4 ms·

I don't think you should be downvoted, your point seems valid. Maybe they did it because the tone or because trying to refute the author claims, you go too far

by narag 10y ago

I don't think you should be downvoted, your point seems valid. Maybe they did it because the tone or because trying to refute the author claims, you go too far generalizing: When authors write provocative pieces purporting that something never existed at all, they're almost always wrong. I've read the case for Jesus never existed at all and I find it very convincing.

logicallee 10y ago
>I've read the case for Jesus never existed at all and I find it very convincing. Actually that's a great example. You've been duped! There's mounds and mounds of historical documentation. Jesus was executed at the height of the Roman empire. He had followers, and numerous persons wrote accounts of his teachings. There is a helluvalot of smoke there. The idea that such a historical person didn't exist AT ALL is a fantastic example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus That says "There is 'near universal consensus' among biblical scholars that Jesus existed historically" and this extends to critics -- "with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus." See this question: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-Roman-documents-that-tell-of-Jesus-crucifixion https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-Roman-documents-that-tel... As for the Wikipedia sources, in particular: "Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion[...]" Look, 116 years ago is the same as 1900 is to us. The idea that a historian would just completely fabricate what happened just 116 years earlier during a highly literate time in an administrative empire at its height is absolutely ludicrous. You should read up about the historicity of Jesus, since that article says there is nearly universal consensus that such a person existed. Look, claiming that he didn't is like me claiming that there is no such person as Joseph Smith who ever existed at all - that he was invented by the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints). Joseph Smith was born in 1805 and is the founder of the Mormon church. You know, I bet I could get a lot of pageviews if I claimed that Joseph Smith simply didn't exist at all, and was "simply a fabrication" of the Mormon church almost a hundred years later. I could use the very same techniques that I'm calling out here. You want me to do it? Put up a page claiming that Joseph Smith never existed and see if I can get pageviews? Because that is a lot harder to do today than with ancient sources, since the 1800s are so close to our times - but I bet I could still do it. You simply fell victim to the storytelling ploy of claiming someone or something simply didn't exist at all, and coming up with various explanations for everything about the fact that he did exist. (Likewise, consider how much ample, ample, record there is of Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon, including his leaving that town and coming back a rich man. We literally have a copy of his will. The people who claim he was someone entirely different have a TON to explain and do so using some of the same techniques. Well, why didn't whoever Shakespeare WAS continue to publish after Shakespeare's death? I mean, he's so incredibly well-documented. It's nearly certain that Shakespeare was really...wait for it... Shakespeare.) Anytime you see someone going through all sorts of contortions to explain how a ton of facts, really aren't -- your alarm bells should be going off. Why? For the same reason you were duped by the idea that there was no historical jesus at all. It makes for an amazing story. I could write, today, an amazing story about how Joseph Smith didn't exist at all. True, I'd have a ton of explaining to do. It would be fun :-D (I'm not going to do it though.)
- narag 10y ago
  LOL, that's a lot of words to say nothing. The "nearly universal consensus" is among religious scholars that are obviously biased. Your condescending tone "you simply fell victim" and similar does nothing to further your... point? "You should read..." Why about you read a little more than a Wikipedia page to write thousands of words? That page is filled with weasel words. Not sure why are absent the usual annotations like "citation needed", "who?" and so on that plague other pages for much less important vagueness.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    I'm sorry, if you're saying I shouldn't trust the information on a Wikipedia page about the exact topic we're discussing (historicity of Jesus), which I don't have any specialist knowledge of, then we don't really have anything to discuss. I've never seen a Wikipedia page I had to completely ignore. I don't see how we can come to terms if we're talking about something I don't know about and in which you're asking me to ignore all of the Wikipedia page on that issue. :) Of course, you could still be right. You can add "citation needed" anywhere you think it needs it, go ahead. I think we've understood each other's perspectives well enough, and thanks for the discussion.
  - foldr 10y ago
    He's right though. The idea that Jesus never even existed is very, very fringe. Vitually all reputable scholars (including many atheists and agnostics) accept that he existed. See e.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE
    - narag 10y ago
      The question is not how many scholars do or don't believe it, but what are the reasons. In every discussion I've seen there are only three independent mentions, one of them a clear forgery, another one, also from Josephus, a mention that might refer to anyone and the one by Tacitus that... well, that's only one mention that could very well be also a fabrication. If "virtually all reputable scholars" are willing to accept that as evidence, that's OK, but not exactly convincing. There are other very plausible reasons for that situation. Just to be clear: I don't have a horse in this race. For me it's exactly the same if there was a Jesus or there wasn't. The point that we were discussing is that you can argue the case within reason. I can't see anything you have presented to be a rebuttal.

