All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • CthulhuPudding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      Very well. You must believe in ghosts.

      Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed.

      It also means that we can’t assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn’t exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can’t disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.

      Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepting everything on faith.

      If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn’t mean we have to.

      If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.

      but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.

      I disagree.

      • fkn@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are in a bad spot here.

        1. Your argument is poorly formed and not a very valuable one to fight for.

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

        1. Your argument shows a distinct lack of awareness of how history is analyzed and measured for authenticity.

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

        1. You are being extremely aggressive about a thing you are simply wrong about.

        It doesn’t even take that long to find credible sources to demonstrate that denying the historicity of Jesus is the fringe theory.

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

        This is a meaningless hill to die on. You are simply wrong and you should move on to things that are actually valuable.

          • fkn@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I already provided evidence for my position. If you would like to provide references that refute the Wikipedia pages on these topics I will be happy to read them.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dumping a link is not providing evidence. Let’s start with something basic:

              Please show me a single contemporary record of his life or even a single record of someone after his death who personally saw something.

              Not what someone heard, not a fifty year old oral account, not a Bayesian analysis. A direct peice of evidence. Which should be really easy for you to provide since the gospels make it clear that he was famous.

              When you find that piece of evidence let me know.

              • fkn@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s not how this works. Go gish gallop elsewhere.

                To refute your only relevant point in this post:

                Dumping a link is not providing evidence.

                I made a claim and I linked a specific article as a source.

                You are making a fringe claim. Even if you were an expert, which you are not, the claim you are making is a fringe argument.

                I backed that position up with a specific article (which also has sources) explicitly stating backing up my position.

                If you have a relevant source refuting this, I will happily continue this discussion.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Right so if you could just point out the evidence instead of link dropping that would be great. Something like a single eyewitness account written during the time he was alive. You do have evidence for your claim, yes?

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s essentially what the gospels were - the story and beliefs of Jesus passed on in the oral tradition of the rabbis before being written down a few generations later

                    As for like, bureaucratic forms? It was 2000 years ago, so by the time we started to care we basically are left with only whatever happened to be preserved in a collapsed building no one cared to demolish or rebuild - libraries and record halls tend to get burned down over the years. This is at a time when writing was expensive and a rare skill - it would be extremely strange for a record of a trial of a revolutionary run by a Pontius (basically the lowest rank of administrator sent to back water provinces) to have kept detailed records of executions (the Romans were extremely hierarchical and did a lot of executions)

                    Plus, the movement grew big enough to catch the attention of the local ruler (and the collaborating religious leadership who pushed for his execution) in the span of months. There was every incentive for uprising to be suppressed - it would be an embarrassment that they’d have every incentive to keep quiet

                    By the time anyone even started to consider that this Jesus guy was more than a run of the mill revolutionary in some backwater the empire barely cared about, it was because the ideas had spread to the point they started to threaten Roman rule. Probably through the Roman legions, who were largely conscripts sent to the other side of the empire “earning” the right to be Roman (part of the reason why there were so many uprisings)

                    During the time he was alive, no one took up arms or disrupted trade. By the time the nobility even heard his name, it was decades later - and at this point, we do have the odd surviving correspondence mentioning the issue

                    Frankly, I would be extremely skeptical of any document describing Jesus when he was alive - I think the only record there was a Pontius Pilates is some military discharge record of someone with that name in the right time and with enough honors to corroborate his existence