Paul found a group and took them over. The group had a founder. The founder was not a man named jesus. The stories that Paul was told, and ultimately came to be the Gospels, were fabrications.
Now now. That’s not the subject of the current debate. You just told me to stay on target; you do the same. If you want to change the subject, that’s fine, but you need to either agree with my previous post, and admit the error of your position, clarify your position, or keep arguing that no human has ever been named Jesus.
No. It’s much closer to reducto at absurdum. Yours is an attempt at redirection.
In case you weren’t around, a quick recap is as follows: you stated that there’s no evidence for Jesus. I countered that there’s sketchy evidence for a lot of things in the ancient world. You implied that there is, I think. I gave the example of multiple Persian kings who we have only about one line about even existing (I’m also now going to add the entire writings of Herodotus to my argument), and clarified my position by stating that while we have ample evidence for the human commonly known as “Jesus of Nazareth” existing and being crucified, I don’t personally believe that he was a real life demigod. You gave an unsourced account of a guy named Paul leading an unspecified and unnumbered group of people at some point, and now we’re here. Did I miss anything?
Look dude, I’m not going to go find primary sources over this to make my argument. The entire contemporary historical community, which is full of a lot of very skeptical and liberally minded people basically agrees that the current iteration of the Christian faith was started by a real person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth. The exact validity of his stories, and many, but not actually all of the accounts of the events and people surrounding him are what is under question. You should spend some time outside of your Echo chamber, the air gets really stuffy in there and it makes it hard to think clearly. The term is “skeptic” not “denier”.
Paul found a group and took them over. The group had a founder. The founder was not a man named jesus. The stories that Paul was told, and ultimately came to be the Gospels, were fabrications.
Now now. That’s not the subject of the current debate. You just told me to stay on target; you do the same. If you want to change the subject, that’s fine, but you need to either agree with my previous post, and admit the error of your position, clarify your position, or keep arguing that no human has ever been named Jesus.
I never argued no one was named Jesus.
Edit: is this an example of a strawman argument?
No. It’s much closer to reducto at absurdum. Yours is an attempt at redirection.
In case you weren’t around, a quick recap is as follows: you stated that there’s no evidence for Jesus. I countered that there’s sketchy evidence for a lot of things in the ancient world. You implied that there is, I think. I gave the example of multiple Persian kings who we have only about one line about even existing (I’m also now going to add the entire writings of Herodotus to my argument), and clarified my position by stating that while we have ample evidence for the human commonly known as “Jesus of Nazareth” existing and being crucified, I don’t personally believe that he was a real life demigod. You gave an unsourced account of a guy named Paul leading an unspecified and unnumbered group of people at some point, and now we’re here. Did I miss anything?
Look dude, I’m not going to go find primary sources over this to make my argument. The entire contemporary historical community, which is full of a lot of very skeptical and liberally minded people basically agrees that the current iteration of the Christian faith was started by a real person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth. The exact validity of his stories, and many, but not actually all of the accounts of the events and people surrounding him are what is under question. You should spend some time outside of your Echo chamber, the air gets really stuffy in there and it makes it hard to think clearly. The term is “skeptic” not “denier”.
You said that there were entire cultures I asked you to name one and you goalpost shifted to kings. Name me the culture.
The reign of a king can be considered a culture. It’s a very loosely defined term.
Please provide a citation for this assertion.
The Oxford English dictionary. Is bibliography.com still a thing?
Just checked it and doesn’t say anything about a reign of a single king being one of the definitions for culture.
Want to try again? Tell me the culture that is accepted by scholars that has less evidence of existing compared to your buddy Jesus of Nazareth.