President Donald Trump revealed on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast an executive order instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek out and prosecute "anti-Christian bias.""To confront such weaponization and religious persecution, today I'm signing an executive order to make our Attorney ...
Every source of evidence I have heard of concerning Jesus having actually existed is either from the Bible or from religious relics like the shroud of Turin, that also aren’t even real.
So you look at biased non-academic resources and then conclude that the belief is not academic? Do you not get the problem is the resources you are using?
I mentioned a very specific source to start with which is Reddit’s askhistorians FAQ. Try looking at that because it is entirely constructed off of academic history.
You can choose to believe whatever you want but the consensus of historians focused on this is that he had to exist in some fashion albeit not as a messiah.
“There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him.”
And, not even where it should be at.
But, I suppose we should all accept Hercules lived, was a demigod, and was a great warrior, because a lot of people wrote about him.
And, while we’re at it, we all know, and should accept as fact, that Mythras lived, because a lot of people wrote about him, and how he died, and rose again to save his people.
And you’re ignoring all the nuance explained there about why historians accept the existence of someone for what reason? It isn’t because you are educated in this field.
You keep trying build strawmen as Im not claiming Jesus was divine. Why?
There’s little to no nuance needed here: Is there evidence? No. Should there be? Yes.
Because that’s how credibility works. If you start your research at bad sources, you get to bad conclusions.
Does Xenu exist? I mean, Scientology at one point pre-internet, was one of the fastest growing religions, and they all talk about Xenu. Obviously, Xenu MUST exist, right?
Are you trying to defend a strawman argument? Are you that daft?
Im not claiming the Bible is true dummy
No, I’m building on “credibility of sources”. And the credibility for the sources of a single person, named Yeshua (Or Jesus, or Christ, or whatever) being the single person responsible for setting off the formation of a sect of judaism is… thin, to say the least.
In fact, most documents lack any credibility at all.
Let me ask you: Is it more likely the above scenario as laid out is accurate, or would it be more likely a group of reformists, started creating tall tales about things that happened, and speeches given, and every telling adding more fiction to each recounting, and possible a core group coming up with the “core story” of a man? Like how a group of people developed the persona of “Anonymous” back in 2007-ish? Or, do you believe there is a single person named “Anonymous” who did all the hacking and griefing too?
Basically, the latter is what I consider to be far more likely. Just like Hercules and John Mastodon. I do not believe either of those individuals spoken of all the time actually existed, and are rather an amalgamation of ideas, into one person. He is a meme. That’s all.
You got a specific link for this source of info? Because I’m looking at their FAQ right now and the only thing even mentioning Jesus is specifically about what Askhistorians users think of Reza Asland and his work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
This is the answer in the FAQ which links to another as well.