youtube.com
>"Alexa, who is Jesuschrist?"
>"Jesuschrist is a fictional character
>"Alexa, who is Muhammad?"
>"Muhammad is a wise man that taught his people spirituality and peace"
kek, they are not being subtle anymore. This is vengeance for AI "kill the jews" Tay, right?
Most historical scholars (i.e. not the biblical historical ones aka believers) actually agree that Jesus Christ most likely never existed.
Muhammad, despite being a pedophile warlord and a literal cuck that raised another man's child, was a real, historical person.
I'd like to blame the Muslims, but communist kikes, not unlike Jow Forums's mod, are the ones behind this.
Yeah, Muhammad sure did a good job teaching spirituality and peace by having over 60 war campaigns to his name.
Why do Westcuck libturds have the need to shit out opinions on history they are completely uneducated about?
>>>"Alexa, who is Jesuschrist?"
>>"Jesuschrist is a fictional character
Does it actually say that? The secular scholarly consensus is that Jesus almost certainly existed (albeit did not have the magical powers often ascribed to him.)
Back to
Abuse of technology to push political and social agendas is technology.
I hate Muslims as much as the next goy but slaughtering the outgroup is the onlyl means of achieving peace. Tolerance and reconciliation are always met with treachery and betrayal.
>>Most historical scholars (i.e. not the biblical historical ones aka believers) actually agree that Jesus Christ most likely never existed.
You've got that backwards.
The overwhelming majority of non-believer historians say that the existence of the man is all but certain.
en.wikipedia.org
>The secular scholarly consensus is that Jesus almost certainly existed
WRONG
R
O
N
G
Anything political belongs to .
This is an application of technology. You can't bully people into silence with threats just because it agrees with ideas that have been indoctrinated into you.
You're mistaken, see: >Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[3][4][5][6][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4][nb 5] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 6][13][nb 7][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 8] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 9][19][20][21]
>The Christ myth theory is "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence."[112] In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[113][114][115][116][56]
see also:
en.wikipedia.org
>The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[4][5][6][q 2] It deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the accounts of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea.[7][8]
>all but certain
That's very, very wrong. There is extremely little evidence to support the fact that he was a historical figure at all.
They all almost exclusively rely on the Pauline letters (Paul never met Jesus personally) or on the gospels (which the first one being written down almost 80 years after Jesus allegedly died).
>>>/gaschamber/
You can fuck off there then since your opinion is strictly political and not technological.
>While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness
>religious bias and lack of methodological soundness
See
A FANG company presenting itself as a distributor of truth, yet disagreeing with the scholarly consensus recorded on wikipedia, is relevant to Jow Forums.
Go back to You can discuss it on Jow Forums, i didn't threat you to go silent.
>Most historical scholars (i.e. not the biblical historical ones aka believers) actually agree that Jesus Christ most likely never existed.
Objectively wrong, which is why retards like Aron Ra who have no scholarly credentials are made fun of by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey. Jesus mythery is historically illiterate lunacy.
Criticize it all you like, the fact remains that the majority of secular historians believe Christ was a historic figure. The position that christ was 100% mythic is a fringe belief. Read the full articles yourselves.
You keep saying secular historians, but almost all sources from that article are from religious historians.
>Read the full articles yourselves.
Ditto, and actually check the sources.
Their belief isn't worth shit, only their evidence is. "Expert testimony" is worthless in every field.
>argument from authority
I'm actually referring to Francesca Stavrakopolou and not Aron Ra.
Historians of religion, not historians who are religious. Historians of religion overwhelmingly agree that Christ existed (but of course did not have magical powers.)
I know this is going to be difficult for you to accept, but Jow Forumsatheism lied to you.
It is relevant to Jow Forums.
This is not like CoC, that can be a threat to open source community.
That’s true, though. Muslims actually believe in Jesus.
>Historians of religion, not historians who are religious
No, historians that have a religious bias.
What actually matters here is historical evidence, and of that there is very little. Almost all of these historians rely on the gospels, which are written in a period between 80 and 300 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Other sources include Josephus, which are pretty vague and refer to as many as 12 different people that he claims are an amalgam of Jesus.
> (((scholarly))) consensus
Did you know when the Jews came to Ellis Island, they hated Jesus Christ so much that they wouldn't sign by an X? They made a circle, or kikel and signed their name by that.
