Let's face the facts; this "Jesus of Nazareth" person probably never existed. It's a nice myth though
>>1346021
tips fedora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/
>"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"
- Bart Ehrman
>"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.
- Michael Grant
>"In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.
- Richard Burridge
Actually he was real and the evidence is strongly supporting the fact that he was black
>>1346037
kang of kangz nephew
>>1346021
Why is it so hard for you to believe a man existed?
You can say he existed without believing he did the shit he did.
Just because they can prove this person actually existed doesn't mean it's proof of his deeds
>>1346043
Yes every one of us on our own must decide what to make of this man, Jesus of Nazareth king of the Jews.
>>1346051
Kang of the jews.
>>1346037
if anything he was brown
he was a judean you know
>>1346043
>Just because they can prove this person actually existed
You seem to have access to some compelling evidence, please share it.
>>1346056
It is as you say.
>>1346062
>You seem to have access to some compelling evidence, please share it.
You are missing the point. What does it matter?
"I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him"
-Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian"
>>1346065
Da ancient isrealite was black herod was black alexander jannaeus was black so jesus was obviously black
>>1346073
>Black science man
>>1346090
>>1346066
The point is people take Jesus's existence at face value simply because he is a major part of western culture. Atheists use the admission that Jesus was a man but wasn't special as a sort of meeting point to discuss with christians, but I and OP are positing that there is not enough evidence to suggest that he actually lived at all, so the whole thing is for naught
>>1346021
If he never existed then how do you theorize the start of Christianity?
>>1346155
No mind has written better stories than that of the black mind
>>1346122
>but I and OP are positing that there is not enough evidence to suggest that he actually lived at all, so the whole thing is for naught
Tacitus is not enough for you? Even though many non-christian scholars are able to agree on it's accuracy?
>>1346122
If Jesus were a euhemerized deity as opposed to an actual heretical rabble-rouser who got put to death (a category dime a dozen throughout history) surely you'd expect someone to mention it before the 18th century.
>>1346197
>>1346122
More.
>Consequently, 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.
>>1346212
>>1346122
Josephus a Roman Jew born ~37 CE
>About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
If you read ANYTHING from this actual time period it is filled with mysticism and great deeds. Proving ones existence does not prove his deeds. There is evidence of Lugalbanda having lived, an ancient king of Sumeria said to have ruled for 1,200 years father of Gilgamesh.
>>1346021
Can we all agree that you've made too many of these threads tonight and should fuck off?
>>1346021
He was probably a real guy, even though the direct evidence of him is basically nonexistent. There is an interesting minority argument that he never existed at all though
>>1346021
He most likely did. Whether or not he was the son of God well that's up to you.
>>1346212
Christians/Chrestians spelling is an issue with this document since the i/e distinction is not later made for Chrstus (If I was rused then feel free to point out a source that says it has not been provably altered in that way).
There's a notable difference between the two.
There is also mild reason to believe that since it is not quoted when it would have been relevant and since only one 8th century Christian copy was discovered and actually made reference to rather late (14th century I think, but I may be wrong on this part) that the passage may have been further changed. But there is no real evidence of this.
>>1346227
Interpolations.
He refers to Jesus in the passage though.
Jesus being some messianic apocalyptic preacher in the 1st century isn't an extraordinary claim but I think that the provided evidence can be doubted to an extent that it can be said with some validity that he may not have existed as a basis for the later myths.
However due to how common of an occurence a man like the historical Jesus would be in that time and place, his existence as a historical figure and a real basis for the resulting mythology is probably the more reasonable position.
Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.
Jesus Christ is a fictional character. He is Jesus of Nazareth as depicted by Paul the Apostle.
>>1346073
>that picture
Every time. I can't stop laughing.
