Lately I’ve heard people attacking the veracity of the fairy tale book with statements like “Jesus wasn’t real” or it was a psy op operation by the Romans that got out of control. And I hate talking about reddit but it’s basically the atheism mods policy over there that Jesus wasn’t real.

I usually rely on the Wikipedia as my litmus test through life, which shouldn’t work in theory but is great in practice:

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE. The contrary perspective, that Jesus was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.

Edit: My suggestion to any who would like to see my opinion changed (see above quote) is to get on the Wikipedia and work towards changing the page. My upvote goes to Flying Squid for reminding us “does not matter at all because that’s not who Christians worship”

Edit 2: practicality changed to practice

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
    194·
    8 months ago

    Here is my biggest issue with this question. Given the popularity of Christianity, Jesus is accepted by default. Mythicism, the idea that Jesus didn’t exist as a historical figure, is regarded as a claim needing proof.

    This is 180 degrees backwards. Jesus not existing should operate as the null hypothesis until his historicity is proven. Seemingly every discussion, even the quotes in OP’s article, discuss historicity as the null hypothesis and require mythicism to proof the non existence.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      147·
      8 months ago

      Jesus not existing should operate as the null hypothesis until his historicity is proven

      This standard of proof invalidates a massive chunk of historical figures that are commonly accepted as having existed.

      I mean, how do you know that Alexander the Great existed? We don’t have his body. All the major sources about him wrote long after he died. The only evidence we have of Socrates existing comes from his students; how do you know Plato and Xenophon didn’t make him up? Sure, Julius Caesar wrote some books, but maybe they were later forgeries, since it’s not like we have parchment that he wrote on.

      It is not a reasonable null hypothesis to state that all sources describing a historical figure were lying, misled, or delusional. That is a positive claim that should not be accepted without evidence.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        8 months ago

        This standard of proof invalidates a massive chunk of historical figures that are commonly accepted as having existed.

        And? It does not affect my life in the least if Alexander the Great didn’t exist.

        The only evidence we have of Socrates existing comes from his students; how do you know Plato and Xenophon didn’t make him up?

        I don’t, but I also don’t care. If there is wisdom in the words that are attributed to Socrates, what else matters? The existence of Socrates is meaningless. The Socratic method is great for instruction, and it remains such irrespective of who developed it.

        It is not a reasonable null hypothesis to state that all sources describing a historical figure were lying, misled, or delusional. That is a positive claim that should not be accepted without evidence.

        And no one is saying that, I’m afraid you don’t understand and the null hypothesis. I am not making a positive claim that these figures are in fact fictitious. But someone is claiming they did exist, and they bear the burden of proof.

        I think it’s ridiculous to claim that an actual standard of evidence is too high of a bar. If you cannot reasonably demonstrate that a person existed, then why would you believe it? It’s certainly shouldn’t be accepted as truth, perhaps conjecture or hypothesis at best.