Viking_HippieSee also: The Call of Chtulhu
š¦šŗšš¦šš„šššš£š šš ššššIām not a believer but their is decent evidence to suggest that Jesus was a real guy.
LillyPipCan you name any such evidence?
Check out Dr. Bart Ehrmanās book Did Jesus Exist?, he goes over all the evidence.
Every week I receive maybe two or three emails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these emails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Donāt they?
But the questions kept coming and soon I began to wonder: why are there so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles ā misquoted rather ā as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. As it turns out, to my surprise, there is an entire literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.
I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, the history of the churchās first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read literally thousands and thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware of this body of skeptical literature, except as a slight image on the very periphery of my vision. As are most of my colleagues in this field of scholarship.
Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at parrying counter-evidence that to the rest of the civilized world might seem completely compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is, whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist. That is what this book will set out to demonstrate.
I hardly need to stress what I have already intimated, that this is the view of virtually every expert on the planet. That in itself is not proof, of course. Expert opinion is, at the end of the day, still opinion. But why would you not want to know what experts have to say?
Okay, that was a whole lot of someone elseās words to say the same thing you said.
I am not reading a whole book to answer your assertion:
I asked for evidence.
You seem to have read a book that presents it. So give me the actual evidence that book presents. This should be easy, because youāre using that book as said evidence.
Please give us a bulleted list of pieces of evidence that back up your claim.
Know that if you choose to argue against facts attested by the overwhelming majority consensus of scholars, academics and historians then you are the one making extraordinary claims.
Read through page 55-101 of below:
If you want to hear him talking on this I suggest skipping to 14:35 if youāre impatient:
Know that if you choose to argue against facts
Er, what? No, please reread what I said.
Can you give me ONE piece of tangible evidence, or can you only write a strawman dissertation?
I donāt care to watch a video or read a book because you canāt plainly state your point.
How about you plainly state your point?
That took an incredible amount of time to format and edit everything in only to receive such a rude dismissive response.
I really hope a lurker appreciates how much effort i spent to give you exactly what you asked for, because youāre a genuinely miserable person.
Iām not trying to be rude or dismissive, and I promise Iāve read every word youāve written. Iām a writer; I know how much it takes to write things.
Thatās not what this is about. If you need a pat on the back for writing words and using grammar, here you go: nicely done.
Can you give me the actual evidence youāve been promising, or are we done here?
Weāre done here.
Why are you trying to have a debate with me? Iām not a historian. I showed you what the leading historians have to say.
They are the ones who have studied all the sources and know the right answer you want. All I can do is go back and cite when I found them addressing your arguments.
If you are moving the goalposts and starting to demand physical evidence like you need to see Jesusā shin bone to believe he existed then the problem is that you donāt know how history works. Itās not my fault we donāt have his bones. We donāt have anyoneās bones. I already sent that info to you.
You donāt doubt William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great existed do you?
I already timestamped the exact part of the video where he addresses why no physical evidence exists but also why thatās not a problem.
Just watch the damn thing for 5 minutes.
Okay, but you started it. I only asked you to back up your claims.
Maybe youāre not ready for the internet.
Iād recommend you stay out of controversial communities if you canāt make claims, not back them up, then get defensive.
Cheers.
Isnāt it ironic to you that you wanted to ask me to read an entire book for your point, but youāre now assuming I want you to watch a gasp half hour video, though I never asked that?
I already watched the video. Iām saying itās unrealistic of you to ask me to go back and keep restarting it to transcribe it for you.
Evidence is not bible stories. Evidence is archaeological artefacts or bones or literally anything physical that is not some guyās stories. This is not hard. Iām only asking for ONE example.
The reason youāre asking me to transcribe the video is because I timestamped the exact moment for you where it addressed this as a completely unrealistic demand and that no serious historian would expect to find any or find it a compelling argument against his existence.
There are no examples, nor should that be a problem for a historians. Which is why I brought up the example of William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great.
But yeah, Iām the troll because youād rather spend an hour harassing me about explaining the basics of the scientific discipline of history instead of watching 2 minutes of a 20 minute video.
Jesus Christ, I never asked you to transcribe a video, what are you even on about? YOU suggested that. Stop ascribing your batshit requests to me.
I asked for ONE thing:
Give me one piece of evidence to support your claim.
Thatās all.
Itās simple, and something a child could understand.
For instance, we know Australopithecus existed because weāve found bones.
Itās that simple.
āWe know Jesus exists because we found his grave.ā
Or
āWe know Jesus exists becauseā¦ā [insert the evidence].
How is this hard?
Jesus Christ, I never asked you to transcribe a video, what are you even on about?
You didnāt specifically ask me to transcribe the video, but you would realize if I did transcribe the video that it is the exact answer to your question and answers every issue youāve raised.
