65
Jesus was a historical person. This doesn’t mean Christianity is correct, but there is sufficient historical evidence and most mainstream scholars of the era agree on this. (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think Lemmy has a problem with history in general, since most people on here have degrees/training in STEM. I see a lot of inaccurate “pop history” shared on here, and a lack of understanding of historiography/how historians analyze primary sources.

The rejection of Jesus’s historicity seems to be accepting C S Lewis’s argument - that if he existed, he was a “lunatic, liar, or lord,” instead of realizing that there was nothing unusual about a messianic Jewish troublemaker in Judea during the early Roman Empire.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 10 months ago (12 children)

As you indicated, this isn't an unpopular opinion in the wider world. There are records outside of Christian scripture that mention Jesus. No legitimate historians doubt that he existed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah - it is an unpopular opinion on Lemmy though. I’ve been accused of being Christian for making this argument, as if accepting the historicity of the figure inherently means accepting the claim that he was a divine being.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    historicity

    I think you’re looking for the word “history”

    edit: sorry.. I try not to be that guy, but I couldn’t help myself

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -18 points 10 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 12 points 10 months ago*

    Ehrman has said he progressed from evangelical belief to agnosticism, identifying the problem of suffering as decisive. He has written, "the problem of suffering became for me the problem of faith" and has said, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian". In a 2008 interview he said, "I simply didn't believe that there was a God of any sort".

    Ehrman has said that he is both agnostic and atheist but that "I usually confuse people when I tell them I'm both". "Atheism is a statement about faith and agnosticism is a statement about epistemology", he said.

    Ehrman argues that Jesus of Nazareth existed historically, and has summarized the claim in popular form "he did exist, whether we like it or not". His position on Christology is historical rather than confessional. In summarizing How Jesus Became God, NPR recorded his judgment that "Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God". He has also written that Jesus did not teach postmortem reward and punishment as popularly conceived. In a 2020 essay he argued that Jesus proclaimed resurrection and the coming kingdom rather than eternal torment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago (4 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Is Bart Ehrman a “religious scholar”?

    Modern biblical scholarship starts with a prima facie assumption that miracles and god are not real. It’s a very rich field, with many people with a variety of religious beliefs and non beliefs.

    Your ignorance and rejection of an entire academic field is no different from a creationist rejecting the academic consensus of biologists.

    Please give me an example of “legitimate historian.” Do you read much academic history? Do you have a degree or any formal training in history on which to make the claim that you can distinguish “legitimate” historians from illegitimate ones?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    I'm so puzzled by this insistence that all who analyze religious history must be religious nutcases. Even if you write off all the scholars who are religious, religion still exists as a concept in the world, and in the same way you don't have to be a virus to study virology, you don't have to be religious to study religion. There are plenty of atheists who are deeply interested in religion, if for no other reason than the massive impact it has on all our lives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent