All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”.

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

                  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.

                  • stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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