How much general legitimacy does the regime have there? Do people not want to overthrow/replace it by this point?

The new testament stories were written well over a hundred years after

Not right.

These were written 20 to 30 years after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle (“Fourteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul. Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder.”) It would be more like someone writing about this now, which I do remember.

Gospel of Mark is dated to around the year 70

Book of Revelation around 81-96

The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

The New Oxford Annotated Bible claims, “Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’s life and teaching.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

What do you think of what Ehrman says here at 1h45m25s that the mythicist theory isn’t taken seriously by the academy because it’s mostly pushed by people who seem eager to dunk on religion.

But at what cost???

I did my 333rd recently, the post of Choronzon.

First part contradicts the last part

cringe

720 isn’t low quality

Agreed.

Thanks for posting this on June 24th, gives us 362 days to make plans.

The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.

lol no… this thread is not talking about anything like that hahaha. Read it.

Obviously people don’t come back from the dead or transform into cheddar cheese; we don’t need historical research to tell us that.

His given name was יֵשׁוּעַ‎ or Yeshua, which is Jesus in one speech-type, عيسى (ʿIsà) in another, as well as a lot of other variants.

‘Christus’ in Latin seems to refer to the same person; Tacitus wrote “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”

Well that’s an entirely different question. Entirely different field.

“the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day” is for silly Christians.

The question under discussion here is about Roman-era history.

There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.

The question in question was “Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?”

They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name.

The second one doesn’t use that name. Read the sources.

There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.

Well of course, but that’s common sense. Dead people stay dead as a rule.

A literature search. The web is full of rubbish.

There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.

That implies each source says: “A man called Jesus was crucified”. The article you provided (if you read it) should have told you otherwise.

• Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, year 93-94: “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.”

• Tacitus’s Annals, year 117: 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

In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus

Misinformation.

There’s Tacitus’s Annals (year 117), Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (93-94), Mara bar Serapion’s letter to his son.

Seutonius (Lives of the Twelve Cæsars) and Pliny wrote about the conflict between the Romans and the followers of Christ (or Chrestus) around that era.

What are you driving at bringing up the semantics of ‘contemporary’??

The only time that word was used was when you said (incorrectly), “That is contemporary literary evidence of his existence.” – the annals are centuries after the 6th-century reign of Diarmait at Tara. We don’t have any 6th-century manuscripts. The situation in the Roman Empire is quite a bit better, lots of texts.

Would you say that a person called Caius Vipstanus existed because Tacitus mentioned him in his annals a few decades later? Isn’t that valid inference from the text?

I get it man

You don’t

you have “faith”

I don’t.

that’s not evidence

The evidence we’re talking about is the textual references in Pliny etc.

Say we have a textual reference like this: “In the year of the consulship of Caius Vipstanus and Caius Fonteius, Nero deferred no more a long meditated crime. Length of power had matured his daring, and his passion for Poppaea daily grew more ardent.”… would you say that a person called Caius Vipstanus existed from that evidence?

I think we are in agreement on the major points:

1. “There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles”

2. We know this from somewhat later annals. The texts are closer in the timeline to the historical figure than in the case of Diarmait mac Cerbaill, and are more numerous.

3. We share a general contempt for Christians and Christianity.

Right. I think we’re in agreement. There was a historical Diarmait. There was a historical Jesus. We know this from textual sources dated a little later than the historical figures.

His life was written about while it happened in the Irish Annals…

We have no Irish texts as old as Diarmait’s reign. CELT date the Orgguin trí mac Diarmata Mic Cerbaill “Created: Possibly in the Old Irish period. Date range: 700–900?” So we rely on things written 100+ years after the historical figure. And that’s referring to when it was originally written; it’s know from later transcriptions; the oldest physical Irish manuscript we have (Lebor na hUidre) is around 1100. So how do we know there was a historical Diarmait?

In the case of Yeshu the Nazarene, it’s similar, though some texts are a little nearer his historical period than in Diarmait’s case.