Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

I guess you are happy blindly believing what people tell you to believe. Does it matter if it’s your priest vs. a “scholar”?

Straw man alert!

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

I guess you are happy blindly believing what people tell you to believe. Does it matter if it’s your priest vs. a “scholar”?

Anonymous wrote:Richard Carrier is described as “fringe.”

A long-time contributor to skeptical web sites, including The Secular Web and Freethought Blogs, Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a skeptical viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[3] Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians,[4][5][6] and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.[7][8]

From 1995 to 2015, he was married to Jennifer Robin Carrier. Announcing their divorce, Carrier revealed that he is polyamorous, and that after informing his wife of his extramarital affairs, the last two years of their marriage had been an open relationship.[10]

Carrier strongly advocated for a movement in atheism called "Atheism Plus," through which he argued that the atheist community ought to also share certain particular political agendas, not just lack a belief in God.[13][14] Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci criticized Carrier for being very intolerant of people who disagreed with him or his atheistic views and for radicalizing the "Atheism plus" agenda. Pigliucci also quoted the originator of the "Atheism plus", Jen McCreight, criticizing Carrier: "Finally had time 2 read Richard Carrier's #atheismplus piece. His language was unnecessarily harsh, divisive & ableist. Doesn't represent A+."[15]

In recent years, Carrier has been accused of engaging in unwanted sexual advances at skeptic and atheist conventions. Carrier has both apologized for and denied the alleged misconduct.[2]

>>>>>>>In recent years, Carrier has been accused of engaging in unwanted sexual advances at skeptic and atheist conventions. Carrier has both apologized for and denied the alleged misconduct.[2]<<<<<<<<

Carrier argues that the probability of Jesus' existence is somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/12000, depending on the estimates used for the computation.[58] A number of critics have rejected Carrier's ideas and methodology,[4] calling it "tenuous",[59] or "problematic and unpersuasive".[6] Simon Gathercole writes that Carrier's arguments "are contradicted by the historical data."[5]

I wouldn’t believe this dude.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier


Another prominent atheist accused of sexual harassment, too. Gross.

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

Richard Carrier is described as “fringe.”

A long-time contributor to skeptical web sites, including The Secular Web and Freethought Blogs, Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a skeptical viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[3] Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians,[4][5][6] and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.[7][8]

From 1995 to 2015, he was married to Jennifer Robin Carrier. Announcing their divorce, Carrier revealed that he is polyamorous, and that after informing his wife of his extramarital affairs, the last two years of their marriage had been an open relationship.[10]

Carrier strongly advocated for a movement in atheism called "Atheism Plus," through which he argued that the atheist community ought to also share certain particular political agendas, not just lack a belief in God.[13][14] Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci criticized Carrier for being very intolerant of people who disagreed with him or his atheistic views and for radicalizing the "Atheism plus" agenda. Pigliucci also quoted the originator of the "Atheism plus", Jen McCreight, criticizing Carrier: "Finally had time 2 read Richard Carrier's #atheismplus piece. His language was unnecessarily harsh, divisive & ableist. Doesn't represent A+."[15]

In recent years, Carrier has been accused of engaging in unwanted sexual advances at skeptic and atheist conventions. Carrier has both apologized for and denied the alleged misconduct.[2]

>>>>>>>In recent years, Carrier has been accused of engaging in unwanted sexual advances at skeptic and atheist conventions. Carrier has both apologized for and denied the alleged misconduct.[2]<<<<<<<<

Carrier argues that the probability of Jesus' existence is somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/12000, depending on the estimates used for the computation.[58] A number of critics have rejected Carrier's ideas and methodology,[4] calling it "tenuous",[59] or "problematic and unpersuasive".[6] Simon Gathercole writes that Carrier's arguments "are contradicted by the historical data."[5]

I wouldn’t believe this dude.

Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

The case against Jesus as historical
Most of those who believe Jesus wasn’t historical are not reputable scholars. (A reputable scholar is generally regarded as one with relevant qualifications who is employed by a reputable organisation and is actively working and publishing in the subject.) The only three qualified scholars who believe Jesus didn’t exist as a historical person are:

Robert Price is a qualified Bible scholar but is no longer working at an accredited academic institution.

Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history but has never held an academic position.

Thomas Brodie is a Catholic priest and theologian who has retired.

some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world.

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University, in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions

There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Kings College, London, in Jesus Now and Then

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary, in Jesus Within Judaism

The information about Jesus which can be gleaned from sources other than the gospels – a few references in Josephus, one in Tacitus, and the information implicit in Paul’s letters, for example – does little more than confirm the historical reality of Jesus and the general time and place of his activity. …. He was a Galilean, and it is likely that his principal teaching and healing activity was in Galilee, but he was executed in Jerusalem. …. There are other facts about Jesus which are equally certain ….

