padib said:
Despite your lack of belief in something recorded historically in a way that is more trusted than Julius Cesar himself due to historical and archeological evidence, you concede that nobody has ever cheated death. Speak to sundin |
Lulz no. We have first hand writings that historians are confident were written by Julius Caeser. We have nothing that was written by Jesus, and nothing that was even purported to be written by Jesus. We have letters written from the governor of Cilicia, Cicero, saying what a fucking asshole Caeser was, written while Caeser is claimed to have lived. The Aeneid specifically mentions Julius Caeser. As does the historian Sallust, who describes first hand interactions with Caesar. Those are a few comtemporary sources that mention Caesar, there are more. We also have coins bearing his image, images made during his lifetime. We also have plenty of evidence that around the time of Caeser's life, of territories coming under the control of Rome during that time, which is a phenomena that is hard to explain with a leaderless Rome. It is however consistent with accounts from Rome and from enemies of Rome talking about the asshole trying to take over their territory.
There is in contrast, no contemporary sources that show Jesus existed. The closest non-Biblical source is Flavius, a Jewish historian born after the alleged crucifixtion. He does not claim firsthand knowledge, obviously since he was just a wittle egg cell at the time, only that he heard of Jesus and that he was unfairly crucified. He claims nothing about resurrection. There's doubt about whether what he said had been altered. The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus, but he claims no firsthand knowledge and is describing what he knows from Christians of the time, that their founder was named Christ, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate. He does not say anything about resurrection, and cannot vouch for the fact that he ever existed, as he was writing about 70 years after that happened. The remaining evidence are the gospels, which were written anonymously, and at best were first published around 100 years after Jesus' death. They are not believed by most historians, including Christian historians, to be eyewitness accounts.
So, the evidence for Julius Caeser dwarfs that of Jesus, since we have a ton of shit from his lifetime documenting his existence by friendly and enemy sources, and archeological evidence. Historians generally tend to agree Jesus likely existed, and I will tentatively defer to their expertise. But even to the extent that Jesus existed, it is impossible to verify his resurrection. No extrabiblical source exists for this, and the biblical sources are biased, not contemporary to the event, anonymous, and recorded after a decades long game of telephone. This would be sketchy evidence even if the claims were mundane and not violative of the laws of reality as we know them. But, even if your claim was correct, which it is not, then all you've done is shown that we should not believe that Caeser existed. Because regardless of any other historical events, the evidence for the resurrection is woefully insufficient.
Again to thee I say lulz no.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 23 January 2022
