Re:The data are clear: The boys are not all right
by jmopp on Thursday February 10, 2022 @12:40AM
(#30282809)
This. The existence of Jesus says nothing about his divinity or the validity of Christianity. We have more evidence for the existence of Muhammad. Does that make Islam the 'correct' religion? We have even more evidence for the existence of Joseph Smith. Does that make Mormonism the 'correct' religion? We have video recordings of L. Ron Hubbard, along with many people still alive who have met him. Does that make Scientology the 'correct' religion?
Re:The data are clear: The boys are not all right
by nautilius on Thursday February 10, 2022 @08:57AM
(#30286018)
Exactly. The possible existence of someone names Jesus ~2000 years ago gives zero validity to anything. But we don't even know that. It takes faith to believe in Jesus as a historical figure. There is as much evidence as for the existence of Harry Potter.
Re:The data are clear: The boys are not all right
by tsol on Wednesday February 09, 2022 @11:51PM
(#30282567)
Jesus definitely existed as a person, we have records from the time mentioning him
Re:The data are clear: The boys are not all right
by thecage411 on Thursday February 10, 2022 @12:05AM
(#30282641)
That is overstating it a bit; there are mentions decades (but not centuries) after his reported death.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus has a good overview of the non biblical sources.
Re:The data are clear: The boys are not all right
by tsol on Thursday February 10, 2022 @01:31AM
(#30283039)
You're right, after looking it up it was Muhammed who we have records mentioning either during life or within ~30 years[1]. For Jesus it definitely came after.
1- https://i.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_...
Raises hand: Atheist here who thinks that a historical Jesus is at least plausible. Obviously not a son of god, though, that would have been embellishment by later generations.