112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
112 points (93.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
676 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Source?
Exactly. There is about as much proof of Jesus of Nazareth existing as there is of King Arthur existing.
Saying “he probably did exist” is like saying “my dog probably speaks English to his fellow dogs.” It is meaningless without objective evidence.
People tend to say “he probably did exist” simply to hedge their bet or to not go against the grain of the mainstream belief system. I, for one, have been provided no objective evidence (by claimants such as religionists) of the existence of such a person and therefore I have no reason to accept the mainstream belief of his existence.
Agreed. People don't take into account the fact that historians have existed for a long time and probably would have noticed a person as revolutionary as the one mentioned in the gospels - miracles or not. The Romans were excellent record keepers, and that is how we know for a fact - for example - that Herod's timeline does not jibe with the virgin birth myth, nor did the Roman survey methodology jibe with the Bethleham journey myth, to cite two examples among so many others
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
In a modern survey of Jesus is Definitely Real and Was The Son of God and Died and Rose Again for Our Sins scholars, they unanimously believe that Jesus was real.
Do not argue against it. It's on Wikipedia. Those are the guys who were cited, so he's real.
Silly me - wondering if there was a contemporary, unbiased historian who maybe could have heard of him