That’s probably because there is none… which renders this whole “debate” rather bizarre. You know, all the websites you’ve linked us to and the many many books written on the topic.
Including the fact that you won’t take “yes” for an answer.
What?
What would prove that any ancient Historical figure existed?
Socrates is doubtful, for example.
Well, there is not this problem with Cicero, Marius, Sulla, Alcibiades, Pericles, Scipio Africanas… we have multiple unbiased accounts they exist. Usually we have examples of their own writing as well. I really don’t think there is any confusion as to what meets the general standard among historians as to what a reliable source is, is there? I mean, when you take “Jesus” out of the question. So why not apply the same standards to Jesus.
Furthermore, as far as I know, if a historical figure only has one or maybe even two references from a Roman Historian that is written hundred(s) of years after the actual figure is said to have live, what is said is that Roman historian ABC789 claims that figure XYZ345 did so and so on such and such a date… not that XYZ345 actually existed, only, there was a claim that he existed by Livy or Plutarch or whoever.
Well, that’s progress. Do you also believe it “a reasonable - assumption - to say” that Jesus was a myth, and, if so, which statement would you judge the more reasonable and why?
And you do not appear to be willing to respond to my question. So, yet again:
Or should we simple recognize your statement as an unfounded claim and move on?
Really? We have multiple unbiased accounts and contemporary accounts they existed?
Mostly we have Tacitus, who was very biased, wrote over a century after Cicero, Marius, Sulla were dead, and whose works have extensive sections missing. And if you accept Tacitus On Sulla, Cicero, and Marius, then you have to accept him on Jesus, since he was closer to Jesus’s time than those ancients. "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, " auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; Sorry dude, you lose.
Livy wrote long after Cicero, Marius, Sulla were dead, a lot of his stuff is missing and again is considered biased. Nothing written by Marius or Sullla exists.
And altho Josephus’s period is a decade* or so (not “hundred(s) of years” :rolleyes:) after Jesus died, Josephus was right there, both in time and location (and was very highly placed) when James, the Brother of Jesus was executed. He might well have been a eye witness.
*He was born in Ad 37.
Josephus was writing books when he was 10 years old???
Are you quite sure there is only one source for most of those people?
That’s going to surprise Plutarch.
primary sources for Cicero:
Tacitus
Plutarch
Sallust
Cicero
Robert163, I think that your historiography needs some work.
Tacitus and Plutarch are not primary sources for Cicero. Plutarch is an ancient source - just not a primary source. (I was unaware that we had any extant material from Tacitus on Cicero, but trust you that we do. Apologies for the gap in my reading.)
Your view in Post #424, meanwhile, would allow us to acknowledge the existence of perhaps a couple of dozen Roman and Athenian statesmen, while every other person who walked the western hemisphere could rise no higher than “claimed to exist” status. That may work for Schoedinger and cats, but it is not how history is done. Did the Battle of Thermopylae happen, or is it just “claimed” to have happened?
As for “why not apply the same standards to Jesus,” well - that’s a question points the opposite direction. There are vanishingly few persons in antiquity as to whom we have more ancient sources. Now the sources for Jesus are all secondary, not primary, and most (e.g., the Gospels) are laden with both extraordinary claims and freighted with the bias of believers. His is definitively a special case. But judged by the “same standards” used by professional historians for other figures, the corporeal Jesus is decidedly and conclusively historical.
ok
IDK, is it recorded by the Persians too? If so I’d say that is pretty definitive.
And apart from one indirect reference by Josephus, what is the decidedly and conclusively historical evidence?
I think he was too strong there; it’s not conclusive. But it’s plausible.
We do have several Gospels about him, including the four recognized by Christians as canonical. No, they are not eyewitness accounts, and yes, they are IMO obviously embellished with all sorts of supernatural claims.
But IMO it’s wrong to completely disregard the Gospels just because they’re over the top. If you listen to Fox News, you’ll think that Reagan was a saint, but he’s still a real person. Imagine if the US became a dictatorship controlled by Fox News, and they started purging every account of Reagan that was critical in any way, while encouraging fawning accounts. In a couple of centuries, he would be walking on water and never making the slightest mistake. He still existed.
The fact that so many people wrote about Jesus, even though they embellished, and the fact that we have many ancient documents against Jesus that nevertheless do not question his existence, are not conclusive evidence that he existed, but it’s much better evidence than we have for all but a handful of people who were alive at the same time, and it’s the best you’re going to get.
So once again, why won’t you take “yes” for an answer? Everyone here has conceded that there is no ironclad proof. Everyone here but (I think) a couple concede that the supernatural aspects of the Gospels are not believable. I share your incredulity that some two billion people in the world DO think they are believable, but that’s a different subject, and as I said in an earlier post, I take some comfort in the fact that 90% of them have, at best, a Sunday School knowledge of the Bible, and haven’t really given it much thought.
1- I’ve said that I think Jesus/preacher - probably - existed.
2- As I’ve said before the first step to a christian saying gay marriage is “Wrong” is proving Jesus “existed”.
Then you’re mistaken, because the Hebrew Bible is much more anti-gay than the New Testament. If you threw out the Gospels and Paul, you’d still have Leviticus calling for the death penalty for gay sex.
yeah, i figured you’d say that.
my first example was “don’d cuss, Jesus didn’t cuss!!!”
if you look at the general concept I am describing (responding to your question)
then you will see what i mean.
Well, if you knew that Jesus didn’t invent anti-gay bigotry, then why claim that belief in him is the root cause of anti-gay bigotry?
Sorry, but I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Everyone has conceded that there’s no ironclad proof of Jesus’ existence, but you just said that you provisionally accept it anyway, obviously without the supernatural trappings. So what are we arguing about? The alleged ramifications of belief in Jesus’ divinity have nothing to do with the OP.
We may be cross-talking here.
My point is that - when judged by the standards of other ancient figures - the evidence of a corporeal Jesus is definitive. There are four separate biographies written within 100 years of his death, as well as another half-dozen or more sources for his existence (parts of the Pauline letters and other parts of the New Testament, some apocrypha, Josephus, Tacitus), and even more extant sources in the 100-300 years-after-death range. Concededly, there are no primary sources, either written or archeological. But that’s true for a great many entirely undisputed historical figures. And sure, there are parts of the biographies that are either fantastic, and others that are biased - but no one throws out the entirety of Herodotus for the former, or Seutonius for the latter.
The reason that the historicity of Jesus is an interesting question is that it cannot be treated like that of other historical figures. Among historians, at least, Jesus history is (appropriately) held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
Thats kind of like… taking FOX news at their word that Obama is a socialist. Do you have any objective accounts?
really?