I would be arguing from authority if I used the belief of Linus Torvalds on the subject, not somebody with actual scholarly credentials.
>Francesca Stavrakopolou
So what? Her speciality is the Hebrew Bible and not the NT or Christ's historical era. THAT is an appeal to authority.
Discounting the gospels entirely, the non-christian sources for Jesus's existence, if considered using the same standard as other non-controversial historical figures, point clearly to his existence as a mortal man. There is a plethora of Roman citizens for whom less secular evidence exists to testify to their existence, and yet nobody calls them mythic.
>Other sources include
Muhammad, in all irony of this retardation.
Why “irony”
She's a literal doctor in Bible without religious bias.
twitter.com
The problem with this field is that it's filled with bible-thumpers that want to justify their childhood beliefs. Just look at the sources on the Wikipedia article, a majority of them are from religious schools and institutes.
Because the uneducated westcuck lefty retards who are trying to put Islam on a pedestal while shitting on Christianity, ironically don't know that the very Islam they are cushy with contradicts their moronism regarding Christianity.
>almost certainly
>we believe so
So, no evidence?
>if considered using the same standard as other non-controversial historical figures, point clearly to his existence as a mortal man
Wrong.
>plethora of Roman citizens for whom less secular evidence exists to testify to their existence, and yet nobody calls them mythic.
Wrong. They actually have evidence, such as records with names or tombstones / catacombs.
Friendly reminder that there isn't a single shred of Jesus' existence outside hearsay.
Fair enough
>They actually have evidence, such as records with names or tombstones / catacombs.
Wrong. Many Roman citizens that are believed to have existed have no direct evidence for having existed, and are merely mentioned by other Roman writers at a later date; yet nobody doubts their existence. Such is the standard of evidence expected by historians for a secular figure in Roman society at that time.
Ultimately you, like the christcucks, will believe what you want. If you choose to remain ignorant, that can't be helped. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
>Many Roman citizens that are believed to have existed have no direct evidence for having existed
Mention one example, so far you're only asserting this without any examples of the amount of evidence being more or less the same.
> and are merely mentioned by other Roman writers at a later date; yet nobody doubts their existence. Such is the standard of evidence expected by historians for a secular figure in Roman society at that time.
Ancient historians are notorious for having been unreliable, Josephus is today widely regarded as only semi-reliable for example.
Just to put things in context: There isn't a single archeologic evidence for Jesus Christ ever having existed, only second-hand information that was written down many, many years after.
> yes goy, jesus never existed, also you’re a monkey and we are the chosen people hehe
You cannot be the chosen people if there is no God to choose you.
Literally this. There's no difference in principle between Islam, Christian, and Jews since they are Abrahamic religions. Islam also hates homo. So, i really don't understand why the fuck western leftist try to push it more.
where am i?
what board is this?
i thought this is Jow Forums
> yes goy god doesn’t exist hehe
Friendly reminder that your lord and saviour, Adolph Hitler, was only a catholic by culture, and actually viewed bolshevism as the brainchild of christianity.
>Mention one example,
Shit nigger, even for Livy there is no firm evidence for when he was born and when he died. NOBODY disputes that Livy existed. Of course we have transcriptions of documents written by Livy, but go through Livy's History of Rome and pick just about any man Livy writes about. The historicity of the majority of them is disputed by nobody, but the evidence for many of them is scant, discounting Livy writing about them many years after their deaths.
I’m not a Christian friendo
what the fuck, that can't be real
>Jesus isn't a fictional character
Sure, neither is spiderman.
>even for Livy there is no firm evidence for when he was born and when he died.
And historians are honest about this, rather than bible historians that try to shoehorn Jesus as a real figure.
>pick just about any man Livy writes about. The historicity of the majority of them is disputed by nobody, but the evidence for many of them is scant, discounting Livy writing about them many years after their deaths.
Except that's literally not true, there is a wide consensus about what's generally regarded as legends and myths, and what is accepted as historical events.
en.wikipedia.org
Anyway, show me archeological evidence of Jesus and I will believe he was a real person. Until then, I remain convinced that relying on the gospels and on Josephus and on Paul's letters is anything but methodologically sound and therefore can not be trusted to be accurate.