• MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    All Im claiming is Yeshua existed and he was a rabbi around Galilee. The religion is likely very loosely based upon things he said as well as stuff people added (eg “render unto Caesar” is just saying pay your taxes).

    Im not claiming historical evidence exists for the miracles.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      All Im claiming is Yeshua existed and he was a rabbi around Galilee.

      And yet, you have zero evidence to support that claim. In reality, there were about 100 Yeshua’s (It was a common name), who were rabbis, in that region.

      And some of the more fantastic stories were cribbed from already extant mythology.

      Its a lot like the “evidence” of “divine inspiration” for the NT is “Well, it matches the OT!!” No shit, the people writing the NT were familiar with the OT, and made attempts to do so.

      So, when we get down to brass tacks, this “Yeshua” character was likely an amalgamation of several people. Like John Mastodon.

      Loads of people talk about John Mastodon right now. Does that mean John Mastodon existed or exists?

      Spoiler: yes, John Mastodon exists, and peace be upon him, and may he grace us with neverending blessings delivered by his Arch Angel - ActivltyPub.

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I have offered a source with multiple linked sources that explains why this consensus exists. If you choose to ignore that consensus of experts you are choosing to not accept what people who have spent decades working on this question which is your right but IMO is rarely the wise choice when you are uneducated on the subject.

        What’s the proof fir this amalgamation idea you are claiming and how of you explain thousands of people all across that part of the world having the same beliefs and names for Jesus within 3-4 decades of his death and please remember this is 2000 years ago so news travelled slowly.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I have offered a source with multiple linked sources that explains why this consensus exists.

          It doesn’t exist, though. And, if it did, it’s consensus without basis.

          In reality, any consensus that may exists, does so purely due to environment. Why are we trying to even prove the existence of such a person? Because it’s the dominant religious belief in this country. I’m sure just as much consensus around the existence of Mythras the man exists, too.

          What’s the proof fir this amalgamation idea you are claiming and how of you explain thousands of people all across that part of the world having the same beliefs and names for Jesus within 3-4 decades of his death and please remember this is 2000 years ago so news travelled slowly.

          Because that’s how cults start? Shit, have you seen how quickly Scientology has grown? Does Xenu actually exist?

          News in the Roman empire took… well, as long as it took to walk from city to city. And the cultists were adamant about spreading the word. 100 years after the guy lived, of course.

          • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The basis fir the consensus was explained. You clearly did not understand that.

            So you have nothing to substantiate your counter claim to the one presented by historians and you think your claim has validity? That isnt how any of this works.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              54 minutes ago

              The basis fir the consensus was explained.

              Yes, I get it. The basis for consensus was “It’s the dominant religion, so it must be fact”.

              By the same basis, Hercules existed.

              So you have nothing to substantiate your counter claim

              It’s not my job to prove someone’s conclusions. The onus for the evidence of existence lays with the person making the claim. And it’s very clearly stated: There is no evidence. The best we got are some documents written by biased sources, half a century after the fact.