kaiwulf t1_j20zeag wrote on December 28, 2022 at 9:39 PM

Reply to comment by raptorthebun in If Jesus was real they wouldn't call it the crucifixion. by yomommafool

Ah, I see you did your so-called research by going straight to Wikipedia to back up your claim. Good scholarly information there sage nods

As u/insufferableninja pointed out, historians agree there may have been a man (yes a plain ol regular man) that your religious dude was based off of. Possibly a philosopher in those times. This is all still theoretical tho. There's no concrete evidence of that specific individual existing that can without a shadow of doubt be traced back to as an origin point. So NO, his existence is not fact

raptorthebun t1_j216g41 wrote on December 28, 2022 at 10:28 PM

Wikipedia is actually a pretty solid source these days. There are tons of sources listed at the bottom of articles. You sound like my 6th grade teacher 20 years ago.

Also, if you read what I said carefully, I'm not claiming divinity of Jesus. I just said it was a dude who lived. You can look at what I linked, or perhaps better the one on historicity of Jesus and you'll find scholars are in agreement that Jesus was baptized and crucified and we have solid records of those two things. Everything else is up for debate. But if you want to just say no way you're wrong without any evidence on your side that's fine too. Not invested enough to argue more. Perhaps my original point didnt even improve the joke. I just thought the fact/fiction should be relating to religion and not the existence of a dude historians agree was a real guy.

kaiwulf t1_j217vl2 wrote on December 28, 2022 at 10:38 PM

Ad hominem fallacy. Exactly what I'd expect from someone who doesn't have a real argument.

YOU keep saying all these historians agree Jesus did in fact exist. I'm correcting you and saying from a scientific research standpoint that he MAY HAVE existed. Wikipedia is a lot of things but research material it is not