Comments by "ub2bn" (@ub2bn) on "Let's Talk Religion" channel.

The short answer is... nope. But some Scholars have concluded "He must have existed, seeing as his popularity has lasted so long" (paraphrasing, slightly) ... But "must have" and DID are two very different things.
3
Yep. And yet folks celebrated the incoming of the 21st Century on Dec. 31st, 1999, which was the beginning of the last year of the 20th Century.
1
@Doug_in_NC The Gregorian Calendar is Catholic, and to my knowledge, Jan. 1st is considered the 8th day, i.e; the day of Circumcision; thus the beginning of a new year/covenant. (Dec. 25th being day one, as you said). As for it being the birthday of Jesus, I would argue it is the day the Sun is reborn, after spending 3 days and 3 nights "in the belly of the whale." (from a North American perspective, and as per the Sign of Jonah). There is zero evidence Jesus was born on Dec. 25th, and frankly I do not believe Jesus existed at all, as I have yet to be shown any credible Extra-Biblical evidence of such. (And I can assure you, I did my homework on the subject.)
1
@Doug_in_NC Again, nothing to prove, or even suggest a Dec 25th birth, unless one realizes the narrative is about the dying and resurrecting Sun.
1
@Doug_in_NC Out of 365 days to choose from, they "arbitrarily" chose Dec. 25th? Arbitrary: "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle." ... It was anything but arbitrary.
1
@Doug_in_NC Yes, I understand the reason for why they likely did it... but that, in itself, makes it non-arbitrary, and done for a particular reason. ; ) I would argue it was done because Christianity is basically an amalgamation of all things Pagan. Of course, the early church fathers/apologists, when queried about how similar (even identical at times) their writings/doctrines/practices/beliefs/etc. were to pagan cults and other religions, they insisted either 1) they were unique to them, or 2) Satan and his demons previously went around, for millennia, teaching false religions that very much resembled the "True Faith" to come, in order to trick people into not "believing". (There is a term for the latter, but it escapes me.)
1
@lepidoptera9337 What do you mean by the political background checks out? Are you referring to the overall setting in which the narrative is placed, or to references to Chrestus? And again, would/could have and DID are two different things.
1
@StonesSticksBones I forget the name of the group the Scholars went by, but yes, after each doing their homework/research, and then getting back together to discuss their findings, a vote was taken. It was agreed that there was insufficient (i.e; little to no) solid Extra-Biblical evidence of his existence, but that he must have existed, simply due to the fact so many believe he did, and the resultant Historical effects.
1
@StonesSticksBones "so many >>>believe<<< he did so multiple attestations (which is nowhere near what you originally said)" I said "seeing as his >>>popularity<<< has lasted so long". "We have the writings of Paul" I also said "It was agreed that there was insufficient (i.e; little to no) solid >>>Extra-Biblical<<< evidence of his existence" Paul's alleged writings are not Extra-Biblical. And if you think stories, such as Paul falling to the ground on his way to Emmaus, is/are original to him and the N.T. writings, you are mistaken. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzOrc_kwcU4&list=PLBusV_6zTi_hyM_UnT2Ry7hPpq3dSFp97&index=2&t=725s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NFQ9cF94jU&list=PLBusV_6zTi_hyM_UnT2Ry7hPpq3dSFp97&index=1 And yes, I'm quite familiar with Ehrman, and I would argue he is another who's belief in an Historical Jesus is driven more by the notion he must have existed, than he did. He was never able to convince me, otherwise. "There being a historical figure at the core of Christianity is utterly uncontroversial among historians/classicists/researchers studying the period" ... and yet, it remains a controversial subject, even among such scholars, to this very day. hmmm? Two things to remember: 1) No one has had everything cross their desk (as in you saying " I've never heard any scholar ever say anything even close to "he must have existed""), and 2) Some folks are more easily convinced than others, especially seeing as abandoning one's beliefs/faith can be very traumatic for some.
1
@lepidoptera9337 Too much to get into, but I recommend you consider the possibility the N.T. was written by Josephus and Members of the Imperial Court. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvga-98x6Nk&t=4217s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0 There is also the Chrestus issue, which I already alluded to.
1
@lepidoptera9337 Indeed. In our little group, we would get 4 different people to read the "same" story from each gospel... and then ask, "So, which is it??? lol. There is a term that escapes me, but it refers to adding onto, or elaborating on the previous writing. Bill Darlison mentions it in his book "The Gospel and the Zodiac". Definitely a worthwhile read. So, for example, a gospel section referring to Pisces will later include two of everything from the original writing.
1