this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
138 points (68.0% liked)

Atheist Memes

5568 readers
13 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nadiaraven@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so starting from that common ground shows Christians that you are following the consensus views and are discussing in good faith with them

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not interested in consensus, if I were I would still be a theist. I am interested in what is true.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Under that narrow circumstance you'd start writing out many more historical figures than just Jesus i'm pretty sure....

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well first off that really isn't my problem. If there is no evidence that someone in history existed it is not my fault. Go dig in the dirt and find it.

Secondly you will notice that every time this argument is brought up they always reference a historical figure who we do have evidence, while they were alive, that they existed. Julius Ceaser is usually cited.

Third, even the reduced to the minimum non-supernatural Jesus is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the minimum Jesus is to believed he came from a one-horse town with no one literate. Mastered the arts of illusions. Migrated. Within six months convinced a bunch of people to abandon their families. Got several people to help him with his tricks. Figured out the rock formation under Gallie. Convinced all of them to follow them to what was definitely suicide.

Now the fun part is what happens next. Pilat decides for no reason at all not to go after the rest of them, they form two separate communities, become a threat to the Pharisees on their own turf, inspire Paul to attack them, convert him, get him to start his own counter-counter movement off the original movement. All the while they are able to survive attacks by everyone around them for well over a century. The timeline for all these movements, counter movements, counter counter movements, multiple communities? 1-3 years.

Could you do this? Do you think with the clothing on your back you could go to a backwater of a backwater and pull all this off in the same time period? Could anyone do this?

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...Umm...did you ever consider that instead of all those extraordinary magic tricks and social engineering occurring...

...That they just lied and embellished in an era where people told tales of gods and the supernatural? Like you're assuming we need proof that all the things Jesus was said to have done happened in some form, when in reality the only thing that had to happen is that he was persecuted in Rome during a time when we know Rome was doing that.

Like you're focusing so much on this that it looks silly and detracts from much better arguments against Christianity....

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did consider it. The thing is the Gospel miracles are all variations on common magic tricks in the area at that time. If someone made them up decades later why not make up bigger ones? To me it made more sense for James to claim his non-existent brother did those same tricks that way it would sound familiar. You always want to tell the most minimum lie you can get away with. If I told you I was late for work because of a flat tire you are more likely to believe me than if I said because I was defusing a hostage situation.

Additionally if you look at the formula school you notice a repeating pattern to the miracles. Jesus is asked to solve a problem, no one thinks he can, he does, everyone is shocked. All these repetitive stories hints at a core one a core lie.

Plus you still have Paul to worry about which your reduced Jesus doesn't cover.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.

I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there's undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.

Sure and if pigs had wings they could probably fly.

I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there’s undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?

I am very sorry if I miscommunicated. My bad. We have a much higher degree of confidence in those two men. Someone wrote those 7 primary letters and they used a consistent voice and shows a consistent story. Also we have copies of them from all over. We also have stories in the letters about Paul himself that match up with the historical geographical data. If there was no Paul it is a very impressive con job. Someone would have had to go around the Roman Empire and track down all these different churches, find the names of people there, some how convince them that Paul started that church and meet with them personally, developed an entire theological system, convince people that public events at their churches had happened but no one remembered them. So yeah I guess it is possible but I would really like to meet the man who could do that. Get him a job where I work in sales.

As for James, once we trust that Paul isn't lying we get mention of him. We also get two other references to him. I admit I am on less sturdy ground with James. I am curious if you have a reason to doubt either one? I have reasons to doubt Jesus, like for example the massively inconsistent records of him.