• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    assuming he was even real,

    We can say that he lived with overwhelming certainty. Details are fuzzy and miracles either misinterpreted or made up but there was a guy by his name who was baptised by John the Baptist, travelled around arguing theology and collecting followers, and was crucified.

    • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet all his records appear only like a hundred years after his alleged death. I don’t find that to be convincing credibility.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If a Historian were to write a book about Churchill today would you judge it just as unreliable as Tacitus, who wrote some what 70 years after Jesus’ death, wasn’t a Christian, had access to Roman state archives, and is generally considered to be a reliable historiographer? The man was a Senator if Christians had made up the crucifixion he would have called them out on it. We would see tons of Roman authors add libel to the list of reasons to discriminate against Christians. It would’ve been a whole thing.

        Also what’s so exceptional about the mere existence and death of some random itinerant preacher that would require a particularly high standard of evidence? No historian is saying that he got resurrected or something.

        • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If a Historian were to write a book about Churchill today

          There’s very throughout recordings of Churchill and his life already, even from the time he actually lived.

          Also what’s so exceptional about the mere existence and death of some random itinerant preacher that would require a particularly high standard of evidence?

          The entire religion formed around his person? His “wonders”? If there’s such a big fuss being made about his life, then surely you’d have records of said life from when he was still alive, not very long after his death.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?

            If someone says “The pope can perform miracles” and I say “there’s no proof of that”, does that imply that I deny the existence of the pope? Do rumours of miracles even begin to make the existence of a person sitting on a chair in Rome less likely?

            As to the fuzz about him: There were tons of itinerant preachers back them, not many were made martyrs by the Romans. Also, you know, I wouldn’t call it entirely unlikely that Jesus, as a person, was an exceptionally swell and nice guy, people liked him, considered him wise or even divinely inspired. People having followers certainly isn’t out of the ordinary, it’s been known to happen.

            Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?

            • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?

              Simple. If someone today would walk on water or turn water into wine, then it would be talked about everywhere, but not ages after their death. No idea why you find this so hard to comprehend.

              Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?

              No? There’s literally records of him existing, including video evidence. Stop being willfully obtuse. This is just bad faith bullshit arguing and you know it.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Simple. If someone today would walk on water or turn water into wine, then it would be talked about everywhere, but not ages after their death. No idea why you find this so hard to comprehend.

                And people who don’t do it and thus aren’t talked about that often therefore don’t exist? Of course the historical evidence regarding Jesus is not on that kind of scale for the simple reason that there’s no such thing as miracles. He got crucified and that rallied a popular movement which caused trouble in the Roman Empire that’s why we have independent (i.e. non-Christian, non-believer) evidence of his existence. That is, he made just enough of a splash to be recorded.

                There’s literally records of him existing, including video evidence.

                And there was enough contemporary evidence to convince Tacitus that Jesus existed, that those troublesome Christians didn’t simply make him up completely. As said: The man was a Senator, not a Christian, had access to state archives, and generally was quite thorough. He would’ve caught Christians lying about someone getting crucified.

                • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And people who don’t do it and thus aren’t talked about that often therefore don’t exist?

                  It means that the Jesus person that the bible talks about and that formed this entire global religion didn’t exist, which in turn invalidates the entire Christian religion (although you can apply most of the same logic to other religions too, of course).

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I never claimed anything about Jesus as talked about in the Bible, as described by Christians. I’m talking about a Jewish itinerant preacher who became inspiration for all of that.

                    From what we know, by ordinary standards of the science of history, that person, that human, existed, lived and breathed. That’s literally all. His followers sitting next to his grave high on shrooms “witnessing” his resurrection or whatever happened back then doesn’t play into it, nor his further deification down the line, the trinity, whatever.