He has already said that he is talking about a majority of experts rather than a majority of the general population.
Where do the experts hail from? They’re part of the majority as well. Also more than half of them contain bias towards the subject.
This is where the Jesus myth was finally and formally established.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
From this point on, all contrary texts, to the texts agreed upon by this council, were on a proscribed list. Only the officially agreed text were permitted reproduction and dissemination.
Distribution of any contrary texts were seen as heretical and punishable by immolation.
This was at a time when books were not printed, but copied by hand. For the next thousand years possession of any forbidden text was a ‘burning issue’.
Any hint that Christianity was a religion of rebellion, a religion of the people, of social resistance was crushed out of existence since the time of Constantine, when he made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, by the Edict of Milan in 313.
Any and all evidence concerning Jesus, dates from after this in practical terms.
This makes it pointless to give a reliable account of the historicity of the life and activity of Jesus and his followers, being as only texts in support of the “official version” have been permitted to survive.
Quick summary of what goes on between theists and atheists.
Theist - “Oh god and Jesus exist! I feel it in my bones.”
Athiest - “Do you have any evidence to support such claims?”
Theist - “Well the gospels and events that took place 100’s/1000’s of years ago of which I never saw but I have faith in their ‘recordings’. I have faith in Jesus and god.”
Atheist - “That isn’t sufficient evidence to support said claims. I do not believe in the existence.”
Theist - “Well what about you. You need to provide evidence of non-existence.”
^ Theist deflecting providing sufficient evidence onto the atheist for their disbelief.
Atheist - “I am not the one making claims of the existence of something of which shows no evidence. So how am I to provide evidence when there is nothing there to disprove in the first place?”
Theist - “God exists! I have faith!”
Happens every time. Deflection and manipulation of the conversation onto the atheist for their disbelief, all the while the theist still does not provide sufficient evidence, disregard their belief of what they say to be evidence.
They think atheists care if Jesus were to exist, like we would not want him to or we have something against the idea. No, that isn’t the case. The case is we don’t fall so easily to be entertained by the idea being true while such little evidence if even any is provided.
Basically, we don’t care if Jesus exists. Despite what is said by theists, we don’t have anything against the idea. What we do care for is that people sway so easily while such little/nothing is provided to prove it.
That’s the separation between agenda and no agenda. Theist has agenda because it wants more to believe in it with little/no evidence to provide. Atheist has no agenda because it really doesn’t care or have a problem if the man existed in the first place, they care for the evidence to show it, which it doesn’t sadly.
You can’t really provide evidence in something not existing when the proof is there already for one to see by never providing proof of existing in the first place.
We;re not discussing the existence of god here.
It’s Jesus. Which also has little to no evidence.
Are you ever going to be realistic about this? Let me try again.
You, sir, claim to know the innermost thoughts of caterpillars, that Nicola Tesla was a near-magical genius who invented free energy that was covered up by the Government, and that all the worlds economic problems can be solved by abolishing currency. I think I know how much of a shit you give about evidence in the general. But when it comes to other people’s religions, suddenly you are the grand inquisitor of what counts as evidence, and what types of evidence are sufficient. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY you are just using this notion of ‘evidence’ as a rhetorical club to bludgeon belief systems you have a problem with- it’s not something you live, it’s not something you give a fuck about when applied to your own cherished views.
WHICH IS FINE, the vast majority of people are that way. I’m just trying to get past this “Let’s pretend we care about just the facts when tearing down other people’s shit” war for a second and actually express something real.
What’s real is, there hasn’t been anything new to say about Jesus for a very long time. The people who still write and talk about him as though there is are just expressing themselves- and this applies to all sides of the issue. If you want to (and I suppose you probably don’t) evolve past the dick waving of seeing who has the stuffiest-looking bibliography at the end 0f their argument page that somebody else wrote for them, there’s only one way I know to do it- look at academia of Jesus as a trend. See what the entirety of it has been since the Enlightenment. That trend is what I’ve described to you- one of less and less skepticism. Anything else and you’re either just picking something that aligns with your prejudice and ignoring all the stuff that doesnt, or you’re an expert who has done all his own analysis in the original languages and is actually in a place where they can publish findings- again, findings about the same exact data as people looked at a century ago.
If there was anything new to say about Jesus, some new discovery or book or technology for extruding data out of dust, I wouldn't be making this argument. But we're talking about the same puzzle with the same pieces missing for centuries. Taking everything that's been said about the puzzle as an aggregate is the only rational conclusion. This brief, small resurgence of 'Jesus didn't exist' stuff on YouTube isn't a result of anybody discovering anything- other than, I suppose, teenagers discovering their grandfather's archaeology books.
