There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Ouroboros]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

Most excellent observation. I missed that one! They made him up too?

Similar problem to the idea that Paul was a myth too. If Paul invented Christianity, but Paul didn't exist... that means an imaginary person created a real thing. How could a cartoon think up these things? Or when it's argued that Paul did exist, but he invented Jesus... after he was converted to Christianity... uh... sequential problem here, anyone?

[Ouroboros]

If Jesus didn't exist, how did he have followers to forge the Testimonium? I guess that proves Jesus existed. And if Christians said that Jesus was born of a Virgin, walked on water, and ascended to Heaven, it must be true. So I guess we're all Christians again?

What you're doing is what is called "categorical thinking". It's a black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking. That's the first thing you have to figure out how to ge out of if you want to understand Antlerman's and my position. It's holding you back.

[qadeshet]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

 

If Jesus didn't exist, how did he have followers to forge the Testimonium? I guess that proves Jesus existed. And if Christians said that Jesus was born of a Virgin, walked on water, and ascended to Heaven, it must be true. So I guess we're all Christians again?

Underscoring my point again I've been making all along. You believe if any of it's true, it's ALL true, and therefore threatens you to become a Christian again. What is the big deal with accepting there was an historical Jesus? I do, and you don't see me believing frogs fell from the sky, the Jews walked through the middle of an active sea on its sea bottom, or that Jesus walked over the surface of the water. I'm not threatened by this.

 

This is all circular reasoning.

 

Assuming the existence of an Historical Jesus is also circular. I wouldn't be a Christian again even if hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection were discovered. We have 30,000 witnesses for the Miracle of Fatima and I really doubt that the Virgin Mary appeared. Any historical "Jesus" we come up with was not the Gospel Jesus. Any 1st Century cult leader could have been the inspiration for the Gospel Jesus. We just don't know which one. Professor Bart Ermain likes the failed Apocalyptic Prophet Jesus. Other Historical Jesus scholars have their own ideas.

 

Will the real 1st Century "Jesus" please stand up?

[Ouroboros]

We have 30,000 witnesses for the Miracle of Fatima and I really doubt that the Virgin Mary appeared.

And yet, that mass-delusion wasn't enough to start more than a small ripple of cult, nothing compared to the power of the other cults that became worldwide religions. The Miracle of Fatima could have become a new religion if they've had some kind of leader with some political or social influence to construct an organization. Just loosie-goosie delusional people, grouped together as some Woodstock event, isn't enough to boost a religion--obviously.

[qadeshet]

If Jesus didn't exist, how did he have followers to forge the Testimonium? I guess that proves Jesus existed. And if Christians said that Jesus was born of a Virgin, walked on water, and ascended to Heaven, it must be true. So I guess we're all Christians again?

What you're doing is what is called "categorical thinking". It's a black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking. That's the first thing you have to figure out how to ge out of if you want to understand Antlerman's and my position. It's holding you back.

 

I wrote:

 

It is suspected that the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

 

Antlerman wrote:

 

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

 

There didn't have to be a John the Baptist for there to have been a Baptist Cult. There didn't have to be an Historical Heracles for the Cult of Heracles to exist. Heracles may or may not have existed. There probably was a John the Baptist. There were numerous men named Jesus. Was Christianity based on one of them? Maybe.

[Ouroboros]

There probably was a John the Baptist. There were numerous men named Jesus. Was Christianity based on one of them? Maybe.

That's what we said.

[qadeshet]

There probably was a John the Baptist. There were numerous men named Jesus. Was Christianity based on one of them? Maybe.

That's what we said.

 

If you and Antlerman are arguing that some fellow may have lived in the 1st Century and may have provided the name "Jesus" for their new cult, then we are in total agreement.

The "Jesus" of the Gospels never existed. Any other "Jesus", cult leader, or Apocalyptic Prophet wasn't the Gospel Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

If you and Antlerman are arguing that some fellow may have lived in the 1st Century and may have provided the name "Jesus" for their new cult, then we are in total agreement.

Something like that.

 

The "Jesus" of the Gospels never existed.

Agree.

 

Any other "Jesus", cult leader, or Apocalyptic Prophet wasn't the Gospel Jesus.

Which no one really claimed.

 

My claim was only that taken any religion or cult today or in the past, a majority of the successful ones became successful because of a common denominator... a cult leader. It doesn't have to be the same person the religion ultimately is centered around, but they all progressed because of at least one person (maybe more) making it so. It's very uncommon for a cult to grow to a large scale religion just on its own without guidance and from that being persistent. Not even urban legends in todays society, with the help of internet, manages to hold on for more than a few years, and still won't create institutions from it. We don't have a "Cat Fried in a Microwave" church. If we did, you would find someone organizing it and making it happen, somewhere in the center of the cult. In Christianity, perhaps it was "pseudo_Paul" or someone else, we don't know, but the push for the early Christian cult with one "human god" replacing the old Romans' "polytheism paganism" can't be just explained with "Oh, they felt like it and because they were the same anyway." They have similarities, but Christianity was different enough to cause trouble in the Roman empire and upset the rulers with "What the heck is this new religion people are converting to?"

 

Or put it this way, how come Coke is such a big brand all around the world? Did it happen just because people wanted to drink Coke and demanded the company to produce for them, or was it a push of advertising and organizing and product placement and adaption and ...? Is the success of Coke based on a grass-root pull or a corporate push? I think it was more about the company pushing for it than people asking for it. Coke isn't *that* great. People need some incentive to give up their old sodas in favor of just one single one. Does that comparison make any sense?

[Antlerman]

If you and Antlerman are arguing that some fellow may have lived in the 1st Century and may have provided the name "Jesus" for their new cult, then we are in total agreement.

Then you are with us in the historical Jesus camp. Welcome.

 

The "Jesus" of the Gospels never existed. Any other "Jesus", cult leader, or Apocalyptic Prophet wasn't the Gospel Jesus.

This what the historical Jesus camp teaches. The myth-only camp sees the entire thing as a fabrication. See the links MWC post earlier.

 

Again, welcome to our side.

[qadeshet]

If you and Antlerman are arguing that some fellow may have lived in the 1st Century and may have provided the name "Jesus" for their new cult, then we are in total agreement.

Then you are with us in the historical Jesus camp. Welcome.

 

The "Jesus" of the Gospels never existed. Any other "Jesus", cult leader, or Apocalyptic Prophet wasn't the Gospel Jesus.

This what the historical Jesus camp teaches. The myth-only camp sees the entire thing as a fabrication. See the links MWC post earlier.

 

Again, welcome to our side.

 

Then all Mythicists are in the Historical Jesus camp. Carrier, Doherty, and every other Mythicist I've read admit the possibility that there may have been someone who may or may not have been named "Jesus", who may or may not have had a few followers, who may or may not have been executed. Both the Historical "Jesus" and the Mythical "Jesus" are speculative. The question posed by Mythicists is whether Christianity began as Paul's Cosmic Christ, or some Founder that we simply can't identify. Do we have a 99% Mythical godman or a 100% Mythical godman? It is an important debate because most Christians don't even know how scant is the Evidence for any kind of "Jesus". I was taught in Church that there is evidence for Jesus than for anyone in History. This is a lie.

[Antlerman]

The question posed by Mythicists is whether Christianity began as Paul's Cosmic Christ, or some Founder that we simply can't identify. Do we have a 99% Mythical godman or a 100% Mythical godman?

I would make the percentages a little further apart than that. I hear this suggestion that Paul's Cosmic Christ was what defined Christianity to be only one small piece of the puzzle. There are "too many Jesuses" to lay this all upon Paul. I'll quote again Burton Mack as I love how he lays them all out on the table:

 

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

 

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)

 

The key to what he says here is that there are "too many embellishments of the memories of a single historical person" to account for all these variants, Paul's Cosmic Christ being just one of those - hardly making him the founder! What I see, is what Mack was driving at is that buried down at the bottom of all of this was a simple cynic-style sage with very simple teachings which his early community of students spread after his death, and the it was added to and layered all over the place to create this image of Jesus as an expression of all these things reflected in the spirit of his teachings as they heard it. This does not mean Jesus was fabricated out of whole cloth! Not at all. There was a kernel, a spark, but you, me, and everyone not a fundamentalist Christian agree that the Jesus of the Gospels in not the actual historical Jesus.

 

I reject the myth-only camps because it's too simplistic. It's explanatory powers don't go far enough. Where Mack differs with the historical Jesus camps, is in how they try to make the Jesus of the Gospels fit that person. That's his criticism above. But he does believe, and explains how and why, there was a real Jesus at the bottom of it all. That make him, and I find myself attracted to his views in this, not a myth-only believer.

 

It is an important debate because most Christians don't even know how scant is the Evidence for any kind of "Jesus". I was taught in Church that there is evidence for Jesus than for anyone in History. This is a lie.

Oh yes, that is a lie. Most definitely. It's far more complex than that, and again that's why I chaff at the myth-only camps too. It is far more complex than that too.

[Ouroboros]

Then all Mythicists are in the Historical Jesus camp. Carrier, Doherty, and every other Mythicist I've read admit the possibility that there may have been someone who may or may not have been named "Jesus", who may or may not have had a few followers, who may or may not have been executed. Both the Historical "Jesus" and the Mythical "Jesus" are speculative.

