicism is hard to support given the evidence. There were plenty of wannabe Messiahs in the time period in question and it's unreasonable to suppose that one of them wasn't named Yeshua.
Unfortunately what we can say positively about Yeshua is very limited, again given the evidence. There is a line in Josephus that is either a total or partial forgery. Tacitus wrote (based on what sources we do not know) about Christus in 116 AD. The synoptic gospels were written somewhere in between. The gospel of John is so late it's less than worthless.
I think the poor quality of evidence frustrates everyone regardless of ideological position (if any).
>>74483
Again, you are first denying the sources we do have, the gospels and the epistles, as untrustworthy or unnotable.
What makes John's Gospel worthless? It still claims to be written by an eyewitness, and even after decades an eyewitness is still considered valuable testimony. The only real problem is that he would be, at best estimates given what we know about John, ~90 years old at this point if the gospel was written in A.D. 100. It's not impossible that he could have lived to be that old, merely highly unlikely.
It is worth noting that the gospels and Josephus are the -only- sources for Pontius Pilate having ever existed, and he was the governor of a valuable and tumultuous region. No Roman or Jewish source besides these alludes to him at all. Why would outside contemporaries spend that much time on the head of a sect only estimated to be around 7000 strong as of the 100 A.D.?
Why are the Christian sources of poor quality? We have numerous manuscripts dating within a couple decades of the event that agree almost without fault. They claim to be written by eyewitnesses (John's gospel and the epistles in particular) or by secondhand hearers (Matt. Mark and Luke). The persons who handed these down were derided in the text itself, the commands passed down were ones they admit are difficult for themselves (Acts and Paul's epistles in particular) and, it is to the best of my knowledge universally agreed, they would later die for these statements. Paul's account of his sufferings in 2nd Corinthians certainly doesn't paint a picture of someone who stood to gain a hell of a lot by standing by this.
>>66378
>WWII never happened according to them
yeah that must be why everyone in their country is conditioned from birth an attitude of guilt and why their government is still paying reparations to this day
to even say that makes you look like a literal fucking retard, germany does not deny this history at all
>>74981
>the -only- sources for Pontius Pilate having ever existed
Tacitus mentions him, as does the Pilate Stone.
>We have numerous manuscripts dating within a couple decades of the event
What event?
>>75069
>Tacitus mentions him...
You are correct on both counts and my research was bad. But the issue of sources that survived remains an issue, why is Pilate so sparsely mentioned if they kept records? Either they didn't keep good records or few have survived.
Why would Jesus, to outside observers just another false messiah, be picked out for record? It doesn't make sense for contemporaries to keep talking about Him if His followers don't start becoming important until the second century.
>What event?
The miracle that makes Jesus matter: the Resurrection. If that doesn't happen His teachings don't have authority, His remaining followers don't have a reason to keep doing things, and the Jesus recorded in the Gospels doesn't exist.
>>66027
This whole board is predicated on the idea of being respectful to others and not being /pol/. Read the sticky you cocksucker Jewbag.
>>76315
Special pleading, ad hoc hypothesis. I'm sure the Moabites felt that Chemosh did plenty of miracles for them.
The record in Tacitus is a footnote to the Great Fire of Rome that Christians were blamed for out of convenience (them being an oddball non-traditional religion spreading out of the Levant and refusing allegiance to the Emperor) and occurred during Tacitus' childhood.
>>76315
>The miracle that makes Jesus matter: the Resurrection.
Assuming 33AD for a date, we have absolutely zero manuscripts written any closer than 150 years after the resurrection would have taken place.
>>53787
It's not implausible.
>>57943
>evidence
You empiricists sure are logical masterminds
Do I believe in Jesus as a historical figure?
Yes.
Do I believe in Jesus as a divine being?
No.
>>80133
Because you're a mong
>>65380
>/pol/ posts are banned
>this kind of shit is OK
I hate you, Mods
>>65380
I agree with you, except for the part about /pol/ which is kind of divided in its opinion of religion... kind of