To Uccisore’s point, you’re going to find very, very few ancient history scholars that today would argue that there was no historical Jesus. This includes both Christian and openly hostile non Christian scholars. The following statement about the historical Jesus would be agreed to as being historically true by almost all ancient history scholars:
A Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and so called wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.
One of the main reasons this is accepted as being true about Jesus by almost all scholars is that this information can be derived from strictly non Christian writers hostile to Christianity who wrote about him all within the first and early second century.
Innermost thoughts of caterpillars? All I had said was they are aware, of which all living creatures are hence why they are living? Where do caterpillars fit into the thread of Jesus exactly? Tesla magical? I didn’t claim he was magical at all, I just said he knew somethings that you and others don’t, nothing magical about it and that without Tesla we wouldn’t have a ton of things we have today regarding our technology and wireless devices. Grand inquisitor of evidence? what evidence? you have none, that’s the entire point. I don’t care about belief at all, until it interferes with man kinds ability to acquire new knowledge and lead to new discovery. The ad hom is strong with this one. I can do it too.
I also do care about the facts, and the fact is… You don’t have sufficient hard historical evidence to show the man here and any views of such being evidence and his existence is own interpretation and belief, not fact.
Are you ever going to learn how to properly debate without looking like such a fool with ad hom? There’s a question for you to answer. “I have nothing of value to say about this topic because I have no evidence so i’ll just try to belittle your discussion and make your points and argument look squeamish!” If you have no evidence either A. Go out and find some or B. Shut the fuck up about it. All people do is go on with the same topics over and over again digging for more of the same shit.
Nothing new to say about Jesus is exactly why I am saying he didn’t exist. Because you have found no new evidence of the divine magic man. What exactly is there to ignore? only a few men wrote about the ‘man’ and I wouldn’t have Christian sources because it makes no sense. You don’t have to be an expert to have logical, reasonable well formulated thoughts on a topic. I have given valid points that you don’t address, but instead try to make argument seem weak by the use of ad hominem. I have explained that ‘evidence’ long after death and through interpretation of different men in stories is not historical evidence, but instead hearsay and not only that but how few of men recorded his existence in the first place. I have explained how believers have countless times performed fraud in trying to “prove” Jesus’ existence. I have explained that evidence must line up perfectly with the timeline. I have explained how debates with Socrates existence is still here but whenever someone discusses Jesus’ existence they have ad hominem directed at them and still no evidence shown despite the abuse.
Why didn’t he come back to life yet? surely the prophesies have been written in book, they must be factual and come true! Where is he!?!?!?
Your hearsay as evidence about Jesus is like a man who seen a UFO screaming “Aliens are on Earth”. Get real, I don’t fall for it. Except the UFO man is even more questionable, since he has pictures. What do you have? Writing, that’s it. Also a shroud of turin, of which doesn’t even match carbon dating to the date.
If there was something new to say about Jesus I wouldn’t be making this argument either, because I am sure it would come with sufficient evidence. Of which you still do not have. There is no puzzle about it, puzzles have pieces that can be seen and used. Your story is missing to many pieces. Don’t blame me, blame history for not recording your man. Greece hated Persia, yet still are they recorded in history, the wars, their culture, etc. Rome didn’t see Jesus fit for recording him in history? Yet next to nothing of him is recorded. I’m sorry, it’s not logical at all. There are many things hated by country or province still recorded in history. So that argument for having no evidence is a bit invalid and unreasonable. I also don’t think teen’s have anything to do with it. Anyone can use their brain, regardless of age. Unless there is defect with it of course, even then I suppose one could still formulate thought.
Also, I had this view before Youtube video’s. In fact I never even watched the video, this is my own view alone. Don’t you remember in the thread I made about Jesus? you couldn’t prove existence there either. Yet here you yield the same results, no historical hard evidence.
So hostile that they overthrew Rome to gain the belief as favorite over paganism right? That’s like saying this a 1,000+ years in the future from now “Scientology was not very liked or cared for by the people at the time but still documented as true. It must have happened! lord Xenu, where are you?!”
Or Muslim religion being not cared for by many Americans if America were to turn favoritism upon it and then its texts called true/factual later on in the future. Mere examples of course, but still pretty much what you’re saying. Just longer ago with the rise of Christianity.
If I wrote a statement about Scientology today, and was known to be hostile to the beliefs of Scientology, then most definitely a thousand years from now my statement about Scientology, would be very good evidence for the existence of Scientology in 2015. Also if in some areas my description of Scientology matched other independent sources along with some of the descriptions of Scientologist writings themselves from the same time, then those areas of agreement could be confidently determined to be true.
This is just standard historical method, just plain common sense.
