Comment on Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 week agoThere was a Paul that lived in Midwest America Is that proof he had a big blue ox?
I do not understand.
Like, we have that elusive physical evidence that 6,000 of Sparticus’ followers were crucified…
Go on then. Show us the evidence.
There’s a pretty good chance at least one of those guys was named Jesus too mate, it was a pretty common name
Not all the texts use that name. Some say Christus or Chrestus, ha-Notzri, Yeshu, ben Stada or ben Pandera.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That is clear.
You want me to physically show you? Like roll up to your house with it?
Can’t I just give you a link that provides the info about it?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome
And you definitely didn’t understand that last bit you quoted…
You haven’t understood all of this.
I get it man, you have “faith” but that’s not evidence.
It doesn’t mean anything
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
You don’t
I don’t.
The evidence we’re talking about is the textual references in Pliny etc.
Say we have a textual reference like this: “In the year of the consulship of Caius Vipstanus and Caius Fonteius, Nero deferred no more a long meditated crime. Length of power had matured his daring, and his passion for Poppaea daily grew more ardent.”… would you say that a person called Caius Vipstanus existed from that evidence?
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You just made up #2 and apparently don’t know what contemporary means…
But I don’t think explaining is going to help.
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
What are you driving at bringing up the semantics of ‘contemporary’??
The only time that word was used was when you said (incorrectly), “That is contemporary literary evidence of his existence.” – the annals are centuries after the 6th-century reign of Diarmait at Tara. We don’t have any 6th-century manuscripts. The situation in the Roman Empire is quite a bit better, lots of texts.
Would you say that a person called Caius Vipstanus existed because Tacitus mentioned him in his annals a few decades later? Isn’t that valid inference from the text?