• frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

    • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I didn’t provide any article. I read the one you linked.

      In this most recent response, you are annotating sources from 93, and 117. Those years are notably (at minimum) 60 years after the supposed resurrection; and as such are not first hand accounts.

      They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name. There was very likely someone named Jesus that was crucified, because many people were crucified. There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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?”

            • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Jesus Christ is very specific. Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day… that is fake.

              • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                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.

                • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You suck ass at reading. 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.

                  • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    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”

                  • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    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.