you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 7 months ago* (8 children)

That's incorrect. Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure, based on many non-religious sources.

Of course most of the stories about him are made up, but the scientific consensus is that he existed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Could also be an amalgamation of multiple people of a particular movement or philosophy. This happens a lot when you adapt a book to a movie, for example and you end up with characters that are a combination of characters from the original text.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

    based on many

    Yeah I dunno about "many"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    From that article:

    The non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus are Josephus (a Jewish historian and commander in Galilee) and Tacitus (a Roman historian and Senator).

    So two. Not "many".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not that many independent sources actually. The best evidence for me is that if he didn't exist then why make up the ridiculous Roman census Nazareth story?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    There are so many sources that there is more evidence for his existence than for any other person living at the time.

    This article mentions at least 14 independent sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

    You are of course free to dismiss all of the sources and have your own opinion, that's perfectly fine, but do acknowledge that you would be going against established scientific consensus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment