Your entire argument first argument is that evidence standards should be lowered because it is difficult. You have no primary evidence. No amount of arguing that you don’t need it will get rid of that statement. If you had primary evidence would you maintain that it didn’t matter? If I was sitting here with secondary and you had primary your argument would change to suit that. Sour grapes thinking.
There are only two pieces of information that all known secondary sources agree upon with respect to Jesus. 1.there was a man who was baptized by John the Baptist. 2. that same man was executed by the Romans via crucifixion.
I see. Can you please show me in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters where Paul says that Jesus Christ was Baptized by John the Baptist. Also the Gospel of Thomas if you feel up for it. Please remember that you said “all”. Watch as this quitely doesn’t get mentioned again.
This is a reasonably small claim and this requires reasonably small evidence to accept.
Pseudoscience and pseudohistory over time makes smaller and smaller claims. The newest snake oil cures baldness to cancer, a generation later it “makes you feel well”. Aliens are getting harder and harder to find as camera technology improves. God goes from creating the universe to appearing in driveway oil stains or even worse an abstract diest god.
Things that are real make bolder and larger claims as time goes on. You are doing the same here. You start out with hundreds of claims about Jesus and weaken them one by one until you can create an itty bitty claim that no one can disprove or prove.
Instead of trying to sneak a conclusion in why not just follow the data to where it leads? The data we do have shows a doctrine that benefitted the people who spread it, pulled from cultures of the areas, and massive inconsistents. All the hallmarks of liars and grifters who made up a story.
Historical Jesus most likely existed. So what?
Evidence please.
I know you feel strongly about this, but that doesn’t mean jack shit.
You are not a mind reader.
I know what you want, but asking for it shows a distinct dismissal of historical research and the way you demanded it demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate, if not an intentional facade to advance a tenuous position.
Nope haven’t done it. I have noted the total lack of primary evidence that very conveniently doesn’t exist. Maybe you can just go ahead and produce your sources instead of trying to analyze me? You know, attack the argument and not the person.
At the end of the day, you were either ignorantly defending a fringe position or you are actively baiting people into a bad faith discussion trying to further a fringe position.
Dang you really like making this about me instead of the data. Kinda reminds me when religious folks tell me that I just want to sin.
Jesus H Christ man. What the fuck do you want? At this point you are an asshole either way. Either you are willfully ignoring the arguments people are making (not just me) or you are actively trying to make them mad.
Primary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Was I not clear?
I was giving an example of another thing that is militantly defended without evidence. Also looks like I was right when I said before
I see. Can you please show me in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters where Paul says that Jesus Christ was Baptized by John the Baptist. Also the Gospel of Thomas if you feel up for it. Please remember that you said “all”. Watch as this quitely doesn’t get mentioned again.
You can demand whatever you like, that doesn’t mean that it is relevant to the discussion or that I have to entertain your gish galloping. I called you out on it before.
I made the mistake of bringing up superfluous points as well. You might not think they are spurious, but that’s the problem. You don’t, and continue to fale to engage in the discussion of historical research.
I thought, and still do, that you are earnest in your position. I’m not convinced that you are sealioning on purpose… Just misguided. I still think it’s a mistake to engage with you but you are infuriating. Which does make me think you are sealioning on purpose.
How about you show me that reference in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters that mentions Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist (given you said this exists in all the secondary accounts) and a single piece of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, instead of being upset that I am not playing your game well. Isn’t it better to be right than being the better debater? Why not deal with the argument instead of the person making it? You do I trust have the evidence on your side and don’t need to use personal attacks to make your point for you.
Your entire argument first argument is that evidence standards should be lowered because it is difficult. You have no primary evidence. No amount of arguing that you don’t need it will get rid of that statement. If you had primary evidence would you maintain that it didn’t matter? If I was sitting here with secondary and you had primary your argument would change to suit that. Sour grapes thinking.
I see. Can you please show me in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters where Paul says that Jesus Christ was Baptized by John the Baptist. Also the Gospel of Thomas if you feel up for it. Please remember that you said “all”. Watch as this quitely doesn’t get mentioned again.
Pseudoscience and pseudohistory over time makes smaller and smaller claims. The newest snake oil cures baldness to cancer, a generation later it “makes you feel well”. Aliens are getting harder and harder to find as camera technology improves. God goes from creating the universe to appearing in driveway oil stains or even worse an abstract diest god.
Things that are real make bolder and larger claims as time goes on. You are doing the same here. You start out with hundreds of claims about Jesus and weaken them one by one until you can create an itty bitty claim that no one can disprove or prove.
Instead of trying to sneak a conclusion in why not just follow the data to where it leads? The data we do have shows a doctrine that benefitted the people who spread it, pulled from cultures of the areas, and massive inconsistents. All the hallmarks of liars and grifters who made up a story.
Evidence please.
You are not a mind reader.
Nope haven’t done it. I have noted the total lack of primary evidence that very conveniently doesn’t exist. Maybe you can just go ahead and produce your sources instead of trying to analyze me? You know, attack the argument and not the person.
Dang you really like making this about me instead of the data. Kinda reminds me when religious folks tell me that I just want to sin.
Primary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Was I not clear?
I should have realized engaging with you was pointless.
About as pointless as defending any idea that lacks evidence, such as God.
Do you think I am defending the belief in a god?
I was giving an example of another thing that is militantly defended without evidence. Also looks like I was right when I said before
You can demand whatever you like, that doesn’t mean that it is relevant to the discussion or that I have to entertain your gish galloping. I called you out on it before.
I made the mistake of bringing up superfluous points as well. You might not think they are spurious, but that’s the problem. You don’t, and continue to fale to engage in the discussion of historical research.
I thought, and still do, that you are earnest in your position. I’m not convinced that you are sealioning on purpose… Just misguided. I still think it’s a mistake to engage with you but you are infuriating. Which does make me think you are sealioning on purpose.
Can you show me where I demanded anything? I noted that you made a claim, the claim isn’t supported, and this won’t get mentioned again.
No, because you won’t agree to the rules of the game. This is the same bullshit that idiots like Ben Shapiro pull.
How about you show me that reference in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters that mentions Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist (given you said this exists in all the secondary accounts) and a single piece of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, instead of being upset that I am not playing your game well. Isn’t it better to be right than being the better debater? Why not deal with the argument instead of the person making it? You do I trust have the evidence on your side and don’t need to use personal attacks to make your point for you.