I do not understand
That is clear.
Go on then. Show us the evidence.
You want me to physically show you? Like roll up to your house with it?
Can’t I just give you a link that provides the info about it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome
And you definitely didn’t understand that last bit you quoted…
You haven’t understood all of this.
I get it man, you have “faith” but that’s not evidence.
It doesn’t mean anything
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:
-
“There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles”
-
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.
-
We share a general contempt for Christians and Christianity.
You just made up #2 and apparently don’t know what contemporary means…
But I don’t think explaining is going to help.
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?
