"See, all these contemporary or near contemporaries that

>>>/rel/

>>1329974
Josephus wasn't a contemporary. He was born about four years after Christ's death.

The incentive to write the gospel's was to create a religion centered around the peasantry, as a big FUCK YOU to rome.

>>1329974
also josephus was a jew

an upper class roman jew

but still a jew

and so he had incentive to mention early christians

who were jews

>>1329974
also the incentive for rome to embrace christianity later on was increasing popularity, imperial decline, and bread and circuses stopped working so why not salvation meme

>>1330006
What information was he using when he wrote about Jesus? Didn't he invent other stories like Mary of Bethezuba?

>>1330009
Why does he mention Jesus in writings addressed to Romans though?

>>1330019
I don't know Josephus's motives, but I imagine the Romans were interested in what Jewish rebels were up to so they could stamp it out.

>>1329974
Almost all professional historians hold that Jesus existed. Most of those detractors with a few notable acceptations, do not the know the historical method and are not fit to criticize the work of professional historians

>>1330161
What is "the historical method"?

File: 800px-Michelangelo_Caravaggio_071.jpg (87KB, 800x621px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x621px

>>1330161
Almost all professional historians are Christians and so have a massive incentive to interpret history in a way that confirms their biases, particularly with this very special instance of history.

Under no other circumstances would such an underdocumented individual be so widely accepted as real.

No contemporary accounts from his lifetime. No records of execution. No need for a body or bones because of laughable supernatural claims. Fabricated artifacts from the middle ages abound. Earliest manuscripts about him written 40-50 years after his death, mostly by biased Jewish/Christian sources. The government that supposedly killed him purges and ratifies info about him 300 years later. A worldwide faith is established dedicated to translating and interpreting these documents in a way that confirms dogmatic biases.

Any modern historian should have a good reason to doubt the existence of a Yeshua who meets all the criteria laid out by Christans.

I'm sure there were plenty of Jews named Yeshua crucified around the same time, but Yeshua of Nazareth, son a virgin, whose died and resurrected, then magically ascended to heaven, whose best friends wrote about him after he died, whose doctrines were disagreed upon for 300 years, then ratified, then disagreed upon again, and again, and again, thereafter?

No.

The destruction of the temple and the diaspora made it harder for the jews to continue their traditions and covenant, so they fabricated a new peasant religion to rally around.

>>1331317
>Any modern historian should have a good reason to doubt the existence of a Yeshua who meets all the criteria laid out by Christans.

not if they know their shit. a major issue with the Jesus is a fabrication theory is that the Hellenized Jews of the time would never-ever-ever completely make up a religion based around a Galilean day laborer.

>>1331352
Okay, so I should take seriously modern historians who believe that a man was killed and then resurrected and then magically ascended into heaven, and not assume that this has anything to do with bias on their part?