Such criteria is commonly applied to virtually EVERY significant figure in history
That is simply not true. There’s a lot of historical figures from Antiquity for whom we have zero archeological evidence, it’s kind of the norm in fact. Literary evidence is fine if it can be corroborated from multiple independent sources. If we go by your standards then Socrates and Pythagoras are not historical figures, neither is Tacitus, or Hannibal, or most people who were not kings and did not have steles or coin to their name.
Y’shua ben Josef during his lifetime, who later got turned in to an almost impossibly, legendary figure by political, financial and religious institutions
A couple centuries before his embellishment by the roman state, the so-called Jesus movement was flourishing and started to expand in pretty much every direction. The existence of this movement is abundantly attested in independent sources from very distant places.
Are you saying this movement did not exist and the sources that attest to it are not reliable ? Are you saying there was a movement but it wasn’t founded by a guy named Y’shua ben Josef from Galilee ? Why would that be ? Do you think they lied, or forgot the name and origin of their founder ? I understand the idea but what would be the point, and how would those various sub-groups, some of which were very distant geographically, have coordinated their lie so perfectly ?
At one point Okham’s razor says the most probable thing is that a guy named Y’shua from Galilee did indeed start a religious movement. It’s happened before, it’s happened again, why would this specific occurrence need an esoteric explanation ?
Wow, it is as if you need something to be true, in the deepest sense, in order to validate your life?
Dude– and THAT’S the part I always try to confirm. Live your life!
Enjoy our silly, mutual existence, if you can!
WE ARE HERE F0R A LITTLE WHILE, and also we like our animal friends et al.
The ride will be over soon, my friend. So let’s enjoy…
Yeah well fuck those platitudes you must have me mistaken for a 13 year old on TikTok.
I don’t see how baiting a conversation then refusing to partake in it is “living your life” but hey good job Kerouac you’ve got this
Hahaha… now there you go!
Now THAT’S the way we do things, mate! XD
Looks like you tried to reply to my actual response, and then sort of went all Gonzo-weird ness for motivational purposes?
Well, HELLO THERE, fellow freakazoid!
(I mean, that’s what the point is here, right..?)
I honestly don’t understand the point here and your sarcastic mode makes the whole experience tedious and confusing.
You seem to be arguing that Jesus shouldn’t be considered a historical figure, for reasons that somehow do not apply to other historical figures, but you don’t wish to engage with actual discussion on the matter. I’m at a loss here and suspect you may be experiencing a critical shortage of slack.
Again– a very whitewashed theory.
So what you’re telling me there is that you didn’t actually read it there, Bob?
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 5 hours ago
Haha, and later on, some group of assholes tried to make hay with the original guy… to the extent that whatever he might have actually said (remember the Gnostics?) to the message of bullshit “Christianity?”
Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 4 hours ago
I think you may have personal feelings against christianity mixed up with the historical stuff and it doesn’t make for interesting discourse.