Absofinglutely.....

@lednaBM

Countdown to people bitching about the "historical Jesus"...

@BinroHeretic 🤣😂🤣

@lednaBM 🤣

@BinroHeretic @lednaBM What, that allegedly fictional brown person who allegedly spoke Aramaic? Never seen Him in any local church in my life...

@lednaBM @BinroHeretic Could you please fill in the following alt text? I have no idea who these people are, nor the context, and the current alt text ("image/gif") does not help greatly.

#AltText4You
People from _____ applauding and cheering wildly

@jdeisenberg @BinroHeretic Alien's from galaxy quest

@lednaBM @BinroHeretic Ah OK thanks.

@lednaBM But he did exist and was crucified. Roman records that still exist prove this conclusively. The records say he was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews and the Jewish King objected.

As for walking on water, feeding people and curing the sick, Roman records are not clear.

@BritishTechGuru Sorry.... that's just not true. There are zero eyewitness accounts. The historians of the time never recorded any such thing, only some afterward and as passing references. Now, if some random rabbi named Yeshua was killed back then, well, no big deal. A lot of people were killed back then for any number of reasons. It was a common name. The idea was to create another deity after the fact. Something the Romans and everyone else did a lot of....

@lednaBM @BritishTechGuru nyarrrr, isn't this Jesus geezer supposed to be a literary character? Sort of like Hamlet or Lancelot, or Hyawatha? But, with all -nyarrr!- due respect, literary characters sometimes take up a life of their own, and we end up saddled with them. Nyar, nyar, flop, flop, flop!

@Floppa @lednaBM

I refer you to Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger—all Roman—refer to Jesus, as does Josephus, a Jewish historian.

Those geezers have nothing to do with the Christian cult.

@BritishTechGuru @Floppa Those are after-the-fact references that look to be forgeries because they are rando references. None of it backs up the bible.

https://youtu.be/d8n4QSUkH_Y?si=WeA5yFeqK6TkwHp9

https://youtu.be/sky6u0ntu24?si=zdRBufqwRTOXJtGS

https://youtu.be/3_TDgTebF_Y?si=7Z5uyBcuAPO9H2XF

@lednaBM @Floppa Don't forget the bible was not written til about 382AD and scripts that Pope Damasus I disagreed with were burned and not included. That pope was alone responsible for the dubious accuracy of the bible. Roman records are more dispassionate and accurate.

@BritishTechGuru @Floppa This is the point... the whole thing is rests with errors, forgeries, and deliberate lies. Josephus makes two references only. The first appears out of nowhere very suspiciously worded, except if you're an apologist, and the other is referring to a rabbi that was named Yeshua and was the brother of another guy, with a different life and lineage.....

@lednaBM @Floppa

Paul would have written about it about 30 years after the crucifixion.
Flavius Josephus would have written about it 90 years later.

Both are within living memory so both are credible.

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger wrote about 112 years later so it is possible that they used records written at the time as their sources or spoke to elderly people who were actually there.

@lednaBM @Floppa

I'm not sure when the US civil war was but I happened upon a video of eldelry Confederate veterans doing the rebel yell on film that was shot in the 1930s so it is possible Pliny and Tacitus did speak to people who were there as young men then wrote as old men.

@BritishTechGuru @lednaBM I reread Suetonius a couple of years ago, and it seemed the bit about Jesus was a downright forgery. The same seems to be true of Josephus. Have not tried Tacitus or Pliny, but do bear in mind that few people wew truly literate back then, plus it doesn't seem that Tacitus interviewed eyewitnesses

@BritishTechGuru @lednaBM Suetonius is definitely out though, its doubtful if even apologists treat the relevant excerpt seriously anymore

@Floppa @lednaBM

What we have is the best proof that he existed. As to what he did, we have Chinese whispers.

@BritishTechGuru @lednaBM nyarrrr, beg leave to differ

@Floppa @lednaBM

Why do you differ? What grounds? What part do you differ with?

I studied the Papacy from year 0 as part of my BA and love both expanding my knowledge and discussing the topic.

@BritishTechGuru @lednaBM Suetonius and Josephus seem to have been fiddled with, where they mention JC. The synoptic gospels seem to have been written a long time after the event. It is far simpler to posit that JC never existed

You get it @Floppa
And unfortunately, @BritishTechGuru
does not. No big deal. I will say, though, that the differences here seem to be that those who believe he existed demand volumes and volumes of proof of not; while these same people are satisfied with one or two random references thrown in usually well constructed histories to say see there it is. We know a lot about many historical figures, yet this supposed guy we have two things. A few poor references, followed by a lot of blatant lies.

@lednaBM @Floppa

I want to make clear that I did separate the person Jesus from the Chinese whispers about his acts.

The so-called miracles etc sound rather far-fetched fiction. There is probably something in them (probably) but in the telling and retelling may well have been thoroughly embellished.

As for the man himself, we have references that go back far enough to give a good indication that the man Jesus probably did exist and probably was crucified and for the reasons given.

@Floppa @BritishTechGuru It reminds me of theists, in general. They will go on and on and on about proving there is no god(s), drmanding all manner of evidence. The problem being when the only thing they seem to prove is that anyone can pull a rabbit out of a hat...😉

@BritishTechGuru @Floppa Again, which man? What was the population of people named Yeshua back then? How many of them were rabbis? How many of that population had radical views? It seems to me you are trying to regress to one person as the source of Christianity; however, the problem is that the origin of Christianity was not from one guy. There were all manner of competing cults back then. Those in power needed to take control of it, so they needed some rando name to pretend with...

@BritishTechGuru @Floppa
It's ashame Yeshua A was the man, and Yeshua B was not. Oh wait, we know there were no deities back when inventing them was fairly regular. Holy Hercules, Batman; it was Bill. Let's kill Bill....

@lednaBM @Floppa

The lack of documentation of events is a problem. All we have is based on what information we can get from the oldest manuscripts. The problem there is exemplified in the book of Genesis where Adam and Eve created the human race. Now the problem is - who wrote it all down since they were illiterate. Writing and paper were likely not a priority for at least 1,000 years...

@BritishTechGuru @lednaBM from what I hear, the Old Testament is not as old as it is made out to be

@Floppa @lednaBM Its based on the Torah.

I think that in turn was based on an earlier religion.

@BritishTechGuru @Floppa I understand your point, but not all people were illiterate. The key here is that the ones with power had the power to have written what they wanted. That's the context. We think of historians as cold, unbiased, scientifically, and logically systematized. It wasn't that way back then; nor was it very honest. That's not to mention the victors ending with control of the narratives...

@Floppa How old is it made out to be and how old is it for real?

@GreenSkyOverMe the official view is that it is mainly pre-exile. From what we hear, it is mainly alexandrine