4 ms·

Not sure where you're getting your facts, but there's a consensus among (Christian and non-Christian) historians that Jesus existed. The rest is murky, but he e

• ncmncm 4y ago
  Your "consensus" is not based on evidence, but purely on convenience: something did happen associated with Judea (though not, by any plausible evidence, in it) that is most conveniently accounted for by assuming an actual person did specified things there. That, without any actual evidence that any did, but a monumental volume of very obviously and universally acknowledged wholesale-fabricated evidence, clearly penned decades after any participants would necessarily have died. What the assumption utterly fails to account for is the extraordinary volume of such obvious fabrication, of a magnitude that appears nowhere else in the historical record. If any of its subject matter were true, what would motivate the enormous industry of fabrication and insertion of late alterations into contemporaneous texts? The gradient is toward decreasing adherence to the convenient assumption, and more critical scrutiny.
  • rospaya 4y ago
    I'm not a historian, so when most of them say that something happened, I tend to trust them.