There’s no separate, unchallenged easily verifiable evidence that contradicts the claim that a Jewish Rabbi lead a mass movement of ecumenical reformists in the 1st century AD.
This is not necessary. For one, the burden of proof is on whomever makes the extraordinary claim, not whomever wishes to contradict or refute it. Second, no one is challenging the idea that there was a movement started sometime around then, somewhere around there. That is not an extraordinary claim - miracles and magic, however, are pretty extraordinary.
We have an abundance of accounts, many of them from the Roman scholars of the era, describing the movement and its members and their beliefs and activities.
No one is suggesting that Christianity doesn’t exist. The claim is that miracles and magic were happening, and OP is challenging that claim.
Then we have a litany of Gospels, of which the nascent church had to scrub down precisely because so many of them were believed heretical a century later.
Why were some of these writings accepted and some weren’t? Could it be because many of the rejected texts were contradictory, and thus - especially if taken with the canonized text - were ultimately unreliable at best, and outright fiction at worst? What was the methodology for determining which of them were true, and which weren’t?
I’m a bit tired of hearing “Nothing exists” when what you’re really saying is “I don’t personal accept any of the testimony because I don’t like the people saying it”.
That is not at all what I’m saying, and I dare you to show me where I did
In this case, I’m not addressing Christians at all - I’m only concerned with the evidence, like OP. If the evidence that someone 2000 years ago was tossing around miracles and magic comes from a single, curated collection of scripts with dubious provenance that were hand-copied multiple times over centuries, translated & transliterated (many times inaccurately), with little additions and likely edits & deletions along the way, you’re going to have to come up with something a little less biased to convince me. That’s the whole point OP is making.
Christianity and it’s attendant liturgical documents and period artifacts and accumulated oral history are the proof.
The fact that Christians exist, and the fact that they have written about their beliefs, are proof that their beliefs are true and based on facts? You don’t see a problem with that argument?
Counterpoint: Hindus exist, and have written about their beliefs (for longer than Christians have). Ipso facto, Hinduism is the one true, correct religion and is based on facts.
I’m not addressing Christians at all
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You’re not concerned with evidence if you’re reflexively denying it.
Wait, do you really think that atheists deny that Christians exist? Do you actually think that’s what we’re talking about? That’s a whole new one. Otherwise you’re committing a major strawman fallacy. I don’t even know how to respond to that. It’s utterly batshit.
The fact that Christians exist, and the fact that they have written about their beliefs, are proof that their beliefs are true and based on facts?
Unless you want to asset they emerged as a Jewish sect ex nihlio, they better be based on some set of facts.
Hinduism is the one true, correct religion
There is a vast gulf between asserting Hinduism is a “True Religion” and dismissing the Upanishads as counterfeit documents with no sincere authorship.
Wait, do you really think that atheists deny that Christians exist?
Atheists generally don’t reject the historical existence of the Christian faith’s founder.
Ok, I think I understand what the problem is here. You took my original comment
No such body of “evidence” exists for Jesus
and ran with that, and completely ignored the qualifying phrase that followed it
as defined by mainstream Christians
that is, that he was god and did miracles and magic and was born from a virgin impregnated by god.
You are completely focused on my apparent assertion that Jesus never existed, and have totally ignored the entire point of the original post, and my original response to you, to focus on something I never actually asserted. So go re-read my original response, and let’s clear this up.
I am not claiming, and have never claimed that there definitely was never a Jewish Rabbi that was called Jesus who started a whole new religion in the middle east.
I frankly don’t give a shit if he was in fact 1 real person, or a post-hoc fictional man based on multiple people, or just made up whole-cloth. It doesn’t really matter. What matters, especially in the context of this post, is that I am asserting that there was not a man who was a god, or did any miracles or magic, or died and came back to life 2 days later and then went to heaven. That is not based on fact.
that he was god and did miracles and magic and was born from a virgin impregnated by god.
Again, we have tall tales about any number of historical (even still living) figures. “The Pope isn’t a wizard, therefore he doesn’t exist” doesn’t logically follow.
You are completely focused on my apparent assertion that Jesus never existed
“There’s no evidence Jesus existed” was the base claim.
Who exactly, in this thread, made that claim? FORGET the whole Jesus thing. That was never the point, which you latched onto like it owes you money.
OP’s assertion, summarized: the existence of book “X” is not proof that its contents are truthful, because fiction books exist
Your response: book “Y” exists that is fiction, but has a character from book X, so the argument is invalid
You are arguing all over this thread against the claim that Jesus didn’t exist, and yet I don’t see that anyone in this thread made that claim.