Yes, they are both speculative. Therefore you look at it from a sociological and psychological perspective instead. What makes people do things? What makes a new cult successful? And so on. And you can at least speculate further into what might be slightly more likely than the other.

 

The question posed by Mythicists is whether Christianity began as Paul's Cosmic Christ, or some Founder that we simply can't identify.

Since the mythicists now are suggesting that Paul is also a myth, then of course he can't be the founder. Since Simon Magus isn't his real name, and we have different and contradictory records of him and where he was born, and he supposedly did a bunch of miracles, we should conclude that he's a myth too. And for anyone else to have been the author to a hoax... well, we have no records of that either, so we end up with the anonymous founder (or multiple).

 

Do we have a 99% Mythical godman or a 100% Mythical godman?

Something like that.

 

It is an important debate because most Christians don't even know how scant is the Evidence for any kind of "Jesus". I was taught in Church that there is evidence for Jesus than for anyone in History. This is a lie.

Unfortunately there's very little evidence for many other historical persons too. But it's easier to assume the other ones since there are few or no claims about their divine status and they're not symbols for any religion. You have to make a lot of assumptions in history.

[Akheia]

Do you guys even study history? How can you even say that, Ouro? There's shit-tons of evidence for people like Caligula and Pocahontas. We have letters, portraits, contemporary legal documents, death notices, birth announcements, I mean what else do you want, DNA? There's not a single bit of evidence linking any specific person to the beginnings of the Christian cult, and of the person of Jesus himself, only nebulous, myth-laden sources written decades after the fact by hardly-disinterested propagandists.

 

It IS black and white. Did he exist or did he not? This is a boolean, not a "celestial truth" woo contest. Yes, or no. Jesus Christ is not a Schrodinger cat. The evidence is damning--even going so far as to start looking like the entire person of Jesus as presented in the NT is drawn up from older myths and OT tales. Hell, it's even possible that Christianity as a movement didn't begin until decades after its propagandists claimed it did, considering there's also no evidence for the existence of Christians anywhere around 35-50CE. If you don't have evidence supporting your ideas, then I question why you hold those ideas so dearly. It was hard for me to give up the idea of a "historical Jesus" too--it's just so mind-blowing that maybe there wasn't a specific man who started Christianity considering how much society seems so entrenched in the idea.

 

The premises here are flawed, I must also add. If there did turn out to be a historical person who started the Christian church, it wouldn't front me none. The religion would still be toxic. It'd just be one small thing about the religion that turned out to be accurate. But ideas presented without evidence can, as the great man said, be dismissed without evidence.

[qadeshet]

The question posed by Mythicists is whether Christianity began as Paul's Cosmic Christ, or some Founder that we simply can't identify. Do we have a 99% Mythical godman or a 100% Mythical godman?

I would make the percentages a little further apart than that. I hear this suggestion that Paul's Cosmic Christ was what defined Christianity to be only one small piece of the puzzle. There are "too many Jesuses" to lay this all upon Paul. I'll quote again Burton Mack as I love how he lays them all out on the table:

 

 

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

 

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)

 

The key to what he says here is that there are "too many embellishments of the memories of a single historical person" to account for all these variants, Paul's Cosmic Christ being just one of those - hardly making him the founder! What I see, is what Mack was driving at is that buried down at the bottom of all of this was a simple cynic-style sage with very simple teachings which his early community of students spread after his death, and the it was added to and layered all over the place to create this image of Jesus as an expression of all these things reflected in the spirit of his teachings as they heard it. This does not mean Jesus was fabricated out of whole cloth! Not at all. There was a kernel, a spark, but you, me, and everyone not a fundamentalist Christian agree that the Jesus of the Gospels in not the actual historical Jesus.

 

I reject the myth-only camps because it's too simplistic. It's explanatory powers don't go far enough. Where Mack differs with the historical Jesus camps, is in how they try to make the Jesus of the Gospels fit that person. That's his criticism above. But he does believe, and explains how and why, there was a real Jesus at the bottom of it all. That make him, and I find myself attracted to his views in this, not a myth-only believer.

 

It is an important debate because most Christians don't even know how scant is the Evidence for any kind of "Jesus". I was taught in Church that there is evidence for Jesus than for anyone in History. This is a lie.

Oh yes, that is a lie. Most definitely. It's far more complex than that, and again that's why I chaff at the myth-only camps too. It is far more complex than that too.

