WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?
If someone says “The pope can perform miracles” and I say “there’s no proof of that”, does that imply that I deny the existence of the pope? Do rumours of miracles even begin to make the existence of a person sitting on a chair in Rome less likely?
As to the fuzz about him: There were tons of itinerant preachers back them, not many were made martyrs by the Romans. Also, you know, I wouldn’t call it entirely unlikely that Jesus, as a person, was an exceptionally swell and nice guy, people liked him, considered him wise or even divinely inspired. People having followers certainly isn’t out of the ordinary, it’s been known to happen.
Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?
WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?
Simple. If someone today would walk on water or turn water into wine, then it would be talked about everywhere, but not ages after their death. No idea why you find this so hard to comprehend.
Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?
No? There’s literally records of him existing, including video evidence. Stop being willfully obtuse. This is just bad faith bullshit arguing and you know it.
Simple. If someone today would walk on water or turn water into wine, then it would be talked about everywhere, but not ages after their death. No idea why you find this so hard to comprehend.
And people who don’t do it and thus aren’t talked about that often therefore don’t exist? Of course the historical evidence regarding Jesus is not on that kind of scale for the simple reason that there’s no such thing as miracles. He got crucified and that rallied a popular movement which caused trouble in the Roman Empire that’s why we have independent (i.e. non-Christian, non-believer) evidence of his existence. That is, he made just enough of a splash to be recorded.
There’s literally records of him existing, including video evidence.
And there was enough contemporary evidence to convince Tacitus that Jesus existed, that those troublesome Christians didn’t simply make him up completely. As said: The man was a Senator, not a Christian, had access to state archives, and generally was quite thorough. He would’ve caught Christians lying about someone getting crucified.
And people who don’t do it and thus aren’t talked about that often therefore don’t exist?
It means that the Jesus person that the bible talks about and that formed this entire global religion didn’t exist, which in turn invalidates the entire Christian religion (although you can apply most of the same logic to other religions too, of course).
I never claimed anything about Jesus as talked about in the Bible, as described by Christians. I’m talking about a Jewish itinerant preacher who became inspiration for all of that.
From what we know, by ordinary standards of the science of history, that person, that human, existed, lived and breathed. That’s literally all. His followers sitting next to his grave high on shrooms “witnessing” his resurrection or whatever happened back then doesn’t play into it, nor his further deification down the line, the trinity, whatever.
You’re talking about some dude with that name that lived at the time, I’m talking about the Jesus in the bible that ended up forming this religion. If you talk about something else, then please don’t derail the topic. Thank you.
I’m talking about the Jesus in the bible that ended up forming this religion.
The religion was formed after he was dead. The Gospels were written even later, the bible compiled even later, long after Tacitus kicked the bucket. Lots of opportunity for bullshit and myth to get created so the Bible is not exactly a reliable source.
What I’m talking about, from the very beginning, is that there was a guy, and he got baptised by John, and he travelled around and preached had followers, and he pissed of the Romans enough to get crucified, and that is the person that believers then built a whole religion and theology around. What I’m not saying is any of that theology is true, that any of the miracles he supposedly did happened, just that there was a person who served as a nucleation point for the religion to grow around.
To make my point a bit more concrete, let’s take the last supper, and suppose for the sake of argument that it’s basically true as written in the bible, as in he had supper with his followers, knew that he was going to die and accepted that, and said something to the effect of “dudebros, if you want to remember me then just get together and have supper while thinking of me and I’m going to be there in your hearts and spirits”. “Don’t be sad no seriously don’t I’m fine with dying just have supper”. Then, long after that, some theologians came along and made a whole metaphysical thing out of it with the bread being the actual body of Christ and the cannibalism that entails and whatever bullshit.
…that is more or less how people get mythologised. They are beloved or respected in some way and then, over centuries, people worship them by spinning all kinds of tales, ascribe supernatural powers, bend the historical truth more and more while they’re projecting their hopes and wishes into that figure.
What people claim when they say “Jesus the person didn’t exist” is that it was all myth from the beginning – that there was no such human that got deified afterwards, that the whole thing was made up from scratch. That people started a religion featuring a god walking the earth in human form without there having been someone two-legged to do actual real-world walking. That there was no nucleation point for the religion to grow around. That’s not really much of a null hypothesis as it’s making the assumption that Christian myth breaks with patterns of myth creation you see in other instances. And then Tacitus comes along and says “yep we crucified that troublesome rebel”, making the case even more clear-cut.
You then went on to challenge mainstream historical science with weak arguments, started to talk about wonders and everything, getting religion all mixed up in things. Thus, in my last comment, I was explaining how religions get born, how they develop (briefly), to aid you in not mixing up a religion’s history with what a religion says about itself.
WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?
If someone says “The pope can perform miracles” and I say “there’s no proof of that”, does that imply that I deny the existence of the pope? Do rumours of miracles even begin to make the existence of a person sitting on a chair in Rome less likely?
As to the fuzz about him: There were tons of itinerant preachers back them, not many were made martyrs by the Romans. Also, you know, I wouldn’t call it entirely unlikely that Jesus, as a person, was an exceptionally swell and nice guy, people liked him, considered him wise or even divinely inspired. People having followers certainly isn’t out of the ordinary, it’s been known to happen.
Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?
Simple. If someone today would walk on water or turn water into wine, then it would be talked about everywhere, but not ages after their death. No idea why you find this so hard to comprehend.
No? There’s literally records of him existing, including video evidence. Stop being willfully obtuse. This is just bad faith bullshit arguing and you know it.
And people who don’t do it and thus aren’t talked about that often therefore don’t exist? Of course the historical evidence regarding Jesus is not on that kind of scale for the simple reason that there’s no such thing as miracles. He got crucified and that rallied a popular movement which caused trouble in the Roman Empire that’s why we have independent (i.e. non-Christian, non-believer) evidence of his existence. That is, he made just enough of a splash to be recorded.
And there was enough contemporary evidence to convince Tacitus that Jesus existed, that those troublesome Christians didn’t simply make him up completely. As said: The man was a Senator, not a Christian, had access to state archives, and generally was quite thorough. He would’ve caught Christians lying about someone getting crucified.
It means that the Jesus person that the bible talks about and that formed this entire global religion didn’t exist, which in turn invalidates the entire Christian religion (although you can apply most of the same logic to other religions too, of course).
I never claimed anything about Jesus as talked about in the Bible, as described by Christians. I’m talking about a Jewish itinerant preacher who became inspiration for all of that.
From what we know, by ordinary standards of the science of history, that person, that human, existed, lived and breathed. That’s literally all. His followers sitting next to his grave high on shrooms “witnessing” his resurrection or whatever happened back then doesn’t play into it, nor his further deification down the line, the trinity, whatever.
You’re talking about some dude with that name that lived at the time, I’m talking about the Jesus in the bible that ended up forming this religion. If you talk about something else, then please don’t derail the topic. Thank you.
The religion was formed after he was dead. The Gospels were written even later, the bible compiled even later, long after Tacitus kicked the bucket. Lots of opportunity for bullshit and myth to get created so the Bible is not exactly a reliable source.
What I’m talking about, from the very beginning, is that there was a guy, and he got baptised by John, and he travelled around and preached had followers, and he pissed of the Romans enough to get crucified, and that is the person that believers then built a whole religion and theology around. What I’m not saying is any of that theology is true, that any of the miracles he supposedly did happened, just that there was a person who served as a nucleation point for the religion to grow around.
To make my point a bit more concrete, let’s take the last supper, and suppose for the sake of argument that it’s basically true as written in the bible, as in he had supper with his followers, knew that he was going to die and accepted that, and said something to the effect of “dudebros, if you want to remember me then just get together and have supper while thinking of me and I’m going to be there in your hearts and spirits”. “Don’t be sad no seriously don’t I’m fine with dying just have supper”. Then, long after that, some theologians came along and made a whole metaphysical thing out of it with the bread being the actual body of Christ and the cannibalism that entails and whatever bullshit.
…that is more or less how people get mythologised. They are beloved or respected in some way and then, over centuries, people worship them by spinning all kinds of tales, ascribe supernatural powers, bend the historical truth more and more while they’re projecting their hopes and wishes into that figure.
What people claim when they say “Jesus the person didn’t exist” is that it was all myth from the beginning – that there was no such human that got deified afterwards, that the whole thing was made up from scratch. That people started a religion featuring a god walking the earth in human form without there having been someone two-legged to do actual real-world walking. That there was no nucleation point for the religion to grow around. That’s not really much of a null hypothesis as it’s making the assumption that Christian myth breaks with patterns of myth creation you see in other instances. And then Tacitus comes along and says “yep we crucified that troublesome rebel”, making the case even more clear-cut.
What you were talking about from the beginning had nothing to do with the comment of mine that you replied to. Stop going off topic.
You questioned the existence of Jesus the person. I corrected you on that. I cannot fathom how you can sort that into “has nothing to do with my comment”.
You then went on to challenge mainstream historical science with weak arguments, started to talk about wonders and everything, getting religion all mixed up in things. Thus, in my last comment, I was explaining how religions get born, how they develop (briefly), to aid you in not mixing up a religion’s history with what a religion says about itself.