Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[EgoDeath]

-It's entirely possible that the "historical" writings about Jesus were produced to promote the pro-Christianity narrative, which would've been very strong during the time in which these writings were created.

What does that even mean? That there was a plot where by some Romans or earlier followers of Jesus, who wanted to bolster the appearance that he was a historical figure, so they interpolated passages into Josephus, perhaps even convinced him of this fraud, by having him write of his supposed brothers death? Perhaps the same conspirators even influences Paul, or perhaps Paul was a part of them, telling him to write of meeting his brother and disciples, to bolster the appearance of historicity even more?

I mean I thought they had some balls selling some jew that died an embarrassing defeat at the hands of romans as the messiah, but he also didn’t exist apparently, and this detail was so embarrassing and not the other details  that they had to fabricate an appearance of historicity to make it viable?

I think I heard less specious explanations coming out of Pizzagate, but please continue on, this is fun.

Nope. Simply that Josephus had read some of the writings of the Bible, or heard something passed down through oral tradition, was inspired by something that he read or head and simply wrote about Jesus assuming that he was a real person. I'm saying that it's possible, not even that I honestly believe that's what happened.

That, to you, is as reasonable as a pizza chain in the capital of the United States of America being behind a ring of political pedophiles hellbent on trading and using children as sex slaves, all while covering it up through vague and cryptic symbols on the walls of said pizzeria?

Wow. That's a reach I'm not even sure Stretch Armstrong could make.

However, the issue still remains, how did Josephus learn of Jesus? Are we to take it on faith that he learned that Jesus was a real person through oral tradition?

Sorry, that's not a very compelling argument. Once again, is it POSSIBLE? Sure. Probable? Not at all. Until further evidence is produced, I remain unconvinced.

If the evidence isn’t that compelling, than you should have no problem creating ahistorical explanations for the same pieces. The strength of evidence is only as good as its explanatory power, so please let see you expand on your alternative ahistorical argument, so we can test whether we shouldn’t be confident about the historical position.

If you can’t manage that, and still thinks we can’t hold confidently that Jesus existed, than you’re idiot.

If all the alternative explanations starts to sounds as ridiculous as the worst conspiracy theories, your claims that we shouldn’t be confident about historicity is false.

The thing is, I don't have to recreate some alternate explanation. I'm saying that yes, the writings exist, they're there in history. But so is the Bible. That doesn't mean that the words in the Bible are all historically accurate. Granted, Josephus was a historian! Great. However, we have to ask, how did Josephus learn of the existence of Jesus? After all, he was not alive when Jesus was alive and never met anyone that knew Jesus. And strangely enough, all of the "historical" writings about Jesus came to be after the Bible was written. Is the Bible the source that these historians are using to claim that they know Jesus was real? Okay, then once again, I'm simply not convinced. A historical writing based on a book that is anything but a record of history means very little to me.

Honestly, we don't even know if Socrates was a real person. Or Sun Tzu. But The Art of War is surely an actual book, I own a copy. Does it mean I have to accept that Sun Tzu was real? No. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It doesn't really matter.

There is not enough evidence to compel me to say, with confidence, that I think Jesus was definitely a real man. At best, it's possible he was real. If you feel the need to insult me and call me an idiot based on that, then I'd suggest you probably need to grow the fuck up. I'm not the one making illogical leaps across vast gaps in historical knowledge. You are. I'm simply saying I'm not convinced by the evidence that is there. You're the one saying that because a couple posthumous writings about a (supposed) man based on fictional character (because certainly if Jesus was real he was not the miracle-making magic man from the Bible) in a book written thousands of years ago exist, that the man must be real and anyone who thinks otherwise is akin to a flat-earther or holocaust denier. That is fucking insane dude.