Jesus belongs either off the chart, or on the other end. He’s either an entirely fictional character, or was just another delusional human that formed a cult.
I wouldn’t talk about “belonging” on the chart considering how nonsensical everything else is. As far as Jesus goes, he’s no more fictional than the creator’s idea of Putin and FDR.
I’m not sure what you mean read it again, that is what I was saying. Show me a shred of evidence he ever existed. I haven’t seen it yet. Best I’ve seen is “historians” creating a new “logic” that says no one would write a fictional story where the main characters lose, therefore… it must all be real? There’s no physical or written evidence to suggest this miracle makin’ magic man is even loosely based on a real person.
The historical consensus is more “it does not make sense to assume this cult formed around literally no one as a conspiracy by a dozen people to claim that they totally knew a cool guy people liked but you wouldn’t know him cause this was a few years ago and he’s dead now, compared to assuming that there was a charismatic leader who amassed a large following before being executed.” There just isn’t a reason to think a bunch of people just spontaneously decided to invent a guy and pretend they knew him and no one questioned why they’d never heard of this notorious guy who was recently alive and local to the area.
Now Moses is the one whose existence is really disputed, because basically almost everything surrounding his story is 100% false and unsupported by archaeological evidence and the timeline. The most “maybe this was a heavily mythologized person” theory speculates that maybe there was a priest of a small henotheistic cult dedicated to the canaanite storm god somewhere in the Nile delta, who in the Egyptian fashion took a name like “Yahmoses” (“-moses/-mses” being a suffix roughly meaning “priest of” as with names like “Ramses”) or whatever their name for that god was which was later shortened, and this tiny cult of at most a few hundred people traveled east by boat. The more mainstream consensus is that it’s completely fake and rooted in general cultural exchange between Canaan and Egypt, with the story of this mythical origin of the storm god’s cult being cooked up after that cult started attaining dominance and fighting with the cults of the other gods of the Canaanite pantheon.
Arguing Jesus didn’t exist is such a reddit atheist brain rot discussion, especially on a forum where almost everyone is an atheist anyway. You’re not convincing anyone of anything, you’re just being cringe.
Can you definitively prove Bill Shakespeare wasn’t a pseudonym? That Marie Antoinette wasn’t a fabrication by French Republicans? Or that Socrates was a real guy?
Dig enough and, for practically all historical figures, you are just taking it on faith that these were real people; that the records we have are not the product of some wildly elaborate fiction. Either you make your peace with that bedrock of ambiguity, or you might as well start watching videos about how the Pyramids were actually where aliens kept their barley reserves.
Jesus belongs either off the chart, or on the other end. He’s either an entirely fictional character, or was just another delusional human that formed a cult.
I wouldn’t talk about “belonging” on the chart considering how nonsensical everything else is. As far as Jesus goes, he’s no more fictional than the creator’s idea of Putin and FDR.
he isn’t a fictional character, he was a real person. whether or not he was the son of god is dependent on what you believe, but jesus existed
edit: just read your comment again im a fuckin idiot my bad
I’m not sure what you mean read it again, that is what I was saying. Show me a shred of evidence he ever existed. I haven’t seen it yet. Best I’ve seen is “historians” creating a new “logic” that says no one would write a fictional story where the main characters lose, therefore… it must all be real? There’s no physical or written evidence to suggest this miracle makin’ magic man is even loosely based on a real person.
The historical consensus is more “it does not make sense to assume this cult formed around literally no one as a conspiracy by a dozen people to claim that they totally knew a cool guy people liked but you wouldn’t know him cause this was a few years ago and he’s dead now, compared to assuming that there was a charismatic leader who amassed a large following before being executed.” There just isn’t a reason to think a bunch of people just spontaneously decided to invent a guy and pretend they knew him and no one questioned why they’d never heard of this notorious guy who was recently alive and local to the area.
Now Moses is the one whose existence is really disputed, because basically almost everything surrounding his story is 100% false and unsupported by archaeological evidence and the timeline. The most “maybe this was a heavily mythologized person” theory speculates that maybe there was a priest of a small henotheistic cult dedicated to the canaanite storm god somewhere in the Nile delta, who in the Egyptian fashion took a name like “Yahmoses” (“-moses/-mses” being a suffix roughly meaning “priest of” as with names like “Ramses”) or whatever their name for that god was which was later shortened, and this tiny cult of at most a few hundred people traveled east by boat. The more mainstream consensus is that it’s completely fake and rooted in general cultural exchange between Canaan and Egypt, with the story of this mythical origin of the storm god’s cult being cooked up after that cult started attaining dominance and fighting with the cults of the other gods of the Canaanite pantheon.
Arguing Jesus didn’t exist is such a reddit atheist brain rot discussion, especially on a forum where almost everyone is an atheist anyway. You’re not convincing anyone of anything, you’re just being cringe.
A simple link to evidence would suffice.
No. My whole point is that it’s a stupid and immaterial argument to have.
Do you have a link to evidence that you exist as a person and not a chatbot?
Can you definitively prove Bill Shakespeare wasn’t a pseudonym? That Marie Antoinette wasn’t a fabrication by French Republicans? Or that Socrates was a real guy?
Dig enough and, for practically all historical figures, you are just taking it on faith that these were real people; that the records we have are not the product of some wildly elaborate fiction. Either you make your peace with that bedrock of ambiguity, or you might as well start watching videos about how the Pyramids were actually where aliens kept their barley reserves.