>wrote nothing down
>nobody who met him wrote anything down
>nobody in his lifetime wrote anything down
>nobody from judea wrote anything down
>no archeological evidence of any kind
>no named source of information cited anywhere
>literally based on an anonymous story about a jew with magic powers written in a foreign land, in a foreign language over half a century later by someone who never met him and cites no sources.

>>17763065 (OP)
>image is half made up shit
>each line has already been refuted 10,000 times over the last decade on this site alone
Oh yeah, it's shitposting time

>>17763065 (OP)
Erm Paul claimed to have met the people who met Jesus so that counts!!!

>>17763074
He says he met a brother of the lord which is a term he uses elsewhere to refer to all baptized Christians.

>>17763065 (OP)
I think he existed but he was just some apocalyptic preacher. There were a lot of those in 30s to 70s Judea and Galilee.

>wrote nothing down
True, but there are lots of historical figures who wrote nothing down, like Socrates. We can say they existed but have less confidence about what they said.

>nobody who met him wrote anything down
>nobody in his lifetime wrote anything down
We don't know that, maybe his disciples did or maybe not. In any case, the main Christian community started by them would have been destroyed or scattered by the Jewish War of 66-74 AD.

>nobody from judea wrote anything down
The authorship of Mark, Matthew, and John are placed in a Judea by several scholars, but we don't know for sure.

>no archeological evidence of any kind
True, although you wouldn't expect any unless he was an important official, which he wasn't.

>no named source of information cited anywhere
That's incorrect, Paul names his disciples Peter and John, whom he met, as well as his brother James.

>literally based on an anonymous story about a jew with magic powers written in a foreign land, in a foreign language over half a century later by someone who never met him and cites no sources.
True for the gospels, but Paul mentions him in the 50s AD and says he was 'born of a woman' so he's clearly talking about a flesh and blood human. Plus, being crucified was a punishment for sedition, it had no religious significance before Christianity. It would be a bizarre detail to invent.

Your image is mostly bogus btw, you should read about the actual mythology of Dionysus.

>>17763077
He uses "brothers" but only uses "brother of the Lord" to refer to James.

>>17763087
Both Socrates and Jesus are rhetorical devices used as mouthpieces by other writers. Their existence is dubious at best

>>17763065 (OP)
Dionysus is real

>>17763065 (OP)
the only people you convince are Jesus obsessed god hating atheists like yourself.

>>17763065 (OP)
>nobody in his lifetime wrote anything down

Nigga, he’s still alive. He has always existed. Everything that has ever been, or ever will be, written down, was written down in His lifetime.

Confidently wrong on nearly every point.

>wrote nothing down
Jesus wasn't a philosopher trying to publish a treatise. He was a first-century rabbi operating in an oral culture. Most major Jewish teachers didn’t write either.

>nobody who met him wrote anything down
Matthew and John say hi. Paul met the apostles within a few years of the Crucifixion. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses explicitly (Luke 1:1-4). Just because you don’t like the sources doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

>nobody from Judea wrote anything
The early Church was based in Judea. The letter of James, most likely from the bishop of Jerusalem (Jesus' own kinsman), is addressed to the Jewish diaspora. Judea had a long oral and prophetic tradition; expecting stacks of parchment misses the cultural context.

>no archaeological evidence
What kind of evidence would you expect? A sandal labeled “Property of Jesus”? The historical Jesus was a Galilean peasant. Lack of grand artifacts isn’t shocking. Yet we do have indirect evidence: early Christian sites in Judea, first-century ossuaries with names like “Jesus,” and a growing body of scholarship linking the Gospels to 1st-century Palestine.

>no named sources
Luke literally says he’s drawing on eyewitness testimony. Papias (early 2nd century) identifies Mark’s Gospel as Peter’s account. These are named lines of transmission, not anonymous fairy tales.

>anon story in a foreign land
Koine Greek was the lingua franca. The Septuagint, the Bible used by most Hellenized Jews, was also in Greek. Being written in Greek doesn’t make it invalid.

>>17763899
>muh eyewitness testimony for magic flying zombie jew who cures blindness with spit

>>17763929
>eyewitness testimony
Every serious ancient historian relies on it. Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch: none of them had dashcam footage. You accept Caesar crossed the Rubicon without video proof, but suddenly need a lab report for first-century healing rituals?

>magic flying zombie jew
If you’re going to reduce every religious claim to cartoon terms, you can literally do that to anything. “God created the universe” becomes “sky wizard conjured atoms with thought-beams.” It doesn’t refute it, it just shows you’re not trying to understand it.

>cures blindness with spit
It’s a sign. Whether you believe in miracles or not, mocking it without understanding its theological role (especially in Jewish messianic prophecy) is just hand-waving. Either engage with the idea of miracles seriously, or say you reject all supernatural claims a priori. But be clear.

>>17763065 (OP)
emphasis on gay

>>17763936
Lmao it's retarded

>>17763949
Good for you, anon.

>>17763781
I guess the Gospel of Judas is true since it was written within living memory

>>17763936
Tacitus said Christianity was nothing but a superstition. I'll take his word on it.

>>17763065 (OP)
Shakespeare did write down and he's fake and gay

>>17764031
Great. So you do trust Tacitus. Let’s follow that through.

Yes, Tacitus called Christianity a “superstitio," but that was standard Roman language for any religion not theirs. Judaism was a “superstitio” too. The Romans called everything they didn’t understand that. It wasn’t a historical judgment, just cultural arrogance.

But here’s what matters. Tacitus, in Annals 15.44, confirms that:
>Christus (Jesus) was executed under Pontius Pilate
>this happened during the reign of Tiberius
>a movement based on him quickly spread from Judea to Rome
>Nero blamed Christians for the fire of Rome and persecuted them
That’s a hostile, Roman elite, writing barely 80 years after Jesus' death, independently confirming key Gospel facts. And he hates Christians, so this isn’t fanfiction. He had no reason to make this up.

You can say, “I don’t believe in the resurrection,” fair enough. But to say “Jesus didn’t exist” or “we have no sources” falls apart if you’re citing Tacitus, because he is one of the sources. You can’t both use Tacitus and ignore what he confirms.

So which is it: do you trust him, or not?

>>17764199
Tacitus didn't write about Jesus. That's an interpolation from the 4th century.

>>17763065 (OP)
yet <you> can't stop injecting yourselves into the annals before you become irrelevant - the next logical and simple step
>>17761656

>>17763065 (OP)
>over half a century later
So, 50 years, got it. You know, it doesn't sound like a particularly long amount of time when I word it that way...

>>17763112
Both were independently referenced by multiple sources, including hostile ones. Socrates is mentioned directly by his contemporaries Plato and Xenophon as a real person, and both probably did put words in his mouth. He's also parodied by Aristophanes in The Clouds. So the question isn't "was there an Athenian philosopher in that period called Socrates?" The question is whether we can extract much information about him as a person from the sources.

Similar with Jesus. Mentioned by his contemporary Paul in the 50s, although Paul only knew him second hand and doesn't describe his life much. Some of the other New Testament letters might be that early as well, James is a candidate. Then you have biographies written of him sometimes betweens the 60s to 110s (some scholars date Luke or occasionally John to early 2nd century), they seem to match his real context of Judea c. 30 AD and directly quote some Aramaic phrases he used. Other early letters refer to him and at least one, 1 Peter, dubiously claims to be by one of his disciples. But, like Socrates, we need to question how much of the content is from authors putting words in his mouth. Itcs an open question.