Right. It’s applying the same standard of evidence that we use for everything else on history. Truth is, we don’t have great evidence for pretty much anyone who wasn’t a regional ruler. If you rose the standard much higher, you’d end up with history being a big blank, and that’s not useful.
In other words, if you reject a historical Jesus outright, you also have to reject Socrates and Spartacus and a whole lot of others.
I’m surprised that Socrates denialism isn’t a thing tbh. Plato’s Socrates is really a sockpuppet for Plato, read Xenophon and you get someone very different.
Socrates: we have the testimony of his student speaking to other people who also knew him. For Jesus we do not have that. Also the claim is small. A philosopher living in the golden age of philosophy in the center of it. It is like me saying I know a software developer who lived in San Jose in 1999 to a group of people who also knew him in 1999.
The other person who responded before you listed Socrates and Spartacus, who both have fewer sources for their existence. Another is Hannibal Barcus and the Punic Wars, our knowledge of which is almost entirely based on the account of Polybius. There are a ton of others, you’re welcome to read history. There is nothing extraordinary about whether or not Jesus Christ existed vs any of these other people, at no point are we discussing anything metaphysical here
There is nothing extraordinary about whether or not Jesus Christ existed
Bull. Even people decades later who opposed Christianity noticed it. Wondering why anyone would follow a dead leader. A regular guy could not have inspired multiple generations of followers when he hadn’t setup any institutions and only preached for about 6 months. If however James made it up and he lived until he was an old man that would explain it.
We think Mary and one or two others hallucinated and saw Jesus after he died. It’s actually not totally unheard of for people to hallucinate recently dead loved ones. Exactly why that kind of thing happens is an open debate, but the hallucination have a few things in common, like being more likely with people you were strongly attached to, and the hallucinated person basically assuring you things will be alright.
Anyway, so a hallucinated dead mini-cult leader could totally inspire a few key people to start a religion. Without those two key things, he probably would have been forgotten to history.
Just weakening the claims to slide it within the possible instead of following the evidence to where it leads. Mary could not have just been someone James hired to ramble. No? Couldn’t just go with the simplest possible explanation for the data. Have to invent this whole sequence of events that just so happen to wipe out all supporting evidence along the way.
Anyway, so a hallucinated dead mini-cult leader could totally inspire a few key people to start a religion. Without those two key things, he probably would have been forgotten to history.
Name one. Name a single time in history that a cult leader for six months produced a religion that was remotely successful. Joseph Smith 14 years, Buddha supposedly 50, Mohammed 22, Huysan 29 years.
You can’t. Religions survive their founder when they build institutions. Which takes time. The simple explanation is that James made it all up and Paul took it seriously. Those two men spent about 4 decades building up Christianity on two supports. If Jesus had really existed and died after a few months James would have not continued the mission.
It’s my understanding most estimates put his preaching days between 1 and 3 years, but for the purposes of both our arguments, it’s immaterial.
I’m struggling to understand why Jesus being completely made up is more plausible than even just James seizing the opportunity to deify a dead preacher? Like, why is it that James and Paul being the practical founders of Christianity can’t coexist with the existence of Jesus? While I believe James was earnest in his faith, I don’t see why that matters?
Regardless of their faith, everyone agrees that Paul and James are the biggest reasons for Christianity’s early success. Wouldn’t it be easier to use an unknown dead religious figure as your central theme than to make one up? You’d have ready-baked independent witnesses to say “yeah that guy really did exist” and then all you have to add in is the part where he comes back to life for a few days and then conveniently disappears into heaven.
It’s my understanding most estimates put his preaching days between 1 and 3 years, but for the purposes of both our arguments, it’s immaterial.
Yeah because they are copying John who was writing a century later. Mark has it at 6 months and he was “only” writing 40 years later. Given the silence of Paul problem a minimum historical Jesus is going to preach on the lower end. Hence six months. Kinda strange how despite preaching for supposedly 1 to 3 years the only Jewish holiday mentioned is Passover. Almost as if all the Gospel writers didn’t know anything.
m struggling to understand why Jesus being completely made up is more plausible than even just James seizing the opportunity to deify a dead preacher? Like, why is it that James and Paul being the practical founders of Christianity can’t coexist with the existence of Jesus? While I believe James was earnest in his faith, I don’t see why that matters?
It isn’t that it isn’t possible it is that it doesn’t arise naturally from the data. I was late to work today. Is it possible it is because that Liam Neason had a tense hostage situation on my block? Sure it is a possible. Is it likely? I would say no.
This is the problem with apologetics, Christian or otherwise, they can’t advance evidence for what they believe so they lower the claim to try to sneak it in.
If there were a historical Jesus
you have to explain why Pilot let James and co open operate right under his nose. So step 1 is to figure out why Pilot acted contrary to his nature.
You have to explain why the Pharisees didn’t do anything either. They operated a secret police for heresy by their own records. Step 2 is to figure out why they acted contrary to their nature
You have to explain the total lack of relics and known holy sites, in the 1st century. Unlike every other religion.
You have to explain why no one else in the Jesus family came forward
You have to explain why Paul can’t decide if James is a biological brother or not
You have to explain how so many movements and context movements popped up in nearly no time.
Sure it is possible this crazy sequence of events, with multiple people acting out of character happened, but the data we have doesnt make it the simplest explaination. The simplest explaination was James was running a mystery cult about his heavenly brother and Paul took it seriously. That’s why Paul didn’t know anything, there was nothing to know.
