Comment on What's the deal the miracles jesus chose to do?

Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• swordgeek@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  There is actually a hell of a lot of evidence he did.

  You can read a capsule summary with references on Wikipedia, but it is accepted fact among historians - not just religious scholars - that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Judea under King Herod, was baptised by John the Baptist, and was cruxified under the orders of Pontius Pilate.

  Here’s a fun excerpt: “There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus such as the letters of Paul (contemporary of Jesus who personally knew eyewitnesses), the gospels, and non-Christian sources such as Josephus (Jewish historian and commander in Galilee) and Tacitus (Roman historian and Senator).”

  I’m an atheist, but a historical Jesus almost certainly did exist.

  source

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    only two key events of the biblical story of Jesus’s life are widely accepted as historical, based on the criterion of embarrassment, namely his baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of Pontius Pilate.

    Except there is no historical evidence of these events.
    The only evidence there is, is that John the Baptist is an actual historical figure, and there exist AFAIK a reference to Pontius Pilate, although his position is unclear. But the events are NOT documented and neither is Jesus.

    The historicity of Jesus is a concept driven by Christians that have undertaken the biggest accumulated search in history spanning 1800 years, to document the existence of Jesus, and they have turned op NOTHING!!! Just the Mormon church alone has spend massive amounts of resources on this for more than a century. Obviously the Catholic church is by far in the lead, since they are both the oldest and most wealthy of all.

    There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors

    No there are not, not a single one is contemporary, and not a single one is first hand or even has a reliable source. This is required to be considered reliable historical evidence.
    It may sound convincing on the surface, until you dig into it, and find out it’s all hear say, and it’s all created AFTER Christianity became a thing.
    Also evidence for the existence of Jesus is just about the most faked historical/archeological thing there is. Because it creates fame like nothing else, and churches are willing to pay enormous sums to get their hand on it.

    I’m an atheist, but a historical Jesus almost certainly did exist.

    You didn’t investigate enough.

    This is a long piece, but it’s easier than doing the research yourself:
    www.atheists.org/activism/…/did-jesus-exist/

    source
  • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Other people also second hand referencing the circulating myth/rumor is not the same thing as a first hand account of the person. References to him popping up “within a century” is not a firsthand account-just people writing down hearsay.

    source
• Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Ok but like if I asked why did Gandolf stop to fight the the Balrog you’d have no issue answering.

  source

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Gandalf

    No but that’s because Lord of the Rings is way more consistent than the Bible is.

    source