Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified
To call this “Historical Jesus” is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.
Let’s try the same argument today…
“A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge.” How many fit this description? Isn’t it more likely true than false? What does that prove?
This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.
The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.
I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.
Check the talk page on that (and similar) articles. There are some very zealous editors making sure that they come down harder than the sources really support on the “everyone definitely agrees that he existed” side of the argument…
Prove it instead of casting doubt.
You’re the wrong party here, your search will prove it.
Historical Jesus:
So…
Notably NOT:
To call this “Historical Jesus” is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.
Let’s try the same argument today… “A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge.” How many fit this description? Isn’t it more likely true than false? What does that prove?
This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.
What makes a better lie:
Muhammad was also a known historical figure, as was Joseph Smith.
I don’t think anyone here claimed historical Jesus was the son of the magical sky wizard.
Some folk heros are based on historical people; some aren’t.
The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.
No one here made that claim. But it’s the claim you’re continually arguing against.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I asked for you to provide some kind of proof.
You provided a statement that scholars have faith.
I am being serious here, where is the contemporary record of Jesus existing?
I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.
I would argue that both of us ought to be smart enough to be able to look at the “proof” and recognize a lot of it is personal faith.
You believe what you want.
Check the talk page on that (and similar) articles. There are some very zealous editors making sure that they come down harder than the sources really support on the “everyone definitely agrees that he existed” side of the argument…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
Tacitus mentions Christian’s and their namesake. He mentions Pontus.
He does not mention these things together as a cohesive event.
He is writing about something else.