3 ms·
> You won't find many atheists (if any) that will take Jesus as in any shape or form a historical person. Raises hand: Atheist here who thinks that a historica
by atq2119 5y ago
> You won't find many atheists (if any) that will take Jesus as in any shape or form a historical person.
Raises hand: Atheist here who thinks that a historical Jesus is at least plausible. Obviously not a son of god, though, that would have been embellishment by later generations.
- tsol 5y agoJesus definitely existed as a person, we have records from the time mentioning him
- thecage411 5y agoThat is overstating it a bit; there are mentions decades (but not centuries) after his reported death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus has a good overview of the non biblical sources.
- tsol 5y agoYou're right, after looking it up it was Muhammed who we have records mentioning either during life or within ~30 years[1]. For Jesus it definitely came after. 1- https://i.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_did_jesus_exist.3F https://i.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_...
- jmopp 5y agoThis. The existence of Jesus says nothing about his divinity or the validity of Christianity. We have more evidence for the existence of Muhammad. Does that make Islam the 'correct' religion? We have even more evidence for the existence of Joseph Smith. Does that make Mormonism the 'correct' religion? We have video recordings of L. Ron Hubbard, along with many people still alive who have met him. Does that make Scientology the 'correct' religion?
- nautilius 5y agoExactly. The possible existence of someone names Jesus ~2000 years ago gives zero validity to anything. But we don't even know that. It takes faith to believe in Jesus as a historical figure. There is as much evidence as for the existence of Harry Potter.