 

Burton Mack had another good idea-that the Gospel of Mark creatively emulated Philo's Life of Moses. The similarities are striking. The origin of "Paul"s Christ might have originated in the teachings of Philo. Someone wrote the Epistles of "Paul" whether is name was Paul or not. We just don't know who wrote them, or when they were written. Or, for that matter, which ones are authentic.

 

Is the Gospel of Mark Creatively Emulating Philo’s Life of Moses?

 

Understanding Mark’s Jesus through Philo’s Moses?

[Ouroboros]

http://en.wikipedia....ricity_of_Jesus

Virtually all scholars accept the existence of Jesus, but differ on the accuracy of the details of his life within the biblical narratives.^[5][118] The Christ myth theory is still being debated in the 21st century, with Graham Stanton stating in 2002 that the most thorough analysis of the theory had been by G. A. Wells.^[119] But Wells' book Did Jesus Exist? was criticized by James D.G. Dunn in his book The Evidence for Jesus.^[120] And the debates continue, e.g. Wells changed his views over time and while he used to argue that there was no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, he later modified his position, and in his later book The Jesus Myth accepted the possible existence of Jesus based on historical sources, although still disputing the gospel portrayals of his life.^{[121][122][123][124]}Robert Van Voorst states that among "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".^[121][122]

[Antlerman]

There's not a single bit of evidence linking any specific person to the beginnings of the Christian cult, and of the person of Jesus himself, only nebulous, myth-laden sources written decades after the fact by hardly-disinterested propagandists.

There's not a single bit of hard evidence my 11th great grandmother existed. It's only based on trail-crumb left that indicates she likely existed. Something to do with genes, I think. But there is still not one single record exists today proving it. Should I be highly suspect of her existence?

 

It IS black and white. Did he exist or did he not?

Wow. Really? Do you think you can answer that definitively, in black and white answers? Seriously? Why?

 

BTW, no offense meant, but I suspect that you used to say this the same way, "Either the Bible is true or it's not". Either God exists, or He doesn't." I see in questions like this infinite shades of subtle colors and ways of understanding and interpreting things, not black and white sharp lines. That world does not exist except in modern myth.

 

This is a boolean, not a "celestial truth" woo contest.

One doesn't need to even open the metaphysical question to see this is not a binary equation. It sounds so easy to state it that way, but good luck actually answering it that way! That's very much wishful thinking based on a mythological reality.

 

The evidence is damning--even going so far as to start looking like the entire person of Jesus as presented in the NT is drawn up from older myths and OT tales.

And the evidence of the evidence itself is black and white? Are you so sure people don't debate the validity of interpreting the evidence that way? If so, then how the hell is it black and white? For instance, "Jesus is a copy of Krishna". Yes, the similarities are pretty striking. But no record of Krishna looking like Christ exists before 500 AD. Oops.

 

Does this mean Krishna ripped off Christ? No. We can't be sure which came first actually. But... but... it's supposed to be an either/or question we have to answer, right? Did Krisha rip off Christ, or did Christ rip off Krisha. Which is it? It can't be both. Answer, if you can. Or wait, maybe neither ripped each other off. Maybe they both ripped off someone else. Maybe nobody ripped anyone off and it just evolved spontaneously, or, or, or, or.... the list of possibilities is endless.

 

Not so simple is it?

 

Hell, it's even possible that Christianity as a movement didn't begin until decades after its propagandists claimed it did, considering there's also no evidence for the existence of Christians anywhere around 35-50CE.

Breadcrumb trails. If Mark was written around 70 AD, those traditions it culls together into its Narrative story were around before then. It's a case of unraveling the texts to see lines that relate to the approximate times they would have likely been written.

 

If you don't have evidence supporting your ideas, then I question why you hold those ideas so dearly.

Dearly? Wow, that's sure ascribing a lot of devotional attachment to them. I'd just say it makes more intellectual sense. I'm devoted to my intelligence, I suppose.

 

It was hard for me to give up the idea of a "historical Jesus" too--it's just so mind-blowing that maybe there wasn't a specific man who started Christianity considering how much society seems so entrenched in the idea.

Hey, you know, I was a big fan of Earl Doherty once! Didn't know that, did you?

 

The premises here are flawed, I must also add. If there did turn out to be a historical person who started the Christian church, it wouldn't front me none.

I have never said that once in this thread. That is the Master Story myth that I have explicitly stated in this thread numerous times that I reject.

 

The religion would still be toxic.

Then, or today? Let's be specific.

 

It'd just be one small thing about the religion that turned out to be accurate. But ideas presented without evidence can, as the great man said, be dismissed without evidence.

