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.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: his baptism and his crucifixion.[12][13][14][15]
Look at the sources, they have dissent amongst themselves…
“Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.”
A fun excerpt…
Psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurologists, from the late 19th century (Oskar Panizza[279][280][281]), through the 20th century (including Emil Rasmussen, George de Loosten, Charles Binet-Sanglé, William Hirsch,[282][283] Władysław Witwicki[284]) to the early 21st century (Evan D. Murray, Miles G. Cunningham, Bruce H. Price[285][286][287]), have suggested that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition.[288]
Christians are the majority religion, so I would say “of course the majority agree”. It’s the very easiest position to take in the Bible scholar field, regardless of their personal beliefs.
The consensus is that he probably existed, but he’s far from one of “the best documented historical figures ever”, there’s like 2 or 3 mentions of him in sources outside of the early proto-Christian movement from the first century CE. That’s better documented than most, which is why he probably was a real guy, but we can’t really say more than that with any level of confidence. Calling him one of the best documented historical figures ever is genuinely unhinged imo.
How many? I don’t know, ask the historians who say it was a common name at the time, with dozens of graves of dead guys named Jesus at the time of Jesus.
He is one of the best documented historical figures ever
If that were true then this thread would be full of people providing citations to that excellent documentation, but you will notice a complete absence of that here.
The closest we’ve come in this thread is the Wikipedia page with citations to several historians saying “yeah we mostly think he was probably real based on it would be weird if he wasn’t”
That is a waaaay lower level of certainty than you’re presenting here.
It is extremely disputed that he was a real person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Look at the sources, they have dissent amongst themselves…
“Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.”
A fun excerpt…
Christians are the majority religion, so I would say “of course the majority agree”. It’s the very easiest position to take in the Bible scholar field, regardless of their personal beliefs.
deleted by creator
your exceptional claim lacks exceptional evidence to support it.
think about all the records in the region, and wonder: if someone was miracling around, wouldn’t the romans have noted it?
I don’t remember having said anything about “miracles” or sky-daddy stuff.
it’s kinda central to the whole jesus thing.
No, that’s religion, but not history.
lol. your belief is literal dogma, and you’re mistaking it for actual history.
show me the evidence for miracle man “oh uh that’s religion, I’m talking history”
what a waste of time
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The consensus is that he probably existed, but he’s far from one of “the best documented historical figures ever”, there’s like 2 or 3 mentions of him in sources outside of the early proto-Christian movement from the first century CE. That’s better documented than most, which is why he probably was a real guy, but we can’t really say more than that with any level of confidence. Calling him one of the best documented historical figures ever is genuinely unhinged imo.
Sure, there were lots of guys named Jesus. It was a very common name at the time.
Like trying to prove that all of the “Mike” stories in the 80s refer to the one true Michael (Mike Tyson, of course).
deleted by creator
How many? I don’t know, ask the historians who say it was a common name at the time, with dozens of graves of dead guys named Jesus at the time of Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
deleted by creator
If that were true then this thread would be full of people providing citations to that excellent documentation, but you will notice a complete absence of that here.
The closest we’ve come in this thread is the Wikipedia page with citations to several historians saying “yeah we mostly think he was probably real based on it would be weird if he wasn’t”
That is a waaaay lower level of certainty than you’re presenting here.
deleted by creator