Right, that’s kind of what I’m saying, the book mentions a person with a name and location (ish). Then finding a guy there when the name is fairly common does not equate all things said about him to be true. Far from it it seems. Especially if the book has fantastical claims outside the realm of reality about said person and is inconsistent on his story.
At best you get a King Arthur story, was there a king or ruler in said period for (part of) England? Probably. Did he become king because he pulled out a magical sword from the rock? No.
There are historical accounts that align with some of the events that as recorded in the Bible. The person existed and went around claiming to be the son of a god. This we know. The rest of it is myth and legend.
This is more “there’s thousands of people following a guy who was crucified named Yeshua” vs “we have proof of a guy named Yeshua”.
What historians seemingly agree upon is that there was a guy who preached something that was probably reformist in nature named Yeshua. We don’t have much more than that.
roofuskit@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yes, because historians were like “yeah there was a guy named that, so this religious book must be right about him existing.”
Don’t be daft.
kryptonidas@lemmings.world 5 days ago
Right, that’s kind of what I’m saying, the book mentions a person with a name and location (ish). Then finding a guy there when the name is fairly common does not equate all things said about him to be true. Far from it it seems. Especially if the book has fantastical claims outside the realm of reality about said person and is inconsistent on his story.
At best you get a King Arthur story, was there a king or ruler in said period for (part of) England? Probably. Did he become king because he pulled out a magical sword from the rock? No.
roofuskit@lemmy.world 5 days ago
There are historical accounts that align with some of the events that as recorded in the Bible. The person existed and went around claiming to be the son of a god. This we know. The rest of it is myth and legend.
DadVolante@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
He existed alright but we have zero idea if he claimed to be the son of God. That was added much later after his death.
Jesus could in fact be an algamation of various men at the time who led the religious/social movement that would eventually.
So even the “he said he was the son of God” is a myth and legend.
But there definitely was a dude who was alive back then who had a LOT of complaints concerning the church and the government.
uienia@lemmy.world 5 days ago
We don’t know that, because there are no such sources. But we have concluded that he most likely did.
Lightor@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Can I see evidence you have of those historical accounts?
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 5 days ago
This is more “there’s thousands of people following a guy who was crucified named Yeshua” vs “we have proof of a guy named Yeshua”.
What historians seemingly agree upon is that there was a guy who preached something that was probably reformist in nature named Yeshua. We don’t have much more than that.