2y ago

All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

Show Context

159 comments

Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists.
We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?
When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?
I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion.
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject,
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case.
In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can't do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.
But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Alright? Does that make the claim true?
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  Bro you should sue whatever educational institution you went to. They fucking duped you lmao
  
  You are in a bad spot here.
  Your argument is poorly formed and not a very valuable one to fight for.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  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
  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.
  Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???
  
  Right so you will be producing that historical evidence when exactly?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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?
  
  Once again, I already provided evidence for my claim. What about my evidence is unsatisfactory?
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  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
  That's the thing, we really don't have evidence of that. The Gospel of Mark shows borrowings from the letters of Paul, Greek and Roman stories, and Jewish writings. We can even see parts where the author looks to be siding with James over Paul like the curtain ripping.
  As for the other three they all borrowed from Mark and again from different stories around. There just isn't a need to invent an oral tradition when we have a written one.
  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)
  That really isn't my problem. You can't produce evidence doesn't mean I have to lower my standards of evidence. Besides which the Gospels you are invoking mention word of Jesus spreading all over the province and yet silence. Everyone likes to quote that one sentence in Josphius but no one likes to mention that he went into multiple paragraph details about other would be Messiahs. And again Paul was in Jerusalem during the events and yet he saw nothing.
  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
  Oh? Because we have letters of Pilot's enemies talking about other acts of cruelty. What evidence do you have that the Romans would have destroyed records of an uprising? They don't seem to have a problem with noting other ones.
  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)
  Speculation. You have no proof of this bonfire of the evidence.
  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
  That doesn't prove that there was a Jesus that proves that Christians existed a century later.
  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
  Ok? I mean we have more than that might want to look into Pilot a bit.
  I am not following your logic here. I am too accept lower standards of evidence because if better evidence exists it would be too hard to find so...yeah help me out with this one. If tomorrow someone digs up say a family genealogy that lists Jesus being born in Nazareth that would disprove he existed? This sounds a bit like the Babble Fish logic in the Hitchhiker's guide to the universe.
- I am pretty hardcore atheist and I have a huge bias against Christianity. But you are either taking your bias too far or ignoring evidence.
  Which is ironic because you’re making your belief more important than the existing evidence.
  
  Please present your evidence. On my side I have a century of textual analysis that shows that everyone involved in the documentation process was a liar, as well as legendary figures such as William Tell, John Frumm, and Ned Lud.
  
  Do you mean all of the writings that included him? The Dead Sea scrolls they found even disparaged his name. Regardless of my desire to believe he didn’t exist, it is unlikely that people made him up at that time, then had random people talk and write about him.
  By your standards, Alexander the Great did not exist, Socrates was a dream, and Siddartha Guatama was a fable.
  That’s just not how it works.
  
  Oh really the dead sea scrolls mention Jesus of Nazareth? Please inform me. What did you find in the scrolls that mentions him?
  This is going to be so amusing.
  it is unlikely that people made him up at that time, then had random people talk and write about him.
  You mean the way people did with Ned Ludd going so far as to write letters claiming to be him? Or the way they did with John Frumm? Or William Tell? In any case we don't actually need that to happen. Of the 27 books of the OT 23 follow the traditions of St. Paul directly. A man who admitted that he never once saw Jesus. The remaining borrowed from Paul and a theoretically community (no evidence for) founded by James. We don't need random people to do it. We have a charismatic well spoken leader who spoke of his visions.
  By your standards, Alexander the Great did not exist,
  You don't know what my standards are. You are assuming not asking. Also we have a physical inscription written contemporary about the man from a disinterested party.
  Socrates was a dream,
  I wonder what blog you are copying now. He could have been but the claim of the man is ordinary so it unlikely to be a forgery. Besides the stories of him were written for an audience that knew him and no one is recorded objecting.
  and Siddartha Guatama was a fable.
  You really should cite the blog you are copying and posting from. We have some evidence that he existed. Since we have the Sangha and that shows signs of having one person creating it. We have relics such as the tree sapling of his tree. We have references in the Pali Canon that hint that the speaker was part of the royal lines by references. Again it isn't even a crazy claim. Wandering monks existed in the 5th century BCE and almost none of his work is unique, it was a continuation of a philosophy tradition.
  That’s just not how it works.
  "Your" entire argument is basically since humans accept bad evidence sometimes we must accept bad evidence all of the time. You can't prove that your best buddy existed so you try to prove that since I am an imperfect thinker I have to be naive and accept you on faith about everything else. Sorry but that's just not how it works.
  I am looking forward to you being too embarrassed to mention the dead sea scrolls in your next comment. Really looking forward to it. Don't worry, I will remind you ;)
  
  Hey still waiting for you to show me the part of the Dead Sea Scrolls that mention Jesus. You weren't lying about your god were you? Hehehe

159 comments