All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • fkn@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    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
        5
        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
          7
          ·
          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
            5
            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
              5
              ·
              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?

              • fkn@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                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
                  4
                  ·
                  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
                    4
                    ·
                    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.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

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

                  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.

                  • theneverfox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    With the gospels, I don’t think there’s any debate that it comes from an oral history. As for their influences - ever notice the old testament has 2 overlapping creation stories? People spend their lives analyzing the text through various lenses, there’s tons of material on how Jewish oral tradition worked and picking apart the markers of it. The rest of the new testament starts to diverge, there’s a pretty stark difference between them and the rest of the books

                    As for lowering your standards of evidence, I really don’t understand your point. There’s no pictures of Caesar or George Washington, if they existed today the lack of pictures would be pretty suspect.

                    Jesus was an artisan and orator from an age when writing was expensive and only available to the nobility, and the vast majority of it was lost to time. It’s expected that there’s no written records of him during his lifetime - he was just some backwater carpenter whose importance wasn’t clear until after his death

                    Context is everything in history. It’s like asking “where is his birth certificate?” when someone is born in a time and place where that wasn’t a thing

                    The time frame matters because Pompeii is a time capsule - human hands couldn’t have manipulated the evidence past that date up. That’s one generation - there would have been people around who met the guy (or should have).

                    And yet, neither followers or opposing institutions ever questioned his existence, details of the account of his life line up with historical records

                    Ultimately, what’s more likely: there was a man known as Jesus of Nazareth (even if he took up the name and role in someone else’s plan), or there was a conspiracy to fake the existence of a man who was a threat to both the Jewish leadership and Roman rule, and neither of those parties (who had people still alive as the movement became a problem) “what do you mean I had him executed? I never met the guy”

                    Maybe he died, maybe a stand in died, maybe he faked his death with the help of Roman soldiers and fled to Asia. But someone had to have played the role - otherwise a lot of people would have had to flawlessly keep up a conspiracy, many of which weren’t believers

                    You can spend hours digging into every single detail I’ve brought up, it’s literally the most studied historical subject ever with a ton of secular historical work done in the last century. But the consensus is that he definitely existed, there’s just too many corroborating details that line up