You’re rejecting evidence you haven’t even read about, so yes. You get the burden of proof for now. You’re making an assumption that every academic who says “there’s enough evidence to suggest this person existed just not exactly how it’s laid out in the bible” is some religious zealot. Show us proof.
I’m not going to link to a bunch of different papers for you since you can’t be bothered to Google before you comment so here’s a Wikipedia article. If you’re here in good faith you’ll know how to follow the sources and find the evidence, if not you’ll reply with some more idiotic denialism.
There is evidence a “prophet named Jesus” existed. Of course “Jesus” was an extremely popular name. And there were tens of thousands of “Prophets” running around claiming they were the true one.
It’s simple survivorship bias. There is ZERO evidence the biblical Jesus existed…
I found one source linking to Herzog and Powel and it’s the same claim that “the only historical fact we can confirm about Jesus in the Bible is that he was baptized and crucified.”
I just told you I have other things to do right now than research every link in the article. You’re more than welcome to list anything you want to here. I’ll look into it. I was simply responding to your comment.
I’m happy to debate it. But only if you’re not being confrontational. It’s not like either of us is going to “crack the code” or anything.
You’re rejecting evidence you haven’t even read about, so yes. You get the burden of proof for now. You’re making an assumption that every academic who says “there’s enough evidence to suggest this person existed just not exactly how it’s laid out in the bible” is some religious zealot. Show us proof.
What’s the evidence?
I’m not going to link to a bunch of different papers for you since you can’t be bothered to Google before you comment so here’s a Wikipedia article. If you’re here in good faith you’ll know how to follow the sources and find the evidence, if not you’ll reply with some more idiotic denialism.
There is evidence a “prophet named Jesus” existed. Of course “Jesus” was an extremely popular name. And there were tens of thousands of “Prophets” running around claiming they were the true one.
It’s simple survivorship bias. There is ZERO evidence the biblical Jesus existed…
That’s literally what the wiki article I linked to says.
That’s fair. I don’t mind looking into the article.
The first, and subsequently multiple, source in the article claiming that Jesus was real is from William R. Herzog. He was a Presbyterian minister.
Mark Allen Powel is also sourced. An ordained minister of the American Lutheran Church.
I’ll look into more of it later, I’ve got things to do. But so far it’s all church members affirming the belief.
I found one source linking to Herzog and Powel and it’s the same claim that “the only historical fact we can confirm about Jesus in the Bible is that he was baptized and crucified.”
Exactly. Not really trustworthy if you want actual evidence.
There are plenty of sources why do you insist on latching on to this specific sentence? The article is quite long.
I just told you I have other things to do right now than research every link in the article. You’re more than welcome to list anything you want to here. I’ll look into it. I was simply responding to your comment.
I’m happy to debate it. But only if you’re not being confrontational. It’s not like either of us is going to “crack the code” or anything.
This is a good lecture you might be interested in.
https://www.youtube.com/live/vPXA1NzAIpw?si=W8Wx-njZpl6c2y32