All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This argument is like saying “some guy named john did in fact live and was sentenced to life in prison in Louisiana”.

    There was, in fact, lots of jeshua’s and Jehoshua’s that were alive at the time- and many of them executed. That’s not credible evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. It was a very common name, after all.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reduction Jesus doesn’t even work. Even if you reduce him down to some guy named Jesus who pissed the Romans off you wouldn’t be able to account for the community that popped up. Additionally you still can’t prove that this diet Jesus event happened, you just lowered the claim so much that it is not plausible instead of impossible.

      What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.

        It’s a lot easier to convince people you’re the successor to the of some kind of deity rather being some kind of deity yourself. A LOT easier. Also… sets up plausible deniability if things get caught out. “I DIDN"T KNOW, HONEST…! he duped me too!”

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeps. Even Tacticus mentions how weird it was that the leader was dead but yet the movement continued. If the leader is very much alive and making up stories about his dead brother for decades it makes more sense.

          Also had a precedent in Jewish history. When the temple was closed the leader of the revolt died and his son (so many references to Peter being the successor to Jesus) took over and eventually did restore the temple.

    • nadiaraven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so starting from that common ground shows Christians that you are following the consensus views and are discussing in good faith with them

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Under that narrow circumstance you’d start writing out many more historical figures than just Jesus i’m pretty sure…

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well first off that really isn’t my problem. If there is no evidence that someone in history existed it is not my fault. Go dig in the dirt and find it.

            Secondly you will notice that every time this argument is brought up they always reference a historical figure who we do have evidence, while they were alive, that they existed. Julius Ceaser is usually cited.

            Third, even the reduced to the minimum non-supernatural Jesus is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the minimum Jesus is to believed he came from a one-horse town with no one literate. Mastered the arts of illusions. Migrated. Within six months convinced a bunch of people to abandon their families. Got several people to help him with his tricks. Figured out the rock formation under Gallie. Convinced all of them to follow them to what was definitely suicide.

            Now the fun part is what happens next. Pilat decides for no reason at all not to go after the rest of them, they form two separate communities, become a threat to the Pharisees on their own turf, inspire Paul to attack them, convert him, get him to start his own counter-counter movement off the original movement. All the while they are able to survive attacks by everyone around them for well over a century. The timeline for all these movements, counter movements, counter counter movements, multiple communities? 1-3 years.

            Could you do this? Do you think with the clothing on your back you could go to a backwater of a backwater and pull all this off in the same time period? Could anyone do this?

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              …Umm…did you ever consider that instead of all those extraordinary magic tricks and social engineering occurring…

              …That they just lied and embellished in an era where people told tales of gods and the supernatural? Like you’re assuming we need proof that all the things Jesus was said to have done happened in some form, when in reality the only thing that had to happen is that he was persecuted in Rome during a time when we know Rome was doing that.

              Like you’re focusing so much on this that it looks silly and detracts from much better arguments against Christianity…

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I did consider it. The thing is the Gospel miracles are all variations on common magic tricks in the area at that time. If someone made them up decades later why not make up bigger ones? To me it made more sense for James to claim his non-existent brother did those same tricks that way it would sound familiar. You always want to tell the most minimum lie you can get away with. If I told you I was late for work because of a flat tire you are more likely to believe me than if I said because I was defusing a hostage situation.

                Additionally if you look at the formula school you notice a repeating pattern to the miracles. Jesus is asked to solve a problem, no one thinks he can, he does, everyone is shocked. All these repetitive stories hints at a core one a core lie.

                Plus you still have Paul to worry about which your reduced Jesus doesn’t cover.

                • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.

                  I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there’s undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.

                    Sure and if pigs had wings they could probably fly.

                    I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there’s undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?

                    I am very sorry if I miscommunicated. My bad. We have a much higher degree of confidence in those two men. Someone wrote those 7 primary letters and they used a consistent voice and shows a consistent story. Also we have copies of them from all over. We also have stories in the letters about Paul himself that match up with the historical geographical data. If there was no Paul it is a very impressive con job. Someone would have had to go around the Roman Empire and track down all these different churches, find the names of people there, some how convince them that Paul started that church and meet with them personally, developed an entire theological system, convince people that public events at their churches had happened but no one remembered them. So yeah I guess it is possible but I would really like to meet the man who could do that. Get him a job where I work in sales.

                    As for James, once we trust that Paul isn’t lying we get mention of him. We also get two other references to him. I admit I am on less sturdy ground with James. I am curious if you have a reason to doubt either one? I have reasons to doubt Jesus, like for example the massively inconsistent records of him.