No, there is literaly no proof at all, lt’s go one by one:
Alleged
It’s not even know if he was really jesus brother or thaw was just how he was titled, religious sects love titles like “father, brother, mother etc.”
Assuming it’s really John, which is also doubtful, John is still not Jesus. You could as well argument that because Pilatus was real, therefore Jesus was real?
A house for judaic prayer in judaic town? Definitely proof that certain preacher existed!
Seriously?
Was it signed? How many boats were there in those years?
4, 3 and 2. LMAO called it in 8.
Did you even read that article? It’s utter nonsense, way below the usual level of argument for that problem. NONE of that is any proof and the only one that is even possibly linked is point 9 - and that guy is the best existing proof period - which is not up to standard, just as for example alleged sons of Lodbrok are not definitive proof of Ragnar Lodbrok existence.
EDIT: I fucking hate lemmy formatting, i have no idea how to make that look not like shit.
(and just to be clear, I am not arguing that Jesus was a wizard with magical duplication powers, just a guy that existed 2k years ago and probably got crucified, not an uncommon thing at the time)
Still nothing though. The only thing really confirmed it that christians in second half of I century in Rome believed in his existence, which was half century from his death and half of known world from the place.
Also the article in wiki is incredibly biased, starting from “Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.” which is blatantly false, unless they asked only evengelical USA fanatics, by which this article is cleraly written, and then include super nonsense like “nuclei of truth” in testimonium flavianum, which is commonly agreed to be completely false by, this time for real, all serious scholars which are not fanatical christians. And so on and on and on. They even list their methodogy which is basically theology, not history research. I’m not even mentioning logic like “John existed so the NT says the truth here, so it’s all true” which is such a poor fallacy.
No proof at all, only conjectures, fallacies and lies.
I would not at all be surprised If there was some dude in Rome who preached for poor people and against imperialism, who ended up on a cross and as the basis for a religion, and an important figure in others.
There is a theory that Jesus and Barabbas was one and the same person. I like to think this is true, because not only he would be way more based then, but it also resolves literally all the ahistorical nonsenses and improbablities of the trial.
Yeah, this happened many times, but Jesus never said anything against imperialism, nor being a revolutionary. The character was about obeying rulers, for slaves to not rebel against masters, to women be subject to their husbands, and patiently wait for the end of the world… 2000 years ago.
And yet again, to make my point even clearer, I ain’t saying that Crist was a druid with magical wizard powers, for all I know he was just a guy with a following.
This is just bullshit and catholic tradition… Manhattan is real, does this make Spider-Man real? Hey! A bunch of scrapped iron! This is for sure Dr. Octopus remains!.. Dudee…
There’s no historical evidence of his existence lol
There is sound archaeological proof for his existence, again I’m not arguing that he was a wizard that discovered a duplication cheat or something, But there’s more than enough evidence that he existed
No, there is literaly no proof at all, lt’s go one by one:
4, 3 and 2. LMAO called it in 8.
EDIT: I fucking hate lemmy formatting, i have no idea how to make that look not like shit.
To be fair that article was just an aggregator of sort, here’s more stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
(and just to be clear, I am not arguing that Jesus was a wizard with magical duplication powers, just a guy that existed 2k years ago and probably got crucified, not an uncommon thing at the time)
Still nothing though. The only thing really confirmed it that christians in second half of I century in Rome believed in his existence, which was half century from his death and half of known world from the place.
Also the article in wiki is incredibly biased, starting from “Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.” which is blatantly false, unless they asked only evengelical USA fanatics, by which this article is cleraly written, and then include super nonsense like “nuclei of truth” in testimonium flavianum, which is commonly agreed to be completely false by, this time for real, all serious scholars which are not fanatical christians. And so on and on and on. They even list their methodogy which is basically theology, not history research. I’m not even mentioning logic like “John existed so the NT says the truth here, so it’s all true” which is such a poor fallacy.
No proof at all, only conjectures, fallacies and lies.
(You can use numbered bullet points. Start a new paragraph with the number and a full stop, e.g. “1.” and delete the hyphen.
I see a lot of “it’s possible” and “it’s believed” but none of that looks like crdible historical evidence, by any scholars
I would not at all be surprised If there was some dude in Rome who preached for poor people and against imperialism, who ended up on a cross and as the basis for a religion, and an important figure in others.
There is a theory that Jesus and Barabbas was one and the same person. I like to think this is true, because not only he would be way more based then, but it also resolves literally all the ahistorical nonsenses and improbablities of the trial.
Thanks, Wikipedia. Apparently, Barabbas was a revolutionary, and not a serial killer like I was told.
Leave it to bible to always tell that black is white and white is black
deleted by creator
Yeah, this happened many times, but Jesus never said anything against imperialism, nor being a revolutionary. The character was about obeying rulers, for slaves to not rebel against masters, to women be subject to their husbands, and patiently wait for the end of the world… 2000 years ago.
Tacitus wasn’t really fond of Christians, Yet his reference to christ is one of the first in the known history
And yet again, to make my point even clearer, I ain’t saying that Crist was a druid with magical wizard powers, for all I know he was just a guy with a following.
It only talks about the Christians, and where are the evidences from that text?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
It’s only people talking about Christians and forgeries. You’re right on this.
This is just bullshit and catholic tradition… Manhattan is real, does this make Spider-Man real? Hey! A bunch of scrapped iron! This is for sure Dr. Octopus remains!.. Dudee…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Appeals to tradition, non sequitur and even “documents” that even have as “fact” the literal resurrection of thousands… Riiiiiiight.