the smell test is irrelevant. This is a conversation about whether the scientific / historian community is at a concensus on the historical existence of the person in question.
really, mine and your individual opinions are also irrelevant, because even if both you and I never existed- the historical, academic consensus suggests the guy lived.
I’m happy to be the bad guy in that conversation because it’s really not me thats on trial here - it’s your personal faith/belief, that’s as vulnerable to subjectivity as a belief in the spritual Christian (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) deity’s existence.
I am not commenting on whether I believe Jesus was a deity, nor am I commented on whether I personally believe there was a real Jesus as political and historical figure at the start of the Common Era - I am saying that to say definitively he did not exist is a faith/belief based assertion, and it’s misinformation to claim it as a fact, it is a belief/opinion that flies in the face of established, peer-reviewed consensus.
You are performing a sleight of hand here by saying “Jesus” and shifting between which one you are saying is real. “Historical” is a statistical no brainer as I stated above. You then shift to equate that guy to the supernatural founder of Christianity.
We (atheists and skeptics) securely say “Jesus the miracle worker and son of God” did not exist. The proof is not there. We fail to accept the proposal of a deity or reports of miracles. No faith involved.
Others use faith to claim the opposite.
It is bit like saying the garden of eden existed because DNA proved a mitochondrial Eve.
that the terms weren’t clearly defined in the original comment is not my fault, and equally you could’ve said that you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus - which is a very fair statement, but note how it self-defines belief and separates it from categorical fact.
Too much sophistry and you can prove that Santa Claus exists and Joe Biden doesn’t.
You did not at any point specify you were talking about the divinity of Jesus, you just said he didn’t exist- which the simplest response is “ok so who’s the guy with long hair on a cross in every church then?” - obviously in many definitions of “exists” - he exists, including that it is generally accepted that he lived as a real person.
You’re also addressing me as if I’m saying Jesus was a diety. I am not.
Well, again, I ask you - where’s your sources? Me and another guy provided a source that also contained sources. I would genuinely like to read the first-party or academic sources for your argument for my own education.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
buddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it’s authenticity, what hope do you have?
Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources.
The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don’t act like I’m the one with a crackpot theory.
Let’s compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?
It’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test.
A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration.
He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.
the smell test is irrelevant. This is a conversation about whether the scientific / historian community is at a concensus on the historical existence of the person in question.
really, mine and your individual opinions are also irrelevant, because even if both you and I never existed- the historical, academic consensus suggests the guy lived.
I’m happy to be the bad guy in that conversation because it’s really not me thats on trial here - it’s your personal faith/belief, that’s as vulnerable to subjectivity as a belief in the spritual Christian (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) deity’s existence.
I am not commenting on whether I believe Jesus was a deity, nor am I commented on whether I personally believe there was a real Jesus as political and historical figure at the start of the Common Era - I am saying that to say definitively he did not exist is a faith/belief based assertion, and it’s misinformation to claim it as a fact, it is a belief/opinion that flies in the face of established, peer-reviewed consensus.
You are performing a sleight of hand here by saying “Jesus” and shifting between which one you are saying is real. “Historical” is a statistical no brainer as I stated above. You then shift to equate that guy to the supernatural founder of Christianity.
We (atheists and skeptics) securely say “Jesus the miracle worker and son of God” did not exist. The proof is not there. We fail to accept the proposal of a deity or reports of miracles. No faith involved.
Others use faith to claim the opposite.
It is bit like saying the garden of eden existed because DNA proved a mitochondrial Eve.
that the terms weren’t clearly defined in the original comment is not my fault, and equally you could’ve said that you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus - which is a very fair statement, but note how it self-defines belief and separates it from categorical fact.
Too much sophistry and you can prove that Santa Claus exists and Joe Biden doesn’t.
You did not at any point specify you were talking about the divinity of Jesus, you just said he didn’t exist- which the simplest response is “ok so who’s the guy with long hair on a cross in every church then?” - obviously in many definitions of “exists” - he exists, including that it is generally accepted that he lived as a real person.
You’re also addressing me as if I’m saying Jesus was a diety. I am not.
Buddy if we collected nickels from anthropologists every time they got something wrong we’d all be rich.
Well, again, I ask you - where’s your sources? Me and another guy provided a source that also contained sources. I would genuinely like to read the first-party or academic sources for your argument for my own education.
Tacitus mentions Christian’s and their namesake. He mentions Pontus.
He does not mention these things together as a cohesive event.
He is writing about something else.