• KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I would disagree.

    You would need positive evidence for your claim, saying the biblical Jesus doesn’t exist in neither important nor mundane records does not prove anything.

    And claiming that because the miracles aren’t mentioned in any records is evidence of a historical Jesus is also false.

    What is commonly meant by the claim that a historical Jesus could exist, is that it would be entirely banale for a mundane historical Jesus to exist. Meaning we can’t disprove him, and so current best practice to assume he did, just like all the other Jeushas, Marks, and Petruses we never hear about.

    That is however not proof a historical Jesus did exist, it is just the working assumption when we can’t possibly tell.

    And the post here puts doubt on that assumption, as there has been proof that stories where attributed to the Jesus character, and he might only be as real as Superman or Kilroy.

    • Hypx@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Those are generic Mythicist arguments. You lose credibility by even using such lazy and unoriginal ones. The fundamental problem is that it makes it impossible to demonstration that virtually anyone in history has ever existed because the burden of proof is set so high.

      • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        My credibility isn’t on the table, You made the claim, the burden to back it up on you. Thus far you’ve offered assertions, question begging and ad hominem attacks, do you have any actual evidence for your position?

        • Hypx@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          This is not a new debate. It is been around for decades, and historical scholars have pretty much dismissed the mythicist position ages ago. The fact is that there is textual evidence of a historical Jesus, enough for historical scholars to conclude that there was one. In response, mythicists have resorted to dismissing all such evidence as being insufficient. Everything is a fake or forgery according to them.

          The result is an argument that can be used against any person from history, until you can dismiss virtually all of history as being not real. That’s the problem with your argument. It has very little credibility because of that history.