Yet Another Christian-Religious Fundamentalist Is Too Dumb To Understand Anything

In the comments section under that video,
this discussion unfolded:

@KD_1111-b3b

2 weeks ago
I used to think using the year as a valid argument for Christ's existence but the problem is everybody acknowledges Jesus Christ's existence but not everybody accepts Jesus as Lord and the son of God. We need to win people over with Jesus as Lord more than convincing He existed.
 



@crimsonguy86962 weeks ago
No, not everyone accepts the reality of Christ's existence. There are people that still don't know we have more historical proof for Jesus being real than Alexander the great being real.
 


@coopertown78678 days ago
I just heard a very good Christian truther say, "We need to stop trying to convince people that God exists. But instead show them/convince them of the power of God." I pray that that one sticks with me. Godspeed friends!

 


@ApPersonaNonGrata7 days ago (edited)
re
1.
"everybody acknowledges Jesus Christ's existence"

 ---
Nope. In fact, many people have never even heard of that mythical character.

--
As for those who have heard of him, most find it highly implausible.

---------------------------
2.
"... but not everybody accepts Jesus as Lord and the son of God"
---
That's because there's no good reason to accept those things.




@jrex315 hours ago
Only an idiot tries to say he didn't exist. Even if they don't believe in what he said they should still know he was real. The Romans documented it.




@ApPersonaNonGrata9 hours ago
@jrex3 Outside of religious stories, there aren't any references to Jesus from any 1st-century source.
 ------------------------------------

Highlighted reply


@jrex322 minutes ago
@ApPersonaNonGrata

 Flavius wrote what was essentially a world history textbook of almost every known event happening in Jeruselum up through 70 CE. He mentions Jesus, Pontius, John, and James as examples. This is a non-biblical source. He lived and died in the first century. Tacitus, Roman senator, wrote a book in 116. Just barely into the 2nd century. Writing about stuff that happened regarding Rome after Rome had burned. Talks about Christian persecution, talks about Pontius, talks about the crucifixion and all done so in a non pro christian fashion and instead as just a telling of the fact. Just to add archeologists also found an old stone work referencing Pontius giving first hand archeological evidence he existed as well. As I said even if a person doesn't agree with what the Gospels say about Jesus, historians agree that he did in fact exist.




@ApPersonaNonGrata1 minute ago (edited)
​ @jrex3

 1.
The Testimonium Flavianum is entirely a late Christian forgery.

 2.
Granted, a smaller portion of texts credited to Flavius (Josephus) (about "Jesus") is still debated.

But that small piece of commentary only has FJ noticing that all religious cults are started by *someone*.

So if that local cult wants to say a guy named Jesus started their group, Flavius would be willing to grant it.

But he could not vouch for it.

Why not?

Because:

1.
He wasn't even born yet when Jesus is said to have died.

and

2. 
Nobody is reported to have presented any evidence to Flavius ... except for stories ... to support any claims about Jesus. 

Stories alone ... name the originator of that group.

Stories alone ... provide all other claims about that legendary figure.

Now, we can reasonably say: 

A)
"A group called Christians existed in that century."

and 

B)
"That group CLAIMED their founder's name was Jesus.".
 
 We've dated the earliest of those legendary stories to the late 1st Century.

JV, Tacitus, etc could only cite:

1. The local written religious stories about it.
and
 2. Religious people themselves, who were only reciting those stories.

 Now, I don't think Tacitus ever mentioned Jesus either.

 I think Mythicists like Richard Carrier make a strong case that Tacitus didn't really mention him.  

However, I can grant it anyway,
because:

1. My claim was limited to the 1st Century.
 So then it doesn't matter what Tacitus might have said in the 2nd century.

2. No matter what Tacitus said, it would do nothing to validate any Christian origin claims.

After all, neither of those historians had any evidence beyond the mere existence of:

a) rumor/legend-based stories

and
b.) people who were repeating those stories and merely "taking it on faith" that those stories were true.

Meanwhile, the term "Christ" is a reference to the Magic-Man version of Jesus.

This matters here because:

You are conflating:

1. The Muggle-Jesus that most scholars think existed

*with*

2. The Divine-Being Jesus, who scholars do NOT say existed, and who neither "Flavius" nor Tacitus ever believed existed.

Like most scholars, I ALSO think "there was a guy".
I don't think the stories are completely fabricated.
But the magic-man religious rhetoric really doesn't merit serious consideration.

Now, Dan McClellan thinks Josephus did mention James, the brother of Jesus. And then later, something (very brief) more directly about Jesus.

 I think Dan's letting some bias show here, in this next video. 
There's a lot of animosity between historicists and mythicists in biblical scholarship. 

But that bias is irrelevant. Because this actually supports my claim.  

Dan, there, is agreeing with me.

 As Dan says, this doesn't really count as a source for the existence of Jesus. It's only a source to verify the existence of stories about Jesus.

Those are the very same stories I said ARE the only source materials dating to the 1st century about Jesus.

-Although we do not have any physical text of those writings from the first century. 

