All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
130 points (67.1% liked)
Atheist Memes
5482 readers
355 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just making shit up now? Folks there are plenty of memes to be had without fabrication of patently untrue comments.
Dang you got me. There is so much evidence for the man existing such as ummm some "historian" writing 150 years later describing what other people said.
You don't read a lot of history do you? Look into what kind of "evidence" we have for entire cultures in the ancient world. The guy definitely existed. The question is wether or not he had super powers.
I see. What culture in particular are you discussing that we have this little evidence for? Also can I ask, if a low bar of evidence was accepted for one thing does that mean a low bar of evidence must be accepted for another?
Maybe don't go off the top of your head. You said "Look into what kind of “evidence” we have for entire cultures in the ancient world. " now you are talking about kings. Can you move the goalposts back please? I want a list of cultures that have less evidence of existing and are as widely accepted as existing as Jesus.
Well let's start with some.
Sorry I don't click random YouTube links. You got an argument you make the argument.
I normally don't go in for this kind of thing, but why not?
Firstly: you need to clarify your position, because, right now, it's so vague I don't even know where to start. If you're arguing against the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" then the only thing I can say is that 'Jeaus' was, then as now, a reasonably common name. It's like denying the existence of "Steven from Philadelphia". Even without the presence of crucifixion records from Calvary, it's a near statistical certainty that one existed.
If you're more specifically arguing against Jesus of Nazareth being the one true son of the one true God, then, ya, I think we're on the same page there, but that's purely conjecture, because you never cared to clarify.
I do think you would enjoy the video that I linked though, if you can fit it into your schedule. It's from the channel "Today I found out" and the video is titled "Is there any hard evidence that Jesus actually existed?" In case you need to look it up independently.
Tl;dr: your argument is too vague to even be considered wrong.
Paul found a group and took them over. The group had a founder. The founder was not a man named jesus. The stories that Paul was told, and ultimately came to be the Gospels, were fabrications.
Now now. That's not the subject of the current debate. You just told me to stay on target; you do the same. If you want to change the subject, that's fine, but you need to either agree with my previous post, and admit the error of your position, clarify your position, or keep arguing that no human has ever been named Jesus.
I never argued no one was named Jesus.
Edit: is this an example of a strawman argument?
No. It's much closer to reducto at absurdum. Yours is an attempt at redirection.
In case you weren't around, a quick recap is as follows: you stated that there's no evidence for Jesus. I countered that there's sketchy evidence for a lot of things in the ancient world. You implied that there is, I think. I gave the example of multiple Persian kings who we have only about one line about even existing (I'm also now going to add the entire writings of Herodotus to my argument), and clarified my position by stating that while we have ample evidence for the human commonly known as "Jesus of Nazareth" existing and being crucified, I don't personally believe that he was a real life demigod. You gave an unsourced account of a guy named Paul leading an unspecified and unnumbered group of people at some point, and now we're here. Did I miss anything?
Look dude, I'm not going to go find primary sources over this to make my argument. The entire contemporary historical community, which is full of a lot of very skeptical and liberally minded people basically agrees that the current iteration of the Christian faith was started by a real person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth. The exact validity of his stories, and many, but not actually all of the accounts of the events and people surrounding him are what is under question. You should spend some time outside of your Echo chamber, the air gets really stuffy in there and it makes it hard to think clearly. The term is "skeptic" not "denier".
You said that there were entire cultures I asked you to name one and you goalpost shifted to kings. Name me the culture.
The reign of a king can be considered a culture. It's a very loosely defined term.
Please provide a citation for this assertion.
The Oxford English dictionary. Is bibliography.com still a thing?
Just checked it and doesn't say anything about a reign of a single king being one of the definitions for culture.
Want to try again? Tell me the culture that is accepted by scholars that has less evidence of existing compared to your buddy Jesus of Nazareth.
Go read the Wikipedia page about Herodotus, and why he is called both the 'Father of History', and the 'Father of Lies', and then come back. Be ready to answer questions about what you read. I can't have a well organized debate with a walking Dunning-Kruger Effect, because you think you're making valid points when you're not. Ignorance is not a crime, only the willful maintenance of it. I can't teach you an entire course on the history of the ancient world over this medium, but I'm happy to point you to places where you can educate yourself and help guide your learning.
Oh and by the way, The subjects under the reign of a king are a "social group", and therefore are captured under the first definition of the word "culture". Furthermore, the term "workplace culture" is a commonly used and accepted term for the accepted and expected behavior of the people at a particular place of employment. English is a fluid, living language
Deflecting, deal with the argument.
No. Because you're jaq'ing off. Perhaps literally to your perceived victory, however in this context, it is not so much a logical fallacy, as a political maneuver, and a different type of deflecting, which stands for "Just Asking Questions". You've offered virtually no evidence in favor of your argument, while you ask several short questions in a row that sound persuasive, but take an extremely asymmetrical amount of time to answer appropriately. An often cited example being when the flat earthers ask "If the earth was round, why don't airliners ever fly over the North Pole?" In reality, there are several very good reasons why they don't fly over the North Pole ranging from the concept of great arcs on a spherical planet, to longstanding international treaties, but it takes about 10 minutes to explain all that, after which the flat earth or will usually say something like "Do you have any proof for any of that?" At which point the second party will usually just give up and walk away, wherein the flat earth or will strut around with the level of victorious satisfaction that is also seen in a Boomer who "Really gave that telemarketer an earful", but in actuality accomplished nothing.
So no. If you refuse to give any reasonable arguments for your case, do any of the independent reading I've recommended from well respected professionals in the field, and insist on redefining commonly used words to fit your position, then I cannot help you. You are exhibiting the same dogmatic insistence that's a Hallmark of the religious fundamentalists that you seem to be arguing against. You're not using deductive reasoning and logic, or any evidence to come to the conclusion that you espouse. You're starting with the sertitude that you are correct, and then bending logic into a pretzel to make that the case. I'm sure you'll make a great politician someday.
How is that primary evidence coming?
It's not. Why do you ask? I stopped trying yesterday when I realized that my four year old makes more compelling arguments about why he shouldn't have to brush his teeth every night. I just got board while pooping earlier today and decided to try one more shot in the dark. Didn't work.
Actually pretty good, I learned a few things.