All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • 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
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

          Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???

            • 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
                    6
                    ·
                    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?

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

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

        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.

        • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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 ;)

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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