3 ms·

The "historical Jesus" is pretty poorly attested though. Yes, it is possible that such a person existed, but there are no, absolutely zero, contemporary records

The "historical Jesus" is pretty poorly attested though. Yes, it is possible that such a person existed, but there are no, absolutely zero, contemporary records of such a person existing. The Gospels were written decades (or even over a century) after he was said to have lived. So did Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus -- they weren't contemporary either. What can be attested is that a few decades after Jesus was said to have lived that there was a group of people claiming that he did and was their Messiah. The argument that people give for the historical Jesus is "why would such worshipers exist if Jesus didn't?" but the growth of new religious movements in the modern age suggest that worshipers don't actually need any evidence to join.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
Are you serious lol. Is anti-religion got y'all in such a grip lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus > Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although not all events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles) are accepted universally.[8][9][10] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives,[11][12] and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][8][13]
- jhbadger 5y ago
  Those references ultimately go to Christian scholars who are looking for evidence for their beliefs, not secular historians. And they are basing them on the same records I mentioned (all written well after Jesus was said to have lived).
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    That first assertion should be pretty easy to back up, assuming you did the implied work of following all those citations, identifying the religious beliefs (?) and motivations (???) of each author. The fact that you think the second argument is a strong one alone indicates that you aren't particularly informed about the practice of history. A lot of things are well-established historical fact (to the extent anything can be!) despite not having any contemporaneous records of them. Even entire historical figures. Untangling those webs of knowledge, influence, bias, motivation, and uncertainty to determine which things are likely true within them pretty is the work historians do. Even with less contested individuals for whom we do have contemporary accounts, we don't just accept those accounts as facts.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

Are you serious lol. Is anti-religion got y'all in such a grip lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus > Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although not all events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles) are accepted universally.[8][9][10] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives,[11][12] and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][8][13]

jhbadger 5y ago
Those references ultimately go to Christian scholars who are looking for evidence for their beliefs, not secular historians. And they are basing them on the same records I mentioned (all written well after Jesus was said to have lived).
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  That first assertion should be pretty easy to back up, assuming you did the implied work of following all those citations, identifying the religious beliefs (?) and motivations (???) of each author. The fact that you think the second argument is a strong one alone indicates that you aren't particularly informed about the practice of history. A lot of things are well-established historical fact (to the extent anything can be!) despite not having any contemporaneous records of them. Even entire historical figures. Untangling those webs of knowledge, influence, bias, motivation, and uncertainty to determine which things are likely true within them pretty is the work historians do. Even with less contested individuals for whom we do have contemporary accounts, we don't just accept those accounts as facts.