• Hypx@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    No one is suggesting that historical scholars are always right. But the weight of evidence is on their side. The other point is that the mythicism position comes from people with very little or zero credibility. Since this topic has been around for decades, you think they would convince at least a few conventional scholars to just their side. This has instead been basically zero. The rational conclusion is that the mythicism side is either wrong or simply doesn’t have enough evidence to be a viable theory.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The rational conclusion is that the mythicism side is either wrong or simply doesn’t have enough evidence to be a viable theory.

      There is almost no secular evidence for it, and it is only on those who posit he exists to prove it. So yeah, there’s very little (zero) evidence that he didn’t exist, or at least the accounts from the Bible aren’t accurate. There can never be any evidence for that unless we lived in that time. That doesn’t mean we need to trust the alternative. I don’t believe in any god, and I don’t need evidence they aren’t real. Equally I don’t necessarily believe Jesus was real, because essentially all evidence for that has a motive to prove he was real.

      • Hypx@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Almost no evidence is not “no evidence.” That’s pretty much where the mythicism position falls apart, because they have to resort to dismissing what evidence we have to make their position valid. The other point is that if we use the level of standards demanded by mythicists, virtually all people from history can no longer be verified as real. It effectively deletes most of history.