Disprove A Historical Character

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,033
Australia
The argument only works if you cherry-pick which pieces of evidence to question and if your audience doesn't know about all of the other evidence.
 
Aug 2019
17
Universe, Milky way, Sol System, Easrt
I always heard it was impossible lol..


I think it is a deflection to distract from the fact Christianity is ridiculous.

It is climate deniers pointing at flat earth era and saying “aren’t they stupid!”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not trying to deflect from anything, i used Jesus as an example because the Historicity of Jesus seemed to be the most popular of such "did he exist" questions in the West at large and given how 2 of such treads are on this home page, on this website as well. In my time on the Internet i have seen such arguments several times but right now i can only remember 4, 2 satirical and 2 real that are not related to Christianity. Of the Satirical there was a short section on a video devoted to disproving Obama and an article on disproving Hannibal and on the serious are a series of video lectures attacking the historicity of the traditional muslim account of the origin of their religion, one of which targeted if Mohamed was a real person and the 2nd a Nairaland thread where someone attempted to claim that the Igbo ethnicity and tribes was established during colonization by the british from blacks imported to Nigeria from their other colonial holdings to destabilize the country. From these and others i can't remember well enough right now i wondered what it would take to make a convincing arguement to a historically literate person. It is not only Jesus that people argue never existed he just happens to be the most famous of them for now so i used him as an example
 
Nov 2016
1,346
Germany
i wondered what it would take to make a convincing arguement to a historically literate person.
I see you so far only complaining that Jesus is too frequent a subject.

With no word you have so far responded to answers to your actual question. So it's your own fault if the thread goes in a direction you didn't want.

It has been said, for example, that several independent sources are needed for a person to be reasonably historically secure. Conversely, this means that a single source does not provide sufficient security for historicity.

You ignore that.

It has also been said that the non-existence of something cannot be proven, i.e. your question is actually illogical.

You didn't react to that either.

So instead of complaining about others, you should ask yourself if you don't contribute enough to the thread yourself.
 
Nov 2019
138
Memphis TN
I'm not trying to deflect from anything, i used Jesus as an example because the Historicity of Jesus seemed to be the most popular of such "did he exist" questions in the West at large and given how 2 of such treads are on this home page, on this website as well. In my time on the Internet i have seen such arguments several times but right now i can only remember 4, 2 satirical and 2 real that are not related to Christianity. Of the Satirical there was a short section on a video devoted to disproving Obama and an article on disproving Hannibal and on the serious are a series of video lectures attacking the historicity of the traditional muslim account of the origin of their religion, one of which targeted if Mohamed was a real person and the 2nd a Nairaland thread where someone attempted to claim that the Igbo ethnicity and tribes was established during colonization by the british from blacks imported to Nigeria from their other colonial holdings to destabilize the country. From these and others i can't remember well enough right now i wondered what it would take to make a convincing arguement to a historically literate person. It is not only Jesus that people argue never existed he just happens to be the most famous of them for now so i used him as an example

I have seen such arguments too, but I have also seen fundamentalists point at these people and pretend “aren’t they crazy?!?” When OBVIOUSLY there is a million times better chance that Jesus was a Flavian invention, than he broke the laws of physics...


Someone fabricating Jesus is monumentally more likely than a human that could manifest miracles...


One breaks the laws of physics, breaks them slap off really lol.. and one is just your average Tuesday.. Archie the people fabricated, misinterpreted and misremembered constantly.

Basically look at any god you don’t believe in.. there is a fabricated person..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2019
138
Memphis TN
I'm not trying to deflect from anything, i used Jesus as an example because the Historicity of Jesus seemed to be the most popular of such "did he exist" questions in the West at large and given how 2 of such treads are on this home page, on this website as well. In my time on the Internet i have seen such arguments several times but right now i can only remember 4, 2 satirical and 2 real that are not related to Christianity. Of the Satirical there was a short section on a video devoted to disproving Obama and an article on disproving Hannibal and on the serious are a series of video lectures attacking the historicity of the traditional muslim account of the origin of their religion, one of which targeted if Mohamed was a real person and the 2nd a Nairaland thread where someone attempted to claim that the Igbo ethnicity and tribes was established during colonization by the british from blacks imported to Nigeria from their other colonial holdings to destabilize the country. From these and others i can't remember well enough right now i wondered what it would take to make a convincing arguement to a historically literate person. It is not only Jesus that people argue never existed he just happens to be the most famous of them for now so i used him as an example
Jesus is a bad example then.. just because he had so little impact during his life..

To say they fabricated Ceaser would be hard to prove because he left such a mark in his own time..

During Jesus’s life he had like less than 50 followers and NO one thought he was divine until after his resurrection..

How do you prove or disprove a poor Galilian carpenter wasn’t crucified???
You can’t..

A fair comparison might be...hmmmm..

Homer.. or prosser John. Someone where only one source claims to have been from his lifetime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2019
138
Memphis TN
I'm not trying to deflect from anything, i used Jesus as an example because the Historicity of Jesus seemed to be the most popular of such "did he exist" questions in the West at large and given how 2 of such treads are on this home page, on this website as well. In my time on the Internet i have seen such arguments several times but right now i can only remember 4, 2 satirical and 2 real that are not related to Christianity. Of the Satirical there was a short section on a video devoted to disproving Obama and an article on disproving Hannibal and on the serious are a series of video lectures attacking the historicity of the traditional muslim account of the origin of their religion, one of which targeted if Mohamed was a real person and the 2nd a Nairaland thread where someone attempted to claim that the Igbo ethnicity and tribes was established during colonization by the british from blacks imported to Nigeria from their other colonial holdings to destabilize the country. From these and others i can't remember well enough right now i wondered what it would take to make a convincing arguement to a historically literate person. It is not only Jesus that people argue never existed he just happens to be the most famous of them for now so i used him as an example


Man I hope you read this...


If your interested in the mainstream scholarly opinion of the Flavian conspiracy. I have seen Bart Ehrman address it specifically.

Bart is the preeminent critical New Testament scholar who does lectures and such..

So in a nut shell..

The Flavian conspiracy is based around the religious bottle knock that came from the Roman purges..

Judaism at Christianity’s birth was a far more militant faction.

They wanted the romans out of Judea and were having riots, waylaying soldiers and assassinating politicians . So the romans purged the Jews..

And nobody does a purge like the romans.. almost , if not all of the Jewish texts that predate this period were destroyed, along with most of the clergy and anyone they thought was a rabble rouser.

On the other side of these purges the romans appointed new heads of the synagogues and outcomes a kinder , gentler Judaism/Christianity..

IMHO that is the bread and butter part of the theory.. the rest is super thin..

So was the kinder/gentler Judaism and Christianity due to a conspiracy???


Or did the romans just kill all the militant ones??


The mainstream academic opinion is that the conspiracy is unnecessary... it is possible, but the purges are likely to have the same result


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk