• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -189 months ago

    Settled by whom? The world dominated by Christian nations to boost their own influence? This is like Indian scholars saying all their gods are real and definitely existed and selectively citing texts written to confirm that bias. History isn’t as clear cut as you think it is.

    Believe it or not people lied since the they began to talk. Just because there’s some text doesn’t make it entirely accurate.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      249 months ago

      This is like Indian scholars saying all their gods are real and definitely existed and selectively citing texts written to confirm that bias

      It’s actually not even remotely like that in any way

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      69 months ago

      All you’ve proven is that you haven’t engaged with the scholarly arguments for historical Jesus at all. A bunch of them are not kind to a fundamentalist position. For example, there’s an argument that the census story around Jesus’ birth is a fabrication–there’s no evidence for a Roman census around that time, and why would everyone need to travel to their birth town for this?–but the fact that they’re sticking it there is because they had to deal with Jesus being an actual guy from Nazareth. They really, really want to attach him to King David by having him be born in Bethlehem, and him coming from Nazareth gets in the way of that. So they create this whole weird census story to make up for it.

      No matter if you agree with this take or not, it’s clear no fundie would come up with that or accept it.

      • @afraid_of_zombies
        link
        19 months ago

        No one besides fundies believes in the census nonsense.

        the fact that they’re sticking it there is because they had to deal with Jesus being an actual guy from Nazareth

        So it doesn’t show up until Mark. No other documents mention it, includinf ones that talk about James who presumably would have been from there as well. We also know that no documents within a century of Jesus even mention that village existing. Josphius mentions ten villages around it without mentioning it. Archeological evidence isnt great there could have been a single barn there in 0 AD or not. Now we know that Mark made mistakes about the geography of the area. We also know that his grasp of Aramaic was pretty poor. It is very possible that he might have just misunderstood. He could have heard Nazar (sorta wandering Jewish monks) and with an old map screwed up.

        In any case even if the oral tradition really did hold that this village (again it might not have existed) somehow was the place Jesus was from that doesn’t prove the oral tradition was correct.

        As for the other gospels mentioning it well they all copied off Mark so that is to be expected. Pseudohistory has no correction method. Once a mistake is made it just replicates.

        They really, really want to attach him to King David by having him be born in Bethlehem, and him coming from Nazareth gets in the way of that.

        Yeah but noticed Paul didn’t do that since he was Jewish. The King David line was scattered to the wind, his descendents could be born anywhere. It took people who only spoke Greek and didn’t understand the history of the region to work hard to make Jesus from Bethlehem.

        So this is my point. We know the Gospels are full of lies. Why are you convinced that there is a kernel of truth behind them?