From the “Core Principles of Source Criticism” formulated by historians, Olden-Jorgensen and Thuren, numbers 5, 6, and 7: (Or if you prefer just look at the slightly different Principles of Historical Method #'s 4 &7 from the video)
- If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
- The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
- If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
These independent sources were the Romans and the Jews. Hardly two groups that would want to validate any part of the gospels if it wasn’t true. Both these groups are independently testifying to a historical Jesus, when if it wasn’t true, they wouldn’t have affirmed his existence, they would have denied it. Just plain common sense.
What I find interesting about this is not so much that it's true, but that it [i]didn't used to be true.[/i] At the beginning of the 20th century, prevailing view was that Jesus was a myth made up of Osiris, Mithras and some other stuff all cobbled together. The more research that has been done, the more the conclusion that Jesus was a real person emerges from that research. The Jesus-myth theories aren't just fringe theories, they are specifically old, discarded fringe theories that generally only crop up because people don't know what's been going on. That's why I say you have to look at the aggregate, at the history of the scholarship, not just what one guy or one college or one ideology that you happen to favor is saying. The [i]trend[/i] is what truly reveals something.
You understand he’s talking about modern scholars of antiquity who are hostile to Christianity, right?
Dance, dance, you know I'm right. Say what you want here to save face, but think about it in your private time. I'm not 'debating properly' because I don't debate people like you. I was just delivering the news. You can do with it what you want.
Archaeology in the 20th century has allot to do with this along with documents from the Roman empire uncovered and translated in the late 19th and 20th century. The Book of Acts was widely derided in the 19th century as containing numerous inaccuracies about people, peoples titles, places, and not being accurate for the time period it describes. Unfortunately for the 19th century critics, archaeology pardon the pun “buried” these critics. Time after time the archeologists spade dug up stone inscriptions and uncovered new documents that showed that the critics where wrong and Luke was accurately reporting these things. Every single bit of archaeological evidence uncovered has confirmed Luke’s accuracy, not one contradicted him. This is important because Luke mentions many locations, local leaders names and titles that are subject to confirmation. I am not aware of a single historically verifiable statement by Luke that archaeology has contradicted.
Indeed, what is significant is that allegations that Jesus wasn’t a historical figure didn’t even appear until the 18th century. None of the sources contemporary with the 1st century church made any attempt to deny that he wasn’t a real historical person. The Jews in the Talmud from the early 2nd century said Jesus was a sorcerer who got his power from the devil and deceived the people through his magic. This accusation against Jesus is also recorded in Mark 3:22.
Christianity didn’t “overthrow Rome” as your propaganda implies. The great Abrahamic destroyer was Judaism (they boast on it). Christianity was not attacking or destroying anything, quite the opposite and rather merely doing what had to be done to prevent the destruction (love, forgive, avoid appearance of evil,…). The Roman gods and their priests were already seriously failing. And even Christianity wasn’t doing much until emperor Constantine I chose to make the entire empire resistant to Judist influence by demanding Christianity as the Imperial religion.
Note that in the world wars, the Germans, Italians, and Arabs were all allied against the Jews, not against the Christians. The Jews (more properly the Judists - not a race issue) and the Communists were allied against the Christians (30 million slain by Stalin).
To the proper Christian, there is no divide between Jews, Arabs, and Christians, but rather a divide between the worship of selfishness and selflessness, the “Us vs Them” selfish mindset being very anti-Christian.
But you are trying to gauge the good or bad of events through the cloud of thousands of years of propaganda.
Add to this the fact that if evidence of anything should be obvious and undeniable, it should be evidence of a maximally powerful, maximally knowledgeable creator who wants to have a personal relationship with us.
Uccisore makes exaggerations (strawmen) of Artimas’s positions
Artimas points out they’re strawmen and he never said such things
Uccisore accuses Artimas of dancing around
…
Uccisore the same problem you noted with feminism is present with religions. People are taught one specific view without being told the counter-arguments of different and opposing views, ordered not to question it and there is nobody around to laugh.
You do know what happened to people who questioned the Church in the past… do you? Questioning the existence of Christ himself? Might as well sign up for torture and execution.
And yes, let’s seriously examine NT, like it isn’t internally contradictory fiction including fantastical beings, suspension of natural laws etc. Let’s just lie to ourselves and pretend it’s as plausible as an actual historical document depicting actual events, when it’s closer to Harry Potter in terms of content and therefore actual plausibility.
Typically ridiculous argument.
Right about what? Evidence? Hardly. I don’t spend my free time thinking about it, not worth it. You’re a poor debater in the first place. You resort to ad hominem when you have no good points. Signs of poor debate.
Typically JSS style irrelevant comment.