Sure man, Jesus, Muhammad never existed., You can believe all you want. I am fed up of arguing the same thing over and over. Regarding jesus of Islam significantly not different because ebonite Christians and Gospel of Thomas also existed which followed non canon new testament.
Again, that is not what I said. In all words: “there is not enough evidence to posit that the existence of Jesus the Man as an undeniable fact.”
Some (probably most Western) historians believe that he did exist in some form, some believe that he was organically constructed after the fact from stories and common experiences. Some scares ones even believe that the entire thing was concocted by the Roman State Church to co-opt the movement into looking like the previous Imperial Cult.
But history is not a “believe all you want” situation and you can’t just come here with all that self-righteous arrogance based on one YouTube video and a lot of faith and think you can just discredit serious historiographical theories while being taken seriously. You can have your faith personally, but to put it above historical investigation is anti-materialist and if you can’t handle actual history discussion with civility this forum might not be for you.
Bro dont get overwhelmed by your historical analysis. I don’t know you and you are no credible historian of antiquity. I follow Bart Ehrman and saw the credible information and I posted it. I come from Asia and I am not a born Christian or anything. We hate Christians btw. So don’t just assume what my faith is and don’t assume you are just a great historian of any kind. You are entitled to your “materialistic” Analysis. I don’t give much damm about it. Problem of the West is some commies have read few things here and there and they think they have become judges and historians… It’s same like AntiVaxxers speaking about vaccines and conspiracy theories about mRNA vaccines. Lol. Sure you can believe he either existed or non existed Or you can argue endless forever. It’s either to your bias of judgement. Sure there are racist historians in the West who thinks Muhammed didn’t exist because Muslims would have faked the entire history and also the Tomb of Muhammed in Medina. Such racists and foolish historicity can only be expected from westerners and their shenanigans. Or for another thing I am not a muslim. Regarding debate with you about the historicity of jesus, sorry dont have time and western idiotic ideological skepticism. I rely on clear cut ancient historians who are more credible than you and me and I try to educate people. If you have a bias that all history about Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed is all messed up I can’t do much change. I have enough civility and straightforward ness to tell you, you go with your skepticism bias and become a famous historian I will read your book some time later.
If you have a bias that all history about Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed is all messed up
Odd, I have actually never said anything like that. In fact I never mentioned Buddha (because I don’t know much about him or really care tbh), and I even pointed out how a historical Muhammed was way more likely than a Jesus. I’m pretty sure I also haven’t been rude to you, and not sure if my country counts as “Western” (Brazil). Nor have I claimed that I’m a “great historian” by pointing out that there are actually a lot of Christ Myth historians out there and that their theories don’t fall apart with such well know texts like Tacitus’s Annals. Putting words into other people’s mouths to frame them as idiots or bigots is not exactly respectful.
I answered most of your remarks with why they’re not a silver bullet against Christ myth theory, you responded with ad hominem, strawmanning my arguments or arguments of authority with Ehrman. Much as you follow Bartman and posted what you thought was credible information, I’ve read a lot of early Roman history and pointed out how you were misinterpreting that information. I don’t see the need for hostility, though I admit I was partly at fault there for assuming you’re Christian.
Also none of the myth theories involve entire societies faking entire histories. As I pointed out, a lot of it involves taking actual stories and shared experiences, pre-existing beliefs and myths and merging them in a syncretic fashion, often purely organically. For example in Brazil we have a set of very modern and specific religions that were formed by mixing Christian and West African figures and stories while under suppression. Later on they went on to become closer to Kardecism due to this one being similar but not banned. There wasn’t a concerted effort to “fake” that Oxalá is related to Jesus, this was born out of the encounter of two diverse sets of beliefs colliding within the horrible conditions of slavery, genocide and religious suppression.
Sure man, Jesus, Muhammad never existed., You can believe all you want. I am fed up of arguing the same thing over and over. Regarding jesus of Islam significantly not different because ebonite Christians and Gospel of Thomas also existed which followed non canon new testament.
Again, that is not what I said. In all words: “there is not enough evidence to posit that the existence of Jesus the Man as an undeniable fact.”
Some (probably most Western) historians believe that he did exist in some form, some believe that he was organically constructed after the fact from stories and common experiences. Some scares ones even believe that the entire thing was concocted by the Roman State Church to co-opt the movement into looking like the previous Imperial Cult.
But history is not a “believe all you want” situation and you can’t just come here with all that self-righteous arrogance based on one YouTube video and a lot of faith and think you can just discredit serious historiographical theories while being taken seriously. You can have your faith personally, but to put it above historical investigation is anti-materialist and if you can’t handle actual history discussion with civility this forum might not be for you.
Bro dont get overwhelmed by your historical analysis. I don’t know you and you are no credible historian of antiquity. I follow Bart Ehrman and saw the credible information and I posted it. I come from Asia and I am not a born Christian or anything. We hate Christians btw. So don’t just assume what my faith is and don’t assume you are just a great historian of any kind. You are entitled to your “materialistic” Analysis. I don’t give much damm about it. Problem of the West is some commies have read few things here and there and they think they have become judges and historians… It’s same like AntiVaxxers speaking about vaccines and conspiracy theories about mRNA vaccines. Lol. Sure you can believe he either existed or non existed Or you can argue endless forever. It’s either to your bias of judgement. Sure there are racist historians in the West who thinks Muhammed didn’t exist because Muslims would have faked the entire history and also the Tomb of Muhammed in Medina. Such racists and foolish historicity can only be expected from westerners and their shenanigans. Or for another thing I am not a muslim. Regarding debate with you about the historicity of jesus, sorry dont have time and western idiotic ideological skepticism. I rely on clear cut ancient historians who are more credible than you and me and I try to educate people. If you have a bias that all history about Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed is all messed up I can’t do much change. I have enough civility and straightforward ness to tell you, you go with your skepticism bias and become a famous historian I will read your book some time later.
Odd, I have actually never said anything like that. In fact I never mentioned Buddha (because I don’t know much about him or really care tbh), and I even pointed out how a historical Muhammed was way more likely than a Jesus. I’m pretty sure I also haven’t been rude to you, and not sure if my country counts as “Western” (Brazil). Nor have I claimed that I’m a “great historian” by pointing out that there are actually a lot of Christ Myth historians out there and that their theories don’t fall apart with such well know texts like Tacitus’s Annals. Putting words into other people’s mouths to frame them as idiots or bigots is not exactly respectful.
I answered most of your remarks with why they’re not a silver bullet against Christ myth theory, you responded with ad hominem, strawmanning my arguments or arguments of authority with Ehrman. Much as you follow Bartman and posted what you thought was credible information, I’ve read a lot of early Roman history and pointed out how you were misinterpreting that information. I don’t see the need for hostility, though I admit I was partly at fault there for assuming you’re Christian.
Also none of the myth theories involve entire societies faking entire histories. As I pointed out, a lot of it involves taking actual stories and shared experiences, pre-existing beliefs and myths and merging them in a syncretic fashion, often purely organically. For example in Brazil we have a set of very modern and specific religions that were formed by mixing Christian and West African figures and stories while under suppression. Later on they went on to become closer to Kardecism due to this one being similar but not banned. There wasn’t a concerted effort to “fake” that Oxalá is related to Jesus, this was born out of the encounter of two diverse sets of beliefs colliding within the horrible conditions of slavery, genocide and religious suppression.