“I guess what I’m trying to figure out is why is having a rainbow in a classroom is indoctrination and not having the Ten Commandments in a classroom,” Texas State Rep. James Talarico argued in a now viral video.
Texas State Rep. James Talarico using biblical scripture to tear down conservative Christian arguments
Most people assume he did and there’s evidence for it, but there really isn’t. It’s just an assumption that’s convenient for Christians to push. There actually is almost no historical evidence for it.
You’re currently downvoted because this assumption has been pushed very hard, and it’s not totally unfounded. I have no more reason to trust it than I do to trust that Santa was real. There’s far too much desire to create evidence for me to bother with it. I don’t believe he wasn’t real either. I just don’t entertain either idea. It doesn’t change anything whichever is true. He wasn’t the son of God regardless.
“Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1][7][8][note 1] Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century.”
Something being considered settled doesn’t really prove anything. Many thing have been considered settled and been totally wrong. If they’re settling it with insufficient evidence, then I don’t really care to believe it. If it requires a leap of faith instead of logic, then it isn’t good enough in my opinion. I’ll continue not having a belief in him existing or not.
deleted by creator
Most people assume he did and there’s evidence for it, but there really isn’t. It’s just an assumption that’s convenient for Christians to push. There actually is almost no historical evidence for it.
You’re currently downvoted because this assumption has been pushed very hard, and it’s not totally unfounded. I have no more reason to trust it than I do to trust that Santa was real. There’s far too much desire to create evidence for me to bother with it. I don’t believe he wasn’t real either. I just don’t entertain either idea. It doesn’t change anything whichever is true. He wasn’t the son of God regardless.
“Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE.[1][7][8][note 1] Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#:~:text=Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus,in the early 20th century.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/
Something being considered settled doesn’t really prove anything. Many thing have been considered settled and been totally wrong. If they’re settling it with insufficient evidence, then I don’t really care to believe it. If it requires a leap of faith instead of logic, then it isn’t good enough in my opinion. I’ll continue not having a belief in him existing or not.