3 ms·

> He's written about in a famous book but historical records are spotty Don't want to start a religious debate, but it really annoys me when for some reason, m

> He's written about in a famous book but historical records are spotty Don't want to start a religious debate, but it really annoys me when for some reason, multiple documents that were later compiled into a book are not historical documents, just because they were treated as religious texts by the church councils 300 years later. The Bible isn't a book that Christians all sat down and wrote. It's a collection of many different historical documents written by many different people.

miniwark 4y ago
Because it's about a books who explain than at last, two people can come back from death... days after it. Historians have doubts about this (and other weird events from this books) and therefore do not keep this specifics book as very credible sources. That said, no real historian actually doubt of the historical existence of the famous religious leader from the past.
- rodric 4y ago
  It is certainly a minority position, but some historians and scholars of religion do see reason for doubt: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420
gurumeditations 4y ago
Biblical books are biased to assert Jesus existed as they describe him. There are no neutral historical records to prove he specifically existed. Besides, your “historical documents” contain competing narratives of events with each other, supernatural magic, and exist as part of a handpicked religious narrative that left other books out at that.
- arcanus 4y ago
  > There are no neutral historical records to prove he specifically existed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure" For non-Christian sources, see: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus. It's virtually a certainty Jesus existed. Whether he was the 'son of God' is a very different discussion.
noslenwerdna 4y ago
There are many documents dating from ancient Rome (and earlier) that we don't consider historical because of their fantastic or religious nature. The set of documents you refer to are self-contradictory and describe supernatural events that no other author recorded. Hell, historians take Herodotus with a grain of salt, and he was an actual historian.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

miniwark 4y ago

Because it's about a books who explain than at last, two people can come back from death... days after it. Historians have doubts about this (and other weird events from this books) and therefore do not keep this specifics book as very credible sources. That said, no real historian actually doubt of the historical existence of the famous religious leader from the past.

rodric 4y ago
It is certainly a minority position, but some historians and scholars of religion do see reason for doubt: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420

gurumeditations 4y ago

Biblical books are biased to assert Jesus existed as they describe him. There are no neutral historical records to prove he specifically existed. Besides, your “historical documents” contain competing narratives of events with each other, supernatural magic, and exist as part of a handpicked religious narrative that left other books out at that.

arcanus 4y ago
> There are no neutral historical records to prove he specifically existed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure" For non-Christian sources, see: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus. It's virtually a certainty Jesus existed. Whether he was the 'son of God' is a very different discussion.

noslenwerdna 4y ago

There are many documents dating from ancient Rome (and earlier) that we don't consider historical because of their fantastic or religious nature. The set of documents you refer to are self-contradictory and describe supernatural events that no other author recorded. Hell, historians take Herodotus with a grain of salt, and he was an actual historian.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]