I meant that "events underlying those beliefs" could be something like "mystic visions" or "creative reading of the scriptures" but I assumed you understood the phrase to mean "Jesus existing and being crucified as described in said beliefs". Anyway, the sentence worked with either of those.
I agree we are discussing that, and whether that proposition is true or not. I'm sorry I can see something is confusing you but I'm not sure what it is, what did I say that made you think were were at cross purposes?
Kind of like "was there a real Harry Potter" isn't a question of "did a boy of that name or other characteristics of Harry Potter exist" (a million could match) but "did such a boy have anything to do with Rowling coming up with the character"
I think the real underlying question isn't so much "did a guy matching Jesus's description in some shape or form exist somewhere at some point", but "was the Christian concept of Jesus caused by such a guy's existence or did it arise via a different path".
I think the question of whether or not Jesus was real is of huge historical interest - it completely transforms the question of how Christianity started and developed in its early years if he wasn't.
I agree it's not a very interesting hook for an atheism vs Christianity debate.
"The Christian religion" is "a number of various movements with varying beliefs" to this day. There was enough of a large and coherent movement to have Paul writing letters to various local chapters arguing doctrine and appealing to shared beliefs and common authority figures when doing so.
Sure but nobody's claiming any specific one of those people existed so that's moot. Like, if I say "this person called Joseph back then ate a fig" it is assuredly true that such a person did such a thing, but the cause of me saying it isn't the one specific event I appear to be referring to.
They provide independent attestation to Christianity existing as a religion at the time they were written, yes.
There is no consensus Q existed at all. But either way, none of those sources are independent of *the Christian religion*.
I didn't intend my phrasing to suggest we agree "there are actual events underlying these beliefs", except for a wide definition of "event" that I doubt is the one you have in mind.
Not only did Clement not "see the explosion", there is a point he lists various historical figures (or figures he sees as historical at least) from the Old Testament and then from the early Christian church as examples of endurance under persecution - but Jesus isn't in that list.
...my example actually wasn't that great in that they're still somewhat independent if they both saw the explosion; a better example would have been if Sally was told about the explosion by John - then they're not independent at all)
Like I said "independent sources" aren't "different points of view". I'm not sure what you mean by "I just said that John and Sally (Clement) describe the nature of Jesus from different points of view". I had one example where they were independent witnesses and one where they were less so (...
Maybe I should clarify - I see I did it elsewhere not here - they're independent sources for *what the core beliefs are*. They're not independent sources for *the actual events underlying those beliefs*.
In the second case the causal path between "they saw the explosion" and "they're telling you about it" is muddled by group dynamics - any given thing they say could be caused by what they saw, but also what they talked about, common goals of their group, etc.
Like, if John and Sally both see an explosion but are on opposite sides of a valley and have nothing to do with each other, they're independent witnesses to that explosion. If they're both part of the same group of friends who saw it at the same time, discussed it among themselves etc, they're not.
No, independent as in the causal paths that led from the event we're considering them evidence of, to their existence, don't cross.
And as to what they attest of the *beliefs*, that's one of the main arguments mythicists like Doherty make: the earliest Christian writings are more consistent with a belief in a Jesus who wasn't seen as a historical figure.
Yes, like I said: Christianity exists and says Jesus existed. All those texts independently attest to common *beliefs* Christians had at any given time but aren't independent attestation of the *events*; they're all functionally one independent source as far as that's concerned.
I'm not sure what's the trouble with the following anecdote, he's telling of various sad events that put the Jews in disarray and that's one of them. The Testimonium Flavianum falls out of the chapter just fine and is widely considered to be a wholesale interpolation.
"That we have" is I assume the operative phrase here; those sources are historical works that themselves reference earlier sources explicitly and by name, including contemporary ones. This is more reliable than religious texts that don't do that. We also have archeological evidence like inscriptions
And of course don't confuse "multiple sources" with "multiple *independent* sources". Members of a same movement aren't independent sources for the core beliefs of that movement.
Actually some of the earliest writings we have of people within his own movement *don't* write about him as a historical person, that's the main reason people like Doherty believe mythicism. I was pretty struck by the contents of Clement I myself.
The datings themselves often assume historicity.
The main piece of evidence for Jesus's existence is the existence of Christianity and the fact Christianity claims he started it. Which isn't bad - Christianity has to have started somehow, why not like that - but isn't "top 0.1% documentation".
Not really. Every example people typically give of figures considered historical on less evidence actually have stronger evidence, like contemporary attestation and/or physical evidence. The only figure I found generally considered historical on the same quality of evidence as with Jesus is Hillel.
@vridar.org.web.brid.gy @neilgodfrey.bsky.social @vridar.bsky.social Had you seen this?
... and looking Thomas Brodie up to check the name & occupation is how I find out he JUST DIED? That sucks, he seemed like a chill guy
michaelcommane.blogspot.com/2026/02/form...
I don't think making it an atheists vs Christians thing is productive - after all one of the most famous arguers for historicity is Ehrman, an atheist, and mythicists include some Christians like Thomas Brodie, a Catholic priest
New paper w/ @teddyroland.bsky.social on "How fiction powers generative AI systems." We designed a computational experiment to test the impact of the vast amount of fiction in LLM training data on how LLMs communicate, w/ implications for both AI design + literary theory. arxiv.org/abs/2603.01220
Kemi Badenoch disrespecting our brave sailors (the owls in the Navy)
