I still don't think he actually existed, and nobody has provided conclusive evidence to the contrary yet.
I'm gonna be honest
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Spas vsederzhitel sinay - Saved by the Almighty Sinai - russian orthodox
Does ist matter? It's all about the idea and ideas are always true in a metaphysical way. Just because someone may have "made it all up" doesn't mean it isn't archetypically correct.
Im not religious, but i think it's highly unlikely that jesus was not a real person.
He was probably a very charasmatic lenin/ martin luther/mlk type of revolutionary figure that developed a cult of personality and myth around him
There's more evidence he existed than Julius Caesar.
No, there isn’t.
Socrates has consistent accounts through Plato and Xenophon. The gospels however are not consistent.
He obviously did not, since you can’t walk on water and cure the leprous blind by touching them (without getting leper!). There were however several israeli prophets in the 1st century called Yeshu. Whether one of them had a number of apostles around 12 or whether one of them was betrayed by one of those apostles, there is no evidence of it.
All in all there is no evidence of it. And whatever “consensus” there is, doesn’t truly exist, since most historians of Roman Judaea can’t bother to really voice their concern on the matter, and those that do are Christians trying to shove their ideology into scholarship. The fact is that there are many Jesus mythicists, and the matter in the end is purely semantic. There is no evidence for 90% of the Bible, and a prophet called Yeshu (Josh) being real isn’t really a shocker.
Plus nobody cares about Bart Ehrman or whatever his name is, he is only one guy, on top of that he has stated himself that the bible suggests Jesus didn’t ever claim to be god.
The earliest Gospel manuscripts we have date to the 200s. The earliest Julius Caesar records date to...the 1600s and are copies of copies.
That doesn’t change any of the facts I mentioned previously. Also, bullshit, there is tons of epigraphical evidence on Cesar.
Also, the fact that something is a copy matters little. If someone is from a certain time period, their writing will reflect that. That’s how we know whether Plutarch was Plutarch and Pseudo-Aristotle wasn’t Aristotle, historylet.
>if anything besides the bible is a copy of a copy it doesnt matter!!!!
>demands the original gospel autographs otherwise the bible is a "forgery".
>The gospels however are not consistent.
Ever look into the symbolism of the Tetramorph? It explains that seeming inconsistency
I think you look for too much, by the standards of historical evidence. There is about as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Socrates, Chryssipus, and Brasidas.
Usually, two separate sources claiming someone's existence withing a generation of his death is considered unimpeachable testimony.
Are you willing to judge the veracity of all ancient figures by the same method you’ve deemed Jesus non-existent by?
Prolly not but Christian Churches are G's US advertising agencies.
Dumbass Christians advert "G's us," "G's us," "G's us" for Masons.
Freemason G's US ads For Free.
US Government's us, G's us.
His name is actually Yeshua, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ
My name Is "Jesus" retard. Pronounced
G's US, G's Us, G's us. Government's US
That's not how language works
No, we don’t have conclusive evidence that he existed. Neither do we have conclusive evidence that Socrates, Alexander, Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan existed. Are you going to be happy with anything less than a perfectly preserved body?
we want unphotoshopped pics and videos of each and every miracle or gtfo
If Jesus didn't exist then you're essentially saying Christianity was invented out of whole cloth, which is pretty much a 0 probability. All the events surrounding the first few decades AD are pretty well documented, any historian of antiquity agrees there was some israeli preacher who was crucified and was proclaimed to be the son of god. Whether he actually had divine powers is a matter of personal belief.
If conclusive evidence is your standard it will never be proved but that isn't the historical standard. The textual evidence is generally considered sufficient for secular historians.
>and nobody has provided conclusive evidence to the contrary yet.
You reject the Gospel as a source because you have bias against its religious authority and not its historical authority