WD Davies & EP Sanders, Jesus: from the Jewish Point of View, in The Cambridge History of Judaism Vol 3, pp 621-626.

I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina in an interview by The Infidel Guy

we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire, in Jesus: an historian’s review of the gospels

The following is beyond reasonable doubt from everyone’s point of view:] that Jesus was known in both Galilee and Jerusalem, that he was a teacher, that he carried out cures of various illnesses, particularly demon-possession and that these were widely regarded as miraculous; that he was involved in controversy with fellow Jews over questions of the law of Moses; and that he was crucified in the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

A.E. Harvey, formerly at Oxford University, in Jesus and the constraints of history

So in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot.

Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University, on Larry Hurtado’s Blog

An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.

Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge, Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, in the Foreword to The truth about Jesus by P Barnett

there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus’ life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE).

Amy-Jill Devine, Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University, quoted in Wikipedia.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. …. A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, in The Jesus Debate

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.

EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities, in The Historical Figure of Jesus

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.

The late Graham Stanton, Cambridge University, in The Gospels and Jesus

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn’t exist] as effectively refuted.

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary, in Jesus outside the New Testament

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities, in the Guardian

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Romans wrote about Romans, their favorite topic.

You obviously haven’t studied classical history. The Romans wrote volumes about the people they conquered or were trying to conquer.

If you're complaining about a lack of contemporaneous Roman evidence, I'm guess you actually haven't studied classical history, because we very often lack contemporary evidence especially from one particular perspective.

For instance, the Bar Kokhba revolt appears in one Roman source only, Cassius Dio, and that's not contemporary. Josephus is contemporary for the the first Jewish War, but he's not a Roman source and he's the only contemporary source. Boudica is known only from Tacitus and Cassius Dio, both of whom are writing decades later.

We've got no surviving histories of the entire reign of Nero; he's known from Tacitus and Suetonius writing 50 years after he died (there's coinage and inscriptions but obviously those don't exist for a wandering teacher).

Other Jewish Messiah claimants are also totally unknown in Roman sources. Judas of Galilee shows up in Josephus and Acts and nowhere else, Athronges is only known from Josephus, etc.

This is all totally common in dealing with ancient history, and these sources are largely regarded as generally reliable for the periods they cover even if they're writing decades later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Romans wrote about Romans, their favorite topic.

You obviously haven’t studied classical history. The Romans wrote volumes about the people they conquered or were trying to conquer.

DP. Care to address 3:37? If you don’t, you’re just arguing in bad faith, repeatedly falling back on your own sophomoric understanding and ignoring great points from scholars with actual academic qualifications

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Romans wrote about Romans, their favorite topic.

You obviously haven’t studied classical history. The Romans wrote volumes about the people they conquered or were trying to conquer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.

Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed.

The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links.

None definitively say he existed.

But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon?

How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best?

This is tangential to the existence of Jesus, i.e. a strawman argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Romans wrote about Romans, their favorite topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:

All historians, too.

False.

“Virtually all scholars of antiquity and today accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.“

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

While historians and scholars abound who doubt Jesus performed miracles, literally over 99.9% of them (and 100% of relevantly credentialed professors) believe he existed. See examples of experts commenting on the status in their own field:

Paul Maier (Ancient history professor at Western Michigan): “Open nearly any text in ancient history of Western civilization used widely in colleges and universities today, and you will find a generally sympathetic, if compressed, version of Jesus' life, which ends with some variation of the statement that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and died as a result. No ranking historian anywhere in the world shares the ultimate criticism voiced by German philosopher Bruno Bauer in the last century, that Jesus was a myth, that he never lived in fact.” [“Christianity Today”, XIX (1975): 63.]
Bart Ehrman (Outspoken critic of Christianity, NT & religion professor at UNC): “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees” [Forged: Writing in the Name of God (HarperOne, 2011), 256.]
Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]
Michael Grant (Atheist professor at Edinburgh, Classicist): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” [Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Simon & Schuster, 1992.] (Approvingly citing Otto Betz)
Craig Evans (NT professor at Asbury; Founder of Dead Sea Scrolls Inst.): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this.” [Jesus, The Final Days eds. Evans & Wright (Westminster, 2009), 3.]
Robert Van Voorst (NT professor at Western Theological): “The nonhistoricity [of Jesus] thesis has always been controversial… Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.” [Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 16.]
Richard Burridge (Biblical exegesis professor at King's College, Classicist): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” [Jesus, Now and Then (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 34.]

https://beliefmap.org/jesus/exist

True.