So as you keep pestering me over and over again for āone piece of physical evidenceā Iām frustrated by the fact youāre basically just demanding me to transcribe it instead of watching it yourself.
I asked for ONE thing:
Give me one piece of evidence to support your claim.
Thatās all.
I listed like 8 contemporary sources written by people who knew of him in the early 1st century including some people (like Paul) who would have personally met his disciples.
What I have given you is what historians consider valid evidence. That you have a problem with it is your issue with the field of history, not my lack of evidence.
Itās simple, and something a child could understand.
But yet here we are.
For instance, we know Australopithecus existed because weāve found bones.
Itās that simple.
Dude how many times do i have to repeat myself. Youāre not going to find bones. Give up on the bones.
How is this hard?
Itās impossible.
No physical evidence exists of almost any Palestinian at that time.
Bones are created in very specific conditions, the real Jesus would by all likelihood have been thrown into a mass grave. If I had a 2000 year old bone how would we even prove it was Jesus?
Historians look at the earliest contemporary sources written about him to judge if he exists, and all modern historians agree that by scrutinizing and comparing these documents a man named Yeshua probably existed, he was probably from Nazareth and he was probably crucified.
If thatās not good enough for you thatās really not my fault. Itās simply what the evidence is and how history works.
All right, letās start again with no more assumptions about what you think I might possibly mean.
Literally, you said there was evidence of Jesusās existence.
I literally only asked for one example of said evidence.
Your claim.
I am not asking for books or videos, but the mere mention of ONE piece of the evidence you claimed existed. That is all.
All right, letās start again with no more assumptions about what you think I might possibly mean.
I know exactly what you mean.
Literally, you said there was evidence of Jesusās existence.
Yes, due to the fact I agree with historians that contemporary sources are evidence, I say there is evidence.
I literally only asked for one example of said evidence.
And I gave you 8 contemporary sources and listed more.
The issue is that you disagree with the scientific community this is valid and are demanding physical evidence.
Iāve told you multiple times no physical evidence exists. Itās an impossible demand, and thereās nothing to show you.
I am not asking for books or videos
You asked if I had any other evidence but what i gave you or if we were done here and I said āyes we are done hereā because thereās nothing fucking else to give you. Get that through your dumb skull holy shit. How are we this many comments deep into you still not getting thereās no physical evidence and I have never claimed there to be.
If your default position is to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of scientists, but then instead of learning even the slightest about what theyāre saying you choose to argue with randos on social media about it youāre just anti intelligence. Youāre choosing to be dumber on purpose. Iām not here for that shit.
You might as well argue the earth is flat.
You clearly donāt know what I mean, since Iāve said repeatedly that other peopleās claims or beliefs donāt constitute evidence.
I asked for actual evidence. If you have none, you could have said that near the beginning of this conversation rather than whatever youāve been doing.
You also clearly donāt know what I mean since youāve been attributing random meanings to me that have been wrong every time. I donāt have nefarious purposes, I actually just want the actual evidence you claimed to have, and I donāt put stock in peopleās stories, because people are often mistaken for many reasons. For evidence to be taken seriously , it should not rely on subjective accounts.
You clearly donāt know what I mean
I know exactly what you mean. 100% crystal clear.
I asked for actual evidence.
You asked for physical evidence.
If you have none, you could have said that near the beginning of this conversation rather than whatever youāve been doing.
Once I realized you had a radically strict criteria for what types of evidence could be considered āactual evidenceā far and beyond what the most serious scholars and historians would apply, I did say that.
Right here I said we were done and I had nothing more I could give you.
You also clearly donāt know what I mean since youāve been attributing random meanings to me that have been wrong every time. I donāt have nefarious purposes, I actually just want the actual evidence you claimed to have
I gave you the evidence I claimed to have.
You want evidence I never claimed to have, but which you mistakenly think I did.
and I donāt put stock in peopleās stories, because people are often mistaken for many reasons. For evidence to be taken seriously , it should not rely on subjective accounts.
Are you sure?
Earlier you told me we know Australopithecus existed because we found their bones.
I believe some scientist may have found a bone, but why do you accept its as old as they say it is, why do you accept it belonged to a distinct species called Australopithecus? Whereās the physical evidence of that?
In between the Australopithecus and the homo sapien there are quite a few missing links that need stories to fill them in.
Maybe they migrated this way in this period? Maybe the water was lower and there was an ice bridge here? Maybe this was a distinct species and not a direct ancestor?
These are all stories arenāt they, opinions of archaeologists and paleontologists and biologists?
Why do you consider finding a weird looking bone evidence of Australopithecus if you donāt follow the subjective accounts of evolutionary scientists and archaeologists when theyāre dating these bones and sequencing genetic material and so forth?
