All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • fkn@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once again, I already provided evidence for my claim. What about my evidence is unsatisfactory?

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

      You really didn’t. You link dumped but whatever.

      I want a contemporary record of the man. Someone alive when the events went down and wrote down that they saw Jesus.

      • fkn@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It sounds to me like you want to argue about the second point more than the first one.

        You appear to have issues with how historical research is performed, and you have difficulty accepting secondary sources in historical records. You have repeatedly asked for primary sources. It appears that you, falsely, believe that primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources in historical context. (A reasonable discussion of how and why neither is more valuable/reliable than the other: https://www.historyskills.com/2023/05/02/primary-or-secondary-sources-which-are-more-reliable/ )

        The issue, primarily, is that any and all probable first hand accounts of Jesus are part of the new testament, but have been so heavily edited as to be removed from being reliable first hand accounts. Basically we can’t trust the recorded “first hand accounts” because the people who copied them had very heavy imputes to embellish or rewrite them to create a convincing first hand narrative.

        Tl;Dr: the first hand accounts were edited by secondary sources creating an unreliable first hand narrator. Basically what we always say, the people who wrote the new testament a couple hundred years after Jesus life lied and wrote a bunch of garbage and obliterated any reliable first hand account.

        To be crystal clear, what this means is that first hand accounts probably existed but were so heavily editorialized that they became invalid.

        Basically, what you are asking for no longer exists (or does and is intentionally hidden by the Catholic church, since they are the ones who might have any documents that old) in any credible form.

        That only leaves us with secondary sources. Of which, one is the bible itself. We know that the bible does contain some historical events, but that it is also a fairly poor source for historical accuracy. We know this because we can compare it to other secondary sources and we evaluate their congruency.

        There are only two pieces of information that all known secondary sources agree upon with respect to Jesus.

        1. there was a man who was baptized by John the Baptist.

        2. that same man was executed by the Romans via crucifixion.

        There is enough secondary evidence to have reasonable certainty that this man existed, was baptized and was crucified.

        That’s it.

        This is a reasonably small claim and this requires reasonably small evidence to accept.

        Under no circumstances am I asking you accept or believe that any of the other claims about Jesus life are real or valid. There is no other corroboration for any other events.

        The argument is a pointless one to have for most of us as it holds no bearing on anything. There are a couple million people named Jesus today… And some of them probably think they are the son of god. That doesn’t make their existence less real. It doesn’t make their delusions more real. It doesn’t mean a god exists.

        Historical Jesus most likely existed. So what?

        With regards to your assertion that “You link dumped.”

        Your arguments were poor and continue to be poor. Poor arguments don’t deserve more than a cursory dismissal. I dismissed your argument, made positive statements and provided sources for my position.

        I know you feel strongly about this, but that doesn’t mean jack shit.

        I know what you want, but asking for it shows a distinct dismissal of historical research and the way you demanded it demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate, if not an intentional facade to advance a tenuous position.

        Either you already knew that any primary sources that might have existed for Jesus were obliterated in the churches re-write of the new testament during its construction by the secondary authors and instead of engaging in a good faith argument as to the validity of secondary sources cross referencing or the validity of using the christian bible as a secondary source at all you demanded a thing you knew to be impossible to obtain… Or you were ignorant of the existing historicity discussion.

        At the end of the day, you were either ignorantly defending a fringe position or you are actively baiting people into a bad faith discussion trying to further a fringe position.

        A fringe position that is irrelevant to the discussion of if the historical Jesus has anything to do with a god.

        Jesus H Christ man. What the fuck do you want? At this point you are an asshole either way. Either you are willfully ignoring the arguments people are making (not just me) or you are actively trying to make them mad.

        Like I said. You are at a bad place here in the discussion.

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

          Your entire argument first argument is that evidence standards should be lowered because it is difficult. You have no primary evidence. No amount of arguing that you don’t need it will get rid of that statement. If you had primary evidence would you maintain that it didn’t matter? If I was sitting here with secondary and you had primary your argument would change to suit that. Sour grapes thinking.

          There are only two pieces of information that all known secondary sources agree upon with respect to Jesus. 1.there was a man who was baptized by John the Baptist. 2. that same man was executed by the Romans via crucifixion.

          I see. Can you please show me in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters where Paul says that Jesus Christ was Baptized by John the Baptist. Also the Gospel of Thomas if you feel up for it. Please remember that you said “all”. Watch as this quitely doesn’t get mentioned again.

          This is a reasonably small claim and this requires reasonably small evidence to accept.

          Pseudoscience and pseudohistory over time makes smaller and smaller claims. The newest snake oil cures baldness to cancer, a generation later it “makes you feel well”. Aliens are getting harder and harder to find as camera technology improves. God goes from creating the universe to appearing in driveway oil stains or even worse an abstract diest god.

          Things that are real make bolder and larger claims as time goes on. You are doing the same here. You start out with hundreds of claims about Jesus and weaken them one by one until you can create an itty bitty claim that no one can disprove or prove.

          Instead of trying to sneak a conclusion in why not just follow the data to where it leads? The data we do have shows a doctrine that benefitted the people who spread it, pulled from cultures of the areas, and massive inconsistents. All the hallmarks of liars and grifters who made up a story.

          Historical Jesus most likely existed. So what?

          Evidence please.

          I know you feel strongly about this, but that doesn’t mean jack shit.

          You are not a mind reader.

          I know what you want, but asking for it shows a distinct dismissal of historical research and the way you demanded it demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate, if not an intentional facade to advance a tenuous position.

          Nope haven’t done it. I have noted the total lack of primary evidence that very conveniently doesn’t exist. Maybe you can just go ahead and produce your sources instead of trying to analyze me? You know, attack the argument and not the person.

          At the end of the day, you were either ignorantly defending a fringe position or you are actively baiting people into a bad faith discussion trying to further a fringe position.

          Dang you really like making this about me instead of the data. Kinda reminds me when religious folks tell me that I just want to sin.

          Jesus H Christ man. What the fuck do you want? At this point you are an asshole either way. Either you are willfully ignoring the arguments people are making (not just me) or you are actively trying to make them mad.

          Primary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Was I not clear?

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

                  I was giving an example of another thing that is militantly defended without evidence. Also looks like I was right when I said before

                  I see. Can you please show me in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters where Paul says that Jesus Christ was Baptized by John the Baptist. Also the Gospel of Thomas if you feel up for it. Please remember that you said “all”. Watch as this quitely doesn’t get mentioned again.

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

                    You can demand whatever you like, that doesn’t mean that it is relevant to the discussion or that I have to entertain your gish galloping. I called you out on it before.

                    I made the mistake of bringing up superfluous points as well. You might not think they are spurious, but that’s the problem. You don’t, and continue to fale to engage in the discussion of historical research.

                    I thought, and still do, that you are earnest in your position. I’m not convinced that you are sealioning on purpose… Just misguided. I still think it’s a mistake to engage with you but you are infuriating. Which does make me think you are sealioning on purpose.