PugJesus@lemmy.worldM to [Dormant] moved to !historymemes@piefed.social@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoAlways remember to flex on your disciplesimagemessage-square33linkfedilinkarrow-up1501arrow-down14
arrow-up1497arrow-down1imageAlways remember to flex on your disciplesPugJesus@lemmy.worldM to [Dormant] moved to !historymemes@piefed.social@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square33linkfedilink
minus-squareocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23arrow-down8·1 year agoAs often said, no academic argues Jesus was not a historical figure. Only militant terminally online atheists do.
minus-squareCyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18arrow-down1·1 year agoI’m not talking about whether Jesus existed or not. The bible is not a historic accord is what I’m saying.
minus-squarebigFab@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year agoStill, Simon/Peter could just as fine be as real as the person historically named Jesus. Assuming Jesus wasn’t talking to imaginary friends all day.
minus-squareocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 year agoThat’s not their point. Their point is the Bible isn’t a reliable source.
minus-squareocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·1 year agoGot you, no argument against that
As often said, no academic argues Jesus was not a historical figure. Only militant terminally online atheists do.
I’m not talking about whether Jesus existed or not. The bible is not a historic accord is what I’m saying.
Still, Simon/Peter could just as fine be as real as the person historically named Jesus. Assuming Jesus wasn’t talking to imaginary friends all day.
That’s not their point. Their point is the Bible isn’t a reliable source.
Got you, no argument against that