There is historical evidence for Napoleon. The same applies to Jesus. What does not exist is evidence for miracles, God, or other magical phenomena. Historical documents are never treated uncritically. One important criterion, for example, is plausibility. If a document states that Napoleon could breathe fire, it may say so, but it would not be recognized as historical fact. And the Bible is no more than that. A text with mythological stories for people who thought that a rainbow was a sign from God.
Seriously: how stupid do you have to be to consider hearsay stories from 2000+ years ago as empirical evidence? You don’t do that for stories from Greece, Scandinavia, Egypt, or India with their religious legends. It’s just mythology. And to be honest, it’s just embarrassing to take it seriously.
Aequitas@feddit.org 5 days ago
There is historical evidence for Napoleon. The same applies to Jesus. What does not exist is evidence for miracles, God, or other magical phenomena. Historical documents are never treated uncritically. One important criterion, for example, is plausibility. If a document states that Napoleon could breathe fire, it may say so, but it would not be recognized as historical fact. And the Bible is no more than that. A text with mythological stories for people who thought that a rainbow was a sign from God.
Seriously: how stupid do you have to be to consider hearsay stories from 2000+ years ago as empirical evidence? You don’t do that for stories from Greece, Scandinavia, Egypt, or India with their religious legends. It’s just mythology. And to be honest, it’s just embarrassing to take it seriously.