OP’s claim is that the bible is not proof that god exists, and the quran is not proof that allah exists. That’s it. Your response about Caesar and Lincoln is invalid because the core claims of their factual existence (remember: vs. god/allah, not Jesus!) are not based on a single, curated book of stories with miracles and magic. There is no religious movement claiming that Lincoln chased vampires, nor is that book considered core documentation describing the life of Lincoln. Your argument is irrelevant.
This is not necessary. For one, the burden of proof is on whomever makes the extraordinary claim, not whomever wishes to contradict or refute it. Second, no one is challenging the idea that there was a movement started sometime around then, somewhere around there. That is not an extraordinary claim - miracles and magic, however, are pretty extraordinary.
No one is suggesting that Christianity doesn’t exist. The claim is that miracles and magic were happening, and OP is challenging that claim.
Why were some of these writings accepted and some weren’t? Could it be because many of the rejected texts were contradictory, and thus - especially if taken with the canonized text - were ultimately unreliable at best, and outright fiction at worst? What was the methodology for determining which of them were true, and which weren’t?
That is not at all what I’m saying, and I dare you to show me where I did
In this case, I’m not addressing Christians at all - I’m only concerned with the evidence, like OP. If the evidence that someone 2000 years ago was tossing around miracles and magic comes from a single, curated collection of scripts with dubious provenance that were hand-copied multiple times over centuries, translated & transliterated (many times inaccurately), with little additions and likely edits & deletions along the way, you’re going to have to come up with something a little less biased to convince me. That’s the whole point OP is making.
Christianity and it’s attendant liturgical documents and period artifacts and accumulated oral history are the proof.
Ask the folks who made the decision, assuming you believe the Council of Nicea was real.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You’re not concerned with evidence if you’re reflexively denying it.
The fact that Christians exist, and the fact that they have written about their beliefs, are proof that their beliefs are true and based on facts? You don’t see a problem with that argument?
Counterpoint: Hindus exist, and have written about their beliefs (for longer than Christians have). Ipso facto, Hinduism is the one true, correct religion and is based on facts.
Wait, do you really think that atheists deny that Christians exist? Do you actually think that’s what we’re talking about? That’s a whole new one. Otherwise you’re committing a major strawman fallacy. I don’t even know how to respond to that. It’s utterly batshit.
Unless you want to asset they emerged as a Jewish sect ex nihlio, they better be based on some set of facts.
There is a vast gulf between asserting Hinduism is a “True Religion” and dismissing the Upanishads as counterfeit documents with no sincere authorship.
Atheists generally don’t reject the historical existence of the Christian faith’s founder.
Ok, I think I understand what the problem is here. You took my original comment
and ran with that, and completely ignored the qualifying phrase that followed it
that is, that he was god and did miracles and magic and was born from a virgin impregnated by god.
You are completely focused on my apparent assertion that Jesus never existed, and have totally ignored the entire point of the original post, and my original response to you, to focus on something I never actually asserted. So go re-read my original response, and let’s clear this up.
I am not claiming, and have never claimed that there definitely was never a Jewish Rabbi that was called Jesus who started a whole new religion in the middle east.
I frankly don’t give a shit if he was in fact 1 real person, or a post-hoc fictional man based on multiple people, or just made up whole-cloth. It doesn’t really matter. What matters, especially in the context of this post, is that I am asserting that there was not a man who was a god, or did any miracles or magic, or died and came back to life 2 days later and then went to heaven. That is not based on fact.
Again, we have tall tales about any number of historical (even still living) figures. “The Pope isn’t a wizard, therefore he doesn’t exist” doesn’t logically follow.
“There’s no evidence Jesus existed” was the base claim.
Who exactly, in this thread, made that claim? FORGET the whole Jesus thing. That was never the point, which you latched onto like it owes you money.
OP’s assertion, summarized: the existence of book “X” is not proof that its contents are truthful, because fiction books exist Your response: book “Y” exists that is fiction, but has a character from book X, so the argument is invalid
You are arguing all over this thread against the claim that Jesus didn’t exist, and yet I don’t see that anyone in this thread made that claim.
OP’s claim is that the bible is not proof that god exists, and the quran is not proof that allah exists. That’s it. Your response about Caesar and Lincoln is invalid because the core claims of their factual existence (remember: vs. god/allah, not Jesus!) are not based on a single, curated book of stories with miracles and magic. There is no religious movement claiming that Lincoln chased vampires, nor is that book considered core documentation describing the life of Lincoln. Your argument is irrelevant.