4 ms·

Well there's no actual historical or archaeological proof that Jesus even existed on the first place.

by drKarl 5y ago

emteycz 5y ago
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.[8][9][10][11] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives,[12][13] and only two key events are subject to "almost universal assent", namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][9][14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
- belter 5y ago
  There is more historical information of individuals living 300 to 500 years before like Plato or Archimedes. Not only direct sources as well as indirect correlating sources. In the context of asserting the existence of Jesus, virtually all those scholars of antiquity have the bias of being driven by their Christian beliefs. There are virtually hardly no correlating information from other third parties about Jesus existence. "W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[142] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus#Bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus...
- drKarl 5y ago
  As belter mentions, all those scholars are biased by their own christian beliefs. There's no archaeological evidence and no Roman or Jewish historian mentions him, at least no mention that hasn't proven to be a medieval addition. The only sources are the gospels, which are not only biased, but they're not contemporary since the author's of the gospels were born between 50 and more than 100 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Let that sink in, the authors of the gospels didn't know Jesus, didn't even know someone who had met Jesus. In addition to that, the gospels were handpicked amongst lots of contradictory versions in the Council of Nicaea to fit the official narrative for political reasons and that council happened more than 300 years after the alleged story of Jesus.

Well there's no actual historical or archaeological proof that Jesus even existed on the first place.

by drKarl 5y ago

Well there's no actual historical or archaeological proof that Jesus even existed on the first place.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.[8][9][10][11] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives,[12][13] and only two key events are subject to "almost universal assent", namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][9][14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

belter 5y ago
There is more historical information of individuals living 300 to 500 years before like Plato or Archimedes. Not only direct sources as well as indirect correlating sources. In the context of asserting the existence of Jesus, virtually all those scholars of antiquity have the bias of being driven by their Christian beliefs. There are virtually hardly no correlating information from other third parties about Jesus existence. "W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[142] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus#Bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus...
drKarl 5y ago
As belter mentions, all those scholars are biased by their own christian beliefs. There's no archaeological evidence and no Roman or Jewish historian mentions him, at least no mention that hasn't proven to be a medieval addition. The only sources are the gospels, which are not only biased, but they're not contemporary since the author's of the gospels were born between 50 and more than 100 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Let that sink in, the authors of the gospels didn't know Jesus, didn't even know someone who had met Jesus. In addition to that, the gospels were handpicked amongst lots of contradictory versions in the Council of Nicaea to fit the official narrative for political reasons and that council happened more than 300 years after the alleged story of Jesus.