𝔗𝚎𝚑 𝔅𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚔𝚒Far to many people think that Jesus from the Bible was light skinned, even though he grew up in what we call the Middle East.
TachyonTeleIf he actually lived it might even matter.
roofuskitYeshua of Nazareth is a historically confirmed individual. He was real, really the son of a god? Probably not.
Since it was a fairly common name, you might as well say John from Richmond is a confirmed individual.
Yes, because historians were like “yeah there was a guy named that, so this religious book must be right about him existing.”
Don’t be daft.
Right, that’s kind of what I’m saying, the book mentions a person with a name and location (ish). Then finding a guy there when the name is fairly common does not equate all things said about him to be true. Far from it it seems. Especially if the book has fantastical claims outside the realm of reality about said person and is inconsistent on his story.
At best you get a King Arthur story, was there a king or ruler in said period for (part of) England? Probably. Did he become king because he pulled out a magical sword from the rock? No.
There are historical accounts that align with some of the events that as recorded in the Bible. The person existed and went around claiming to be the son of a god. This we know. The rest of it is myth and legend.
Dadd VolanteHe existed alright but we have zero idea if he claimed to be the son of God. That was added much later after his death.
Jesus could in fact be an algamation of various men at the time who led the religious/social movement that would eventually.
So even the “he said he was the son of God” is a myth and legend.
But there definitely was a dude who was alive back then who had a LOT of complaints concerning the church and the government.
We don’t know that, because there are no such sources. But we have concluded that he most likely did.
Can I see evidence you have of those historical accounts?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
This article is well sourced. There is a section on non-christian sources as well. It even highlights the view that he didn’t exist as a fringe stance.
Interesting read, thanks
This is more “there’s thousands of people following a guy who was crucified named Yeshua” vs “we have proof of a guy named Yeshua”.
What historians seemingly agree upon is that there was a guy who preached something that was probably reformist in nature named Yeshua. We don’t have much more than that.