I don’t see the point in policing whether he is referred to as Christ or Jesus from Nazareth - is there some meaningful distinction here?
Also documents are not scientific evidence. The documents are enough evidence to consider it a historical fact, but that’s, again, not the same thing as a scientific fact, and it is not backed with any material or physical evidence. Not that we expect or demand such evidence, I’m only pointing this out because you claimed there is scientific proof where there is none.
Regardless, I would be curious to get your receipts on those documents referencing Christ that predate the gospels, I hadn’t heard of that before!
Speculation about the resurrection being faked with sedatives is irrelevant to this discussion, but since you brought it up, why not entertain more likely alternatives: towards the end of the book of John, Mary saw the resurrected Christ in the tomb and was the first to see him, yet she did not recognize him:
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
If he took sedatives, why did he look like a different person such that she thought he was the gardener? Why not think the resurrected person was just falsely claiming to be Christ, since he didn’t look like him anyway? Why resort to more elaborate explanations when we have more simple ones at hand?
There is also the issue about how Christ supposedly survived being eviscerated and tortured before being hung on the cross, even if he did have access to sedatives. It’s just not likely he survived that, and the sedatives don’t explain that away.
BonerMan@ani.social 5 weeks ago
The distinction is that in all documents besides the Bible he is named Jesus from Nazareth and not “Christ” wich does make a big difference im this discussion.
The remaining comment of yours reads a bit like a conspiracy theory, historical documents are indeed scientific evidence, when checked against fraud and forgery, all together are proof. You make it sound like you think the someone made up a person and forged documents that are scientifically proven older than Christianity. There is physical evidence as well, but after all that time its pretty vague from my knowledge.
I by all means am absolutely not religious, but its a fact that the person Jesus from Nazareth did exist, and that his written down life is very consistent and plausible, can be checked against other sources from different parties of interest.
Why his “resurrection” is of interest, is because the the crypt was empty and doesn’t necessarily have to have been staged on purpose. Its less likely that a looker like did take part in that thing.
Torture back then is a loose term, it was most likely a whip and punching, most other methods where not necessarily used. And even though infections are a bad thing, especially during that time, most people actually survived, there are some sources that describe the torturing of criminals for confessions, it was likely pretty sanitary compared to the middle ages, especially because they actually did disinfect the wounds with… Vinegar and Herbs, wich is also the stuf he was given hanging on the cross, we know for a fact that there are herbs growing in that area that are natural sedatives and some are very strong.
The description of looks may or may not be accurate, especially because nobody expects a dead person to just appear in front of someone. Furthermore, days of hanging on the cross and spending time in a cave will change the appearance of a person, so. That is actually a pice of evidence with lower credibility and can be neglected.