---
 Post edit.
 Further discourse followed:

​[mattd398 enters the discussion] "Outside of religious stories, there are a few people who said there was a Jesus movement and possibly, by Josephus, thay some thought Jesus was the Messiah. Then there's Paul, duetero Paul, Hebrews, authors of 1&2 Peter, John's letter, and the sayings in the Material of Q, L, and M. And this are 1st century sources. (Although tbe pastoral can be debated and perhaps John) In my own opinion, for the little that has survived of the ancient world, the fact we have these sources for a internary preacher, who bascially would have been a false Messiah and forgotten by most, I think it speaks to its likelihood a historical Jesus figure existed. Doesnt mean be rose, and none of the literature states he's God, or that he did the miracles
- @mattd398 
-------

My reply:  True. This is why I said "Outside of religious stories, there aren't any references to Jesus from any 1st-century source." As Dan McClellan points out, Josephus isn't a source for the existence of a Jesus. At most, he was a source for the existence of religious stories. To paraphrase Josephus, assuming he said any such thing (as credited to him): "That religion exists at this time." and "Stories are being told by members of that religion". According to what Josephus is alleged to have written, he merely heard the rumor-based stories from local followers who were taking those stories on faith. As a result, Josephus remained unconvinced of the miraculous stories. And thus, he never converted. -Same as Tacitus. He, too, thought those stories were a crock of shit. But he knew the legends were circulating in that local cult. So he is alleged to have acknowledged that. It's still just another historian responding to stories; stories revolving around deity-magics, which they did not find credible.

.-------
mattd398 replies:

@mattd398

5 minutes ago

​@ApPersonaNonGrata None of what i quoted are religious stories. They are teachings and people of the Jesus movement that were used or influenced the gospels, which are the only stories beside revelation. People quoting things and not converting doesnt mean the person didn't exist. You have people who believed and/or worshipped in the New Jesus movement/cult, in the first century. What more do you expect? We dont have all the literature. Messiah who die are failed Msssiahs. And what do you expect for a nobody, especially when we are using scant sources? Just because Jesus is big and believed my several billions now doesnt mean the same was true back then. It's more likely Jesus of Nazareth existed, and for some strange reason, he had a movement after him when he would've been a failed Messiah by everyone else."

----
My reply:

Given the fact that you and I share a basically identical view of how those legends developed, and also regarding how bad the evidence is for the Magic-Man (aka "divine being") version of Jesus, 
...
I'm not sure how important our tiny differences are about this.

However, ... 

Here are my thoughts for each specific thing you said to me so far:

1. 
"Outside of religious stories," is a reference to religious stories. ------------------------------------ 2. "there are a few people who said there was a Jesus movement" -- I addressed this already, in an earlier reply to the religious guy. But to reiterate my point about this: Nobody here (certainly not me) has questioned whether such stories were circulating in the mid-to-late 1st century. We know such stories were in circulation. And it's 'fair enough' to assume Jospehus: a.) really did mention his awareness of such stories, and b.) such a religion existed and that c.) Such a religion (as defined by the story-based claims that it makes for itself) must surely have been started by 'someone'. It's also fair enough for Josephus to say: d.) We may as well humor the story-based claim that their founder's name was "Jesus" (a very common name for boys and men in the early 1st century). ------------------------- 3. "and possibly, (said) by Josephus, that some thought Jesus was the Messiah. " --- But why did some people believe in a messiah named Jesus? Answer: Stories; rumors; legends, circulated mostly by believers. Those believers were 'taking it all on faith' to think such stories were true. Whereas neither Josephus nor Tacitus agreed that mere stories should be counted as sufficient evidence for the Epic Adventures of Magic-Jew, nor to be counted as sufficient evidence that a Magic-Jew ever existed. Instead, at most, if we assume they wrote anything about the matter at all, they only mentioned that: a.) that cult existed b) told stories c.) must have been started by someone and then ... d.) We may as well call their founder "Jesus", since that's the name those cultists give to their founder, based on their stories. We could randomly call him Fred or George. But then, later readers would be unclear about which fringe, organized religion (as defined by its own stories) we'd be referencing. ------------------------ 4. "Then there's Paul," -- Stories. -------------------------- 5. "duetero Paul", -- Stories. ------------------------- 6. "Hebrews" -- Stories. ------------------------ 7. ", authors of 1&2 Peter," -- Unknown authors of: Stories. ---------------------- 8. "John's letter" -- Unknown author's stories. ---------------------- 9. "..., and the sayings in the Material of Q," --- Story-based sayings from a hypothetical source. ---------------------- 10, L, and M. And this are 1st century sources. (Although tbe pastoral can be debated and perhaps John)" --- Still just religious stories; -which are exactly what I started off saying we *DO* have. ------------ In reply, I was glad to see we agree about this. And yet, determined (for whatever reason) to carve out some space for disagreement, you said: "None of what I quoted are religious stories." My reply to that: I'm taking that as good evidence that you only recently escaped from/outgrew a Christian-religious/fundamentalist paradigm. Such religions typically do significant damage to certain parts of the brain, causing damage to functions of language, reasoning, and ethics. I can't be sure which of those misfirings is at play here. If you understand what the word "stories" means, then you're gaslighting me. This would mean we're seeing damage done to the parts of the brain that regulate ethics. -such as the rightmost portion of the supramarginal gyrus. I was originally tempted to continue this review and invite further engagement. [Hence, these many points of further engagement] However,... You're either incapable of understanding basic words and concepts ... [or] You have some ego-driven investment in the subject matter, coupled with a compromise to your ethical reflexes, which is internally prompting Bad Faith Acting as a form of antisocial behavior. Out of respect for the value of my own time and mental energies, unless you want to hire me as a therapeutic counselor to help you through these impediments, I should stop here. --- No hard feelings. It takes everyone many years to heal and grow past the damage done by destructive religions.

We are all a work in progress. Good luck out there.