In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus

Misinformation.

There’s Tacitus’s Annals (year 117), Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (93-94), Mara bar Serapion’s letter to his son.

Seutonius (Lives of the Twelve Cæsars) and Pliny wrote about the conflict between the Romans and the followers of Christ (or Chrestus) around that era.

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?

I get it man

You don’t

you have “faith”

I don’t.

that’s not evidence

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?

I think we are in agreement on the major points:

1. “There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles”

2. We know this from somewhat later annals. The texts are closer in the timeline to the historical figure than in the case of Diarmait mac Cerbaill, and are more numerous.

3. We share a general contempt for Christians and Christianity.

Right. I think we’re in agreement. There was a historical Diarmait. There was a historical Jesus. We know this from textual sources dated a little later than the historical figures.

His life was written about while it happened in the Irish Annals…

We have no Irish texts as old as Diarmait’s reign. CELT date the Orgguin trí mac Diarmata Mic Cerbaill “Created: Possibly in the Old Irish period. Date range: 700–900?” So we rely on things written 100+ years after the historical figure. And that’s referring to when it was originally written; it’s know from later transcriptions; the oldest physical Irish manuscript we have (Lebor na hUidre) is around 1100. So how do we know there was a historical Diarmait?

In the case of Yeshu the Nazarene, it’s similar, though some texts are a little nearer his historical period than in Diarmait’s case.

There 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.

Name one and I’ll disporve it.

Diarmait mac Cerbaill

There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

You just 100% conceded. /thread

https://www.artnet.com/artists/pietro-psaier/

Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

Of course not. There are millions of examples of false claims for which there is more than zero evidence. e.g. I can claim I know which stocks will rise tomorrow, and point to various data of times I’ve been right. You can’t correctly say “There is zero evidence Frightful Hobgoblin is prescient about stock movements”.

There often exists evidence of two mutually incompatible propositions. This is basics.

If you want to research the historicity of Jesus it’s easily done. If you want to argue on the internet… you know what they say about that.

There’s just no evidence

I have a pet peeve about this phrase. A) yes there is. B) that’s not the standard, e.g. it would be incorrect to say there’s no evidence aliens abduct and probe people: there are eyewitness accounts

This isn’t really right. The primary texts corroborate more facts than the name: that he was put to death by the Romans for inciting disloyalty.

There are 20th century figures whose historicity is disputed.

The tone of this comment makes it suddenly seem like you’re not asking a question but trying tp prove a point.

Which Egyptians are you referring to? We have lots of archæological proof of the Judaeans.

History is known by:

• Archæological evidence

• Oral interviews with eyewitnesses

• Texts

• Archæogenetics

• Historical linguistics

• Myth (euhemerism)

• Maybe some others I’m forgetting

Dino-history isn’t comparable to tthe literate Roman period.

What do you mean by physical proof?

Some history is known by digging up physical stones n bones. Some is known by digging up texts.

There are multiple texts dated to the 1st century that all corroborate the story that a person called Jesus was crucified around 33AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

What’s your plan exactly?

https://streamff.co/v/yzhF46YhcN – unbelievable cross from

Well deserved: Slovakia look organised, Ukraine messy.

Here is the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

Wikipedia still has a big zionist bias; the ADL is too extreme for even them