• barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t be lazy. If you want to see evidence then look at what the authorities say. Historians don’t argue by pulling shit out of their arse.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because you’re an unfathomably lazy motherfucker who needs to be spoon-fed the most basic of research skills such as fucking opening wikipedia and looking at the sources section.

          But the tl;dr is that his existence is attested by non-Christian sources and further details can be filled in by critical analysis (such as early Christians having no theological interest in making up him getting baptized by John). He was prominent enough as an itinerant preacher to be mentioned by the histographers of his time.

          Frankly speaking Buddha is on more shaky grounds, though his historicity is also widely accepted.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personal insults won’t convince me. Evidence will.

            But the tl;dr is that his existence is attested by non-Christian sources

            Hearsay written decades later.

            and further details can be filled in by critical analysis

            Critical analysis shows forgery. The multiple surviving accounts don’t agree with each other. Just like any liar, they couldn’t keep their story straight.

            such as early Christians having no theological interest in making up him getting baptized by John)

            Yeah this is bull. John the Baptist was widely respected in the area at the time of the jesus con. Connecting him with Jesus would have been good old fashion name dropping.

            He was prominent enough as an itinerant preacher to be mentioned by the histographers of his time.

            Ok who in his time named him? Please show me the contemporary writing that says anything about Jesus.

            Frankly speaking Buddha is on more shaky grounds, though his historicity is also widely accepted.

            I didn’t say he existed either.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Connecting him with Jesus would have been good old fashion name dropping.

              Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.

              The multiple surviving accounts don’t agree with each other. Just like any liar, they couldn’t keep their story straight.

              That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…

              Ok who in his time named him? Please show me the contemporary writing that says anything about Jesus.

              Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later” but the guy is generally reliable and had access to Roman state archives, which we don’t, so we have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?

              With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so (“Christians who accuse the State of crucifying their idol”) because he had the opportunity, and habit, to check sources, and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.

                He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.

                To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.

                That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…

                What the? Do you know what gospels mean?

                Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later”

                If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.

                but the guy is generally reliable

                The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?

                and had access to Roman state archives,

                What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.

                have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?

                If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.

                With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so

                How did you establish that?

                and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.

                Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.

                Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What the? Do you know what gospels mean?

                  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept%2Ftake as gospel

                  What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.

                  Standards of citation had not been established yet. Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.

                  Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you? And if so, can it be realistically attained? Do you apply the same method and standard to the existence of other historical figures? Can you even spell out your method and standards.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Standards of citation had not been established yet.

                    Not really my problem. If I was trying to convince you of unicorns being a real thing in the 9th century I don’t win the argument because record keeping was bad. You are making a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence.

                    Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.

                    And now we are mind reading. You have no idea what my reaction would be to a document that says (and was verified) “I Tacticus talked to Pilot and he admitted all the details in the account were true”. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of arguing what a hypothetical me would do?

                    Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you?

                    Sure.

                    And if so, can it be realistically attained?

                    Again not my problem. Just because you can’t prove your myth doesn’t mean I have to accept it.

                    Do you apply the same method and standard to, say, the existence of Nero? Akhenaten?

                    False comparison. The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary. And like all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It isnt exactly shocking that kingdoms have kings. What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.

                    Hey quick question. If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb? This is man who is the best authority we have and he has a basic detail so very wrong.