this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
442 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19179 readers
4582 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesDarwin -1 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Is it though? It seems there is no evidence and that it is more politically correct to say that he existed.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

By the same measure you could say the same thing about many other historical figures. There is enough historical documents that meet the same standards used by everyone to say that Jesus at least existed but thats pretty much it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is. Furthermore, as an atheist, I don't feel like believing in the existence of Jesus compromises my position any. On the contrary, I've confused a few less-informed Christians by telling them that I believe Jesus existed but I don't believe he was divine.

Besides that, stories like the Nativity seem to pretty much just be myth.

[–] CharlesDarwin 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh sure. The supernatural claims need evidence and there is nothing at all for that. I used to hold more or less the same position (historical Jesus; supernatural claims are to be dismissed), but just based on cultural inertia. I honestly don't know what the mainstream historical position is at this point. In any case, I wonder what they use as evidence of the existence of the character of Jesus being a real person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Wikipedia article has a pretty good summary.

Essentially, we have non-Christian sources claiming he existed from only a few decades after he died. Furthermore, no ancient critics of Christianity argue that Jesus didn't exist. Then there are aspects of the story that you'd assume early Christians wouldn't want to make up. This includes him being baptised by John the Baptist. It's a little embarrassing for the alleged Messiah to be baptised by someone considered to be a normal dude. Sure Christians have kinda retconned its significance but if you were making it up whole-cloth why would you make that part of the story?

Similarly, the crucifixion. Try and take your mind back 1900 years. Crucifixion is a humiliating punishment, designed to shame criminals. If you were creating a mythical figure, in that time, why on Earth would you have him die that way? It doesn't make much sense. To suppose Jesus is a wholly mythical figure is necessarily to suppose he's an invention. Sure, maybe you could make a compelling anti-hero from the crucifixion story but you want to be fabricating the world's first universal religion. Why make your job harder by so closely associating your so-called Messiah with a method of execution often associated with petty thieves and brigands?

[–] CharlesDarwin 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's interesting to flip over to the talk portion of that page. When reading through the article, I wondered about some of the language myself. Seems I was right to read through the Talk tab...seems the best way to describe the consensus is that he was more likely to exist than not. But that's really about as strong a position as can be put forth (honestly) by the advocates of a historic Jesus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I said any different? All we are reasonably sure of is:

  1. He existed.
  2. He was baptised by John the Baptist.
  3. He was crucified.

However, any non-Christian who claims that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, as the original commenter did, discredits all of us non-Christians who find it ridiculous to believe that this man was the Messiah.

[–] CharlesDarwin 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure of any of those three. The consensus seems to be that it's probably more likely he existed vs. not. But there is no real evidence for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I'm honestly curious as to what sort of evidence you'd like to see? By the standards of ancient history, Jesus of Nazareth is a reasonably well-attested figure.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lol. Do you know that Jesus myther are seen un the historic community like flat earther?

[–] CharlesDarwin 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I was not aware of that. What is used as proof of his existence?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I will point you to the evidence but first proof to me that you exist.