Where’d you read that? Here are at least the known sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
There’s way less evidence of a ton of historical figures and events that are taken for granted as established history. Just my two cents
Right. It’s applying the same standard of evidence that we use for everything else on history. Truth is, we don’t have great evidence for pretty much anyone who wasn’t a regional ruler. If you rose the standard much higher, you’d end up with history being a big blank, and that’s not useful.
In other words, if you reject a historical Jesus outright, you also have to reject Socrates and Spartacus and a whole lot of others.
Spartacus was real. I know because I’m Spartacus.
I’m Spartacus!
I’m surprised that Socrates denialism isn’t a thing tbh. Plato’s Socrates is really a sockpuppet for Plato, read Xenophon and you get someone very different.
I’ve ran into a few times in these sorts of Jesus Don’t Real threads. At least it’s applying the standard of evidence consistently.
Socrates: we have the testimony of his student speaking to other people who also knew him. For Jesus we do not have that. Also the claim is small. A philosopher living in the golden age of philosophy in the center of it. It is like me saying I know a software developer who lived in San Jose in 1999 to a group of people who also knew him in 1999.
Clippy was the greatest software developer that ever lived
Very well. Please list one that is as big as a claim. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
The other person who responded before you listed Socrates and Spartacus, who both have fewer sources for their existence. Another is Hannibal Barcus and the Punic Wars, our knowledge of which is almost entirely based on the account of Polybius. There are a ton of others, you’re welcome to read history. There is nothing extraordinary about whether or not Jesus Christ existed vs any of these other people, at no point are we discussing anything metaphysical here
None of those three are as big as a claim.
Bull. Even people decades later who opposed Christianity noticed it. Wondering why anyone would follow a dead leader. A regular guy could not have inspired multiple generations of followers when he hadn’t setup any institutions and only preached for about 6 months. If however James made it up and he lived until he was an old man that would explain it.
We think Mary and one or two others hallucinated and saw Jesus after he died. It’s actually not totally unheard of for people to hallucinate recently dead loved ones. Exactly why that kind of thing happens is an open debate, but the hallucination have a few things in common, like being more likely with people you were strongly attached to, and the hallucinated person basically assuring you things will be alright.
Anyway, so a hallucinated dead mini-cult leader could totally inspire a few key people to start a religion. Without those two key things, he probably would have been forgotten to history.
Just weakening the claims to slide it within the possible instead of following the evidence to where it leads. Mary could not have just been someone James hired to ramble. No? Couldn’t just go with the simplest possible explanation for the data. Have to invent this whole sequence of events that just so happen to wipe out all supporting evidence along the way.
Name one. Name a single time in history that a cult leader for six months produced a religion that was remotely successful. Joseph Smith 14 years, Buddha supposedly 50, Mohammed 22, Huysan 29 years.
You can’t. Religions survive their founder when they build institutions. Which takes time. The simple explanation is that James made it all up and Paul took it seriously. Those two men spent about 4 decades building up Christianity on two supports. If Jesus had really existed and died after a few months James would have not continued the mission.
It’s my understanding most estimates put his preaching days between 1 and 3 years, but for the purposes of both our arguments, it’s immaterial.
I’m struggling to understand why Jesus being completely made up is more plausible than even just James seizing the opportunity to deify a dead preacher? Like, why is it that James and Paul being the practical founders of Christianity can’t coexist with the existence of Jesus? While I believe James was earnest in his faith, I don’t see why that matters?
Regardless of their faith, everyone agrees that Paul and James are the biggest reasons for Christianity’s early success. Wouldn’t it be easier to use an unknown dead religious figure as your central theme than to make one up? You’d have ready-baked independent witnesses to say “yeah that guy really did exist” and then all you have to add in is the part where he comes back to life for a few days and then conveniently disappears into heaven.
Yeah because they are copying John who was writing a century later. Mark has it at 6 months and he was “only” writing 40 years later. Given the silence of Paul problem a minimum historical Jesus is going to preach on the lower end. Hence six months. Kinda strange how despite preaching for supposedly 1 to 3 years the only Jewish holiday mentioned is Passover. Almost as if all the Gospel writers didn’t know anything.
It isn’t that it isn’t possible it is that it doesn’t arise naturally from the data. I was late to work today. Is it possible it is because that Liam Neason had a tense hostage situation on my block? Sure it is a possible. Is it likely? I would say no.
This is the problem with apologetics, Christian or otherwise, they can’t advance evidence for what they believe so they lower the claim to try to sneak it in.
If there were a historical Jesus
you have to explain why Pilot let James and co open operate right under his nose. So step 1 is to figure out why Pilot acted contrary to his nature.
You have to explain why the Pharisees didn’t do anything either. They operated a secret police for heresy by their own records. Step 2 is to figure out why they acted contrary to their nature
You have to explain the total lack of relics and known holy sites, in the 1st century. Unlike every other religion.
You have to explain why no one else in the Jesus family came forward
You have to explain why Paul can’t decide if James is a biological brother or not
You have to explain how so many movements and context movements popped up in nearly no time.
Sure it is possible this crazy sequence of events, with multiple people acting out of character happened, but the data we have doesnt make it the simplest explaination. The simplest explaination was James was running a mystery cult about his heavenly brother and Paul took it seriously. That’s why Paul didn’t know anything, there was nothing to know.
Ok