Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]-Socrates: Everyone accepts he existed, yet we have zero words written by him and zero contemporary documents mentioning him.

-Pythagoras: Famous theorem, religious cult that lasted centuries—yet not a single text or inscription from his lifetime or the century after.

-Spartacus: One of the most famous slave rebels in history, but no Roman historian writing while he was alive or within a century afterward left a detailed account that survives.

Jesus is actually on the stronger end of the spectrum for a non-royal, non-elite person from the early 1st century CE. The combination of multiple independent sources (hostile, neutral, and friendly) appearing within 20–90 years is better than what we have for many other accepted ancient figures who were far more powerful or famous in their own lifetimes. [/quote]

You seem very smart and you type well, too.[/quote]

Thanks! I am an old guy who has spent decades studying this stuff. I think the worst thing I have seen is the Horus, Mithras, etc, meme crap that people somehow actually believe. Those are memes that someone probably made as a joke. And they are everywhere on the internet and people use them as “evidence.” [/quote]

Evidence doesn't matter when it comes to religion.  It's what people believe - or not.[/quote]

Yup. People can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they want. 
[/quote]

Do we have any non-religious contemporary writings to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed? [/quote]

If people told the story of the FSM thousands of years ago, I'm sure some suckers would believe it and repeat the tale.

We have exactly just as much concrete evidence for the FSM as we do for Jesus. 
[/quote]

No, we do not have “exactly just as much concrete evidence” for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as for Jesus. That claim is simply false.

Mentioned in multiple 1st–2nd century sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Referenced by non-followers / hostile sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Has a specific time and place in history? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Left a verifiable historical movement that rapidly grew? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Year the figure is first claimed to have existed? Jesus: ~4-6 bce. FSM: 2005 (Bobby Henderson’s open letter)

Serious academic debate about whether the figure existed? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

The FSM was invented in 2005 explicitly to mock the idea that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. It is a deliberate parody with zero pretense of historicity.

Jesus is a 1st-century Jew whose existence, baptism by John, and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate are accepted by essentially 100% of relevant scholars — including atheist, Jewish, and agnostic ones (Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, etc.).

Saying “we have the same evidence for both” is like saying we have the same evidence for Julius Caesar and Darth Vader. One is a documented historical person; the other is an openly admitted 21st-century joke.

The FSM argument only works if you completely ignore chronology, sources, and basic historical methodology. Once you apply the same standards we use for any other ancient figure, the comparison collapses instantly.

So no — not “exactly the same evidence.”

One has early, multiple, and hostile corroboration.

The other has a 2005 blog post that says “I made this up to make a point.”

That’s the difference.

[/quote]

No, concrete evidence isn't stories retold centuries later.

There is zero concrete evidence that either existed.

[/quote]

The  “zero concrete evidence” claim is simply false, and the “centuries later” claim misrepresents the actual timeline of the sources by hundreds of years. The historical existence of Jesus is about as solid as anything from that era gets.[/quote]

Incorrect. The evidence historicists are relying on is debated and not concrete. Most, if not all of what we do have was altered by Christians to support their beliefs.

For claims that there is as much evidence as there are for other historical figures, many of those other historical figures have archaeological evidence, in addition to written sources. There is no archaeological evidence in support of Jesus. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics