if there are then there are some issues with the new testament
Comment on Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?
lemmy_nightmare@sh.itjust.works 6 days agoDo you mean to say that there are actual remains of Jesus right now somewhere on Earth?
Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 days ago
nyctre@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Ofc there are. Unless they got destroyed someway or another. There was a guy named Jesus that was crucified by the romans and all that. There is proof of that. It’s all the biblical stuff that there’s no proof of.
SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 6 days ago
There isn’t actually. The proof is basically: it’s embarassing that their cult reader got painfully crucified, so the writers of the new testament wouldn’t have made that shit up.
nyctre@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Don’t believe in god either way, but if it’s good enough for the majority of historians , then it’s good enough for me. Not sure why you’d need more, but you do you.
SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 6 days ago
It isn’t. Historians would love to have independent evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but there isn’t… so most historians refrain from taking a position one way or the other. The ones that do have to make do with what little objective information they have, and the best they can come up with is: well because of this embarassing thing, it’s more likely that he did exist and was crucified than that he didn’t, because why would they make that up?
That’s rather weak evidence, and far from “proof”.
Well for one because the more prominent people who have studied this have a vested interest in wanting it to be true. For example, John P. Meier, who posited this criterion of embarassment that I outlined in my previous comment, isn’t really a historian but a catholic priest, professor of theology (not history) and a writer of books on the subject.