Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

raptorthebun t1_j20oyae wrote

Reply to comment by insufferableninja in If Jesus was real they wouldn't call it the crucifixion. by yomommafool

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#:~:text=Jesus%20was%20a%20Galilean%20Jew,studied%20outside%20Galilee%20and%20Judea.

It's pretty unanimous that scholars agree he existed by the same standards applied to historical figures from the same time period. That's a fact in my book unless you want to be extremely careful and say we don't really know anything about people from 2,000 years ago. Reddit can downvote and I'm not saying anything about Christianity or whether Jesus was God or whatever, but Jesus was a real dude who existed.

1

insufferableninja t1_j220uyb wrote

That was an interesting read. The history by Josephus, which was lost, was quoted by Tacitus, but that history was also lost, but Tacitus's quotation of Josephus was quoted by a third historian. And that meets the criteria for a primary source of the existence of Josh of Nazareth. Being a historian must be so incredibly frustrating.

1

kaiwulf t1_j20zeag wrote

Ah, I see you did your so-called research by going straight to Wikipedia to back up your claim. Good scholarly information there sage nods

As u/insufferableninja pointed out, historians agree there may have been a man (yes a plain ol regular man) that your religious dude was based off of. Possibly a philosopher in those times. This is all still theoretical tho. There's no concrete evidence of that specific individual existing that can without a shadow of doubt be traced back to as an origin point. So NO, his existence is not fact

0

raptorthebun t1_j216g41 wrote

Wikipedia is actually a pretty solid source these days. There are tons of sources listed at the bottom of articles. You sound like my 6th grade teacher 20 years ago.

Also, if you read what I said carefully, I'm not claiming divinity of Jesus. I just said it was a dude who lived. You can look at what I linked, or perhaps better the one on historicity of Jesus and you'll find scholars are in agreement that Jesus was baptized and crucified and we have solid records of those two things. Everything else is up for debate. But if you want to just say no way you're wrong without any evidence on your side that's fine too. Not invested enough to argue more. Perhaps my original point didnt even improve the joke. I just thought the fact/fiction should be relating to religion and not the existence of a dude historians agree was a real guy.

0

kaiwulf t1_j217vl2 wrote

Ad hominem fallacy. Exactly what I'd expect from someone who doesn't have a real argument.

YOU keep saying all these historians agree Jesus did in fact exist. I'm correcting you and saying from a scientific research standpoint that he MAY HAVE existed. Wikipedia is a lot of things but research material it is not

1