• klugerama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Ok, I think I understand what the problem is here. You took my original comment

    No such body of “evidence” exists for Jesus

    and ran with that, and completely ignored the qualifying phrase that followed it

    as defined by mainstream Christians

    that is, that he was god and did miracles and magic and was born from a virgin impregnated by god.

    You are completely focused on my apparent assertion that Jesus never existed, and have totally ignored the entire point of the original post, and my original response to you, to focus on something I never actually asserted. So go re-read my original response, and let’s clear this up.

    I am not claiming, and have never claimed that there definitely was never a Jewish Rabbi that was called Jesus who started a whole new religion in the middle east.

    I frankly don’t give a shit if he was in fact 1 real person, or a post-hoc fictional man based on multiple people, or just made up whole-cloth. It doesn’t really matter. What matters, especially in the context of this post, is that I am asserting that there was not a man who was a god, or did any miracles or magic, or died and came back to life 2 days later and then went to heaven. That is not based on fact.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      that he was god and did miracles and magic and was born from a virgin impregnated by god.

      Again, we have tall tales about any number of historical (even still living) figures. “The Pope isn’t a wizard, therefore he doesn’t exist” doesn’t logically follow.

      You are completely focused on my apparent assertion that Jesus never existed

      “There’s no evidence Jesus existed” was the base claim.