There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate. Not enough for me to embrace it as a useful system. On the contrary, it was worth leaving it. And this business of evidence, evidence, evidence. That is so unrealistic. No one actually lives their life like that. See my earlier comments about Positivism as a failed philosophy

[Vigile]

There's not a single bit of hard evidence my 11th great grandmother existed. It's only based on trail-crumb left that indicates she likely existed. Something to do with a genes, I think. But there is still not one single record exists today proving it. Should I be highly suspect of her existence?

 

It's impossible for you to exist without an 11th great grandmother, but it's not impossible for a religion to have evolved from other religions among other possibilities.

[Ouroboros]

It's impossible for you to exist without an 11th great grandmother, but it's not impossible for a religion to have evolved from other religions among other possibilities.

There's a logical problem there and a conflict with evolution if you think about it.

[qadeshet]

Do you guys even study history? How can you even say that, Ouro? There's shit-tons of evidence for people like Caligula and Pocahontas. We have letters, portraits, contemporary legal documents, death notices, birth announcements, I mean what else do you want, DNA? There's not a single bit of evidence linking any specific person to the beginnings of the Christian cult, and of the person of Jesus himself, only nebulous, myth-laden sources written decades after the fact by hardly-disinterested propagandists.

 

It IS black and white. Did he exist or did he not? This is a boolean, not a "celestial truth" woo contest. Yes, or no. Jesus Christ is not a Schrodinger cat. The evidence is damning--even going so far as to start looking like the entire person of Jesus as presented in the NT is drawn up from older myths and OT tales. Hell, it's even possible that Christianity as a movement didn't begin until decades after its propagandists claimed it did, considering there's also no evidence for the existence of Christians anywhere around 35-50CE. If you don't have evidence supporting your ideas, then I question why you hold those ideas so dearly. It was hard for me to give up the idea of a "historical Jesus" too--it's just so mind-blowing that maybe there wasn't a specific man who started Christianity considering how much society seems so entrenched in the idea.

 

The premises here are flawed, I must also add. If there did turn out to be a historical person who started the Christian church, it wouldn't front me none. The religion would still be toxic. It'd just be one small thing about the religion that turned out to be accurate. But ideas presented without evidence can, as the great man said, be dismissed without evidence.

 

To be honest, most Historical Jesus scholars start with the a priori assumption that Jesus existed and go from there. If you actually start with the Evidence, there isn't much to find.

[Vigile]

It's impossible for you to exist without an 11th great grandmother, but it's not impossible for a religion to have evolved from other religions among other possibilities.

There's a logical problem there and a conflict with evolution if you think about it.

 

I don't see it. Is there a clear link between species as new species emerge or do the lines blur and get lost over time through an imperfect fossil record?

[Ouroboros]

I don't see it. Is there a clear link between species as new species emerge or do the lines blur and get lost over time through an imperfect fossil record?

I'll let you think about it.

[Akheia]

AM - I do think in terms of evidence. But your premise that I think in terms of "either/or" for philosophical things like "Is the Bible true or not" and the like is also flawed. The problem is that you're asking the wrong question.

 

"Is the Bible true or not?" That's a flawed question to begin with. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are artistic, and its myths describe the things its writers found palpably important. It's not in me to decry a myth as "false." Myths are descriptive and meant to raise the soul, not to be physically verifiable. However:

 

Are the events the Bible talks about real events that really happened? Oh hell no, just about none of them are.

Are the things the Bible promises things that really happen for believers as promised? Oh hell no, just about nothing it promises is verifiable (f.e.: prayer being answered).

Is there a cat named Jesus who existed around 4BCE-33CE who started Christianity, said and did the things the Bible attributes to him, and died in the manner the Bible describes? (Let's put aside the resurrection, which is clearly mythic.) The evidence says no, namely because the attributes and events the Bible puts forth as describing this Jesus are mythic.

But is there some kernel of truth to the idea that one or a mix of failed Jewish prophets running around at the generally right time (200BCE-100CE) are *credited* with starting the religion, whether or not this accreditation is accurate? MAYBE. But I'm still wondering where our evidence is....

[Vigile]

I don't see it. Is there a clear link between species as new species emerge or do the lines blur and get lost over time through an imperfect fossil record?

I'll let you think about it.

 

You're going to have to spell it out for me. I honestly don't see where you're going here.

[Ouroboros]

You're going to have to spell it out for me. I honestly don't see where you're going here.

Infinite regression of grandmothers? Maybe it's impossible for Antlerman not to have an 11th grandmother, but at some point in the past, someone didn't have one, and how can we know Antlerman wasn't one of them? What's the evidence?

[Ouroboros]

There's shit-tons of evidence for people like Caligula and Pocahontas.

Caligula? Really. What's the evidence for Caligula.