▲ 118 ▼ TIL that Jesus Christ was probably born in 7–4 B.C. (thelemmy.club) submitted 10 hours ago* by ManfredMumpitz@feddit.org to c/til@lemmy.world 77 comments fedilink hide all child comments A man ahead of his time. source
[–] CandleTiger@programming.dev -4 points 2 hours ago (2 children) It is extremely disputed that he was a real person. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 13 points 2 hours ago (1 child) Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: his baptism and his crucifixion.[12][13][14][15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 49 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago) Look at the sources, they have dissent amongst themselves... "Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars." A fun excerpt... Psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurologists, from the late 19th century (Oskar Panizza[279][280][281]), through the 20th century (including Emil Rasmussen, George de Loosten, Charles Binet-Sanglé, William Hirsch,[282][283] Władysław Witwicki[284]) to the early 21st century (Evan D. Murray, Miles G. Cunningham, Bruce H. Price[285][286][287]), have suggested that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition.[288] Christians are the majority religion, so I would say "of course the majority agree". It's the very easiest position to take in the Bible scholar field, regardless of their personal beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 child) ...By imbeciles inconsistent in their own veneration of "le based peer reviewed research." He is one of the best documented historical figures ever, so by denying his existence as a person you create a mountainous list of other historical figures who are "obviously not real because i wasn't there at the time." If Jesus wasn't real, it wouldn't just be a question of Christians lying, but of the roman empire making up a character so that they could persecute this new sect of Judaism, and of the wider Jewish faith likewise making up a character for the same propaganda purposes. It's just bad religious critique. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 0 points 46 minutes ago Sure, there were lots of guys named Jesus. It was a very common name at the time. Like trying to prove that all of the "Mike" stories in the 80s refer to the one true Michael (Mike Tyson, of course). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 13 points 2 hours ago (1 child) Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: his baptism and his crucifixion.[12][13][14][15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 49 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago) Look at the sources, they have dissent amongst themselves... "Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars." A fun excerpt... Psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurologists, from the late 19th century (Oskar Panizza[279][280][281]), through the 20th century (including Emil Rasmussen, George de Loosten, Charles Binet-Sanglé, William Hirsch,[282][283] Władysław Witwicki[284]) to the early 21st century (Evan D. Murray, Miles G. Cunningham, Bruce H. Price[285][286][287]), have suggested that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition.[288] Christians are the majority religion, so I would say "of course the majority agree". It's the very easiest position to take in the Bible scholar field, regardless of their personal beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 49 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago) Look at the sources, they have dissent amongst themselves... "Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars." A fun excerpt... Psychiatrists, psychologists, and neurologists, from the late 19th century (Oskar Panizza[279][280][281]), through the 20th century (including Emil Rasmussen, George de Loosten, Charles Binet-Sanglé, William Hirsch,[282][283] Władysław Witwicki[284]) to the early 21st century (Evan D. Murray, Miles G. Cunningham, Bruce H. Price[285][286][287]), have suggested that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition.[288] Christians are the majority religion, so I would say "of course the majority agree". It's the very easiest position to take in the Bible scholar field, regardless of their personal beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 child) ...By imbeciles inconsistent in their own veneration of "le based peer reviewed research." He is one of the best documented historical figures ever, so by denying his existence as a person you create a mountainous list of other historical figures who are "obviously not real because i wasn't there at the time." If Jesus wasn't real, it wouldn't just be a question of Christians lying, but of the roman empire making up a character so that they could persecute this new sect of Judaism, and of the wider Jewish faith likewise making up a character for the same propaganda purposes. It's just bad religious critique. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 0 points 46 minutes ago Sure, there were lots of guys named Jesus. It was a very common name at the time. Like trying to prove that all of the "Mike" stories in the 80s refer to the one true Michael (Mike Tyson, of course). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 0 points 46 minutes ago Sure, there were lots of guys named Jesus. It was a very common name at the time. Like trying to prove that all of the "Mike" stories in the 80s refer to the one true Michael (Mike Tyson, of course). permalink fedilink source parent