by narag 10y ago

logicallee 10y ago

>I've read the case for Jesus never existed at all and I find it very convincing. Actually that's a great example. You've been duped! There's mounds and mounds of historical documentation. Jesus was executed at the height of the Roman empire. He had followers, and numerous persons wrote accounts of his teachings. There is a helluvalot of smoke there. The idea that such a historical person didn't exist AT ALL is a fantastic example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus That says "There is 'near universal consensus' among biblical scholars that Jesus existed historically" and this extends to critics -- "with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus." See this question: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-Roman-documents-that-tell-of-Jesus-crucifixion https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-Roman-documents-that-tel... As for the Wikipedia sources, in particular: "Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion[...]" Look, 116 years ago is the same as 1900 is to us. The idea that a historian would just completely fabricate what happened just 116 years earlier during a highly literate time in an administrative empire at its height is absolutely ludicrous. You should read up about the historicity of Jesus, since that article says there is nearly universal consensus that such a person existed. Look, claiming that he didn't is like me claiming that there is no such person as Joseph Smith who ever existed at all - that he was invented by the Mormons (Church of Latter Day Saints). Joseph Smith was born in 1805 and is the founder of the Mormon church. You know, I bet I could get a lot of pageviews if I claimed that Joseph Smith simply didn't exist at all, and was "simply a fabrication" of the Mormon church almost a hundred years later. I could use the very same techniques that I'm calling out here. You want me to do it? Put up a page claiming that Joseph Smith never existed and see if I can get pageviews? Because that is a lot harder to do today than with ancient sources, since the 1800s are so close to our times - but I bet I could still do it. You simply fell victim to the storytelling ploy of claiming someone or something simply didn't exist at all, and coming up with various explanations for everything about the fact that he did exist. (Likewise, consider how much ample, ample, record there is of Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon, including his leaving that town and coming back a rich man. We literally have a copy of his will. The people who claim he was someone entirely different have a TON to explain and do so using some of the same techniques. Well, why didn't whoever Shakespeare WAS continue to publish after Shakespeare's death? I mean, he's so incredibly well-documented. It's nearly certain that Shakespeare was really...wait for it... Shakespeare.) Anytime you see someone going through all sorts of contortions to explain how a ton of facts, really aren't -- your alarm bells should be going off. Why? For the same reason you were duped by the idea that there was no historical jesus at all. It makes for an amazing story. I could write, today, an amazing story about how Joseph Smith didn't exist at all. True, I'd have a ton of explaining to do. It would be fun :-D (I'm not going to do it though.)

narag 10y ago
LOL, that's a lot of words to say nothing. The "nearly universal consensus" is among religious scholars that are obviously biased. Your condescending tone "you simply fell victim" and similar does nothing to further your... point? "You should read..." Why about you read a little more than a Wikipedia page to write thousands of words? That page is filled with weasel words. Not sure why are absent the usual annotations like "citation needed", "who?" and so on that plague other pages for much less important vagueness.
- logicallee 10y ago
  I'm sorry, if you're saying I shouldn't trust the information on a Wikipedia page about the exact topic we're discussing (historicity of Jesus), which I don't have any specialist knowledge of, then we don't really have anything to discuss. I've never seen a Wikipedia page I had to completely ignore. I don't see how we can come to terms if we're talking about something I don't know about and in which you're asking me to ignore all of the Wikipedia page on that issue. :) Of course, you could still be right. You can add "citation needed" anywhere you think it needs it, go ahead. I think we've understood each other's perspectives well enough, and thanks for the discussion.
- foldr 10y ago
  He's right though. The idea that Jesus never even existed is very, very fringe. Vitually all reputable scholars (including many atheists and agnostics) accept that he existed. See e.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE
  - narag 10y ago
    The question is not how many scholars do or don't believe it, but what are the reasons. In every discussion I've seen there are only three independent mentions, one of them a clear forgery, another one, also from Josephus, a mention that might refer to anyone and the one by Tacitus that... well, that's only one mention that could very well be also a fabrication. If "virtually all reputable scholars" are willing to accept that as evidence, that's OK, but not exactly convincing. There are other very plausible reasons for that situation. Just to be clear: I don't have a horse in this race. For me it's exactly the same if there was a Jesus or there wasn't. The point that we were discussing is that you can argue the case within reason. I can't see anything you have presented to be a rebuttal.