• frog_brawler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Jesus Christ is very specific. Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day… that is fake.

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well that’s an entirely different question. Entirely different field.

      “the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day” is for silly Christians.

      The question under discussion here is about Roman-era history.

      • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        You suck ass at reading. The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.

        • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.

          lol no… this thread is not talking about anything like that hahaha. Read it.

          Obviously people don’t come back from the dead or transform into cheddar cheese; we don’t need historical research to tell us that.

          His given name was יֵשׁוּעַ‎ or Yeshua, which is Jesus in one speech-type, عيسى (ʿIsà) in another, as well as a lot of other variants.

          ‘Christus’ in Latin seems to refer to the same person; Tacitus wrote “called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus”

        • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          What do you think of what Ehrman says here at 1h45m25s that the mythicist theory isn’t taken seriously by the academy because it’s mostly pushed by people who seem eager to dunk on religion.