5 ms·
> There is scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure It's fair to say that there is general consensus amongst Biblical scholars that there was a
by lucozade 2y ago
> There is scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure
It's fair to say that there is general consensus amongst Biblical scholars that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Calling it a scientific consensus is a bit of a stretch though. As far as I'm aware there's zero scientific evidence for His existence. Just that the surviving textual evidence makes little sense if He didn't.
- mannyv 2y agoThere's a ton of textual evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.
- abrenuntio 2y agoCorrect, he lived in Turkey around the late third-early fourth century.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoPretty sure he lived in Anatolia or the Roman empire. There was no 'Turkey' to live in around the late third century.
- margalabargala 2y agoHe can't have lived in the Roman Empire, because those are words written in English, a language that didn't exist back then. What's that? You meant, he lived within the bounds of the region that we call one thing, but would have been something else contemporaneously, but both refer to the same geographical location? Great, we agree he lived in Turkey.
- stryan 2y agoI've always heard it as there's enough textual/historical evidence for Jesus (Josephus, etc) that if we didn't count that as proof of his historical existence that would raise the bar high enough to remove hundreds of other historical figures.