• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Right. It’s applying the same standard of evidence that we use for everything else on history. Truth is, we don’t have great evidence for pretty much anyone who wasn’t a regional ruler. If you rose the standard much higher, you’d end up with history being a big blank, and that’s not useful.

    In other words, if you reject a historical Jesus outright, you also have to reject Socrates and Spartacus and a whole lot of others.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m surprised that Socrates denialism isn’t a thing tbh. Plato’s Socrates is really a sockpuppet for Plato, read Xenophon and you get someone very different.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve ran into a few times in these sorts of Jesus Don’t Real threads. At least it’s applying the standard of evidence consistently.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Socrates: we have the testimony of his student speaking to other people who also knew him. For Jesus we do not have that. Also the claim is small. A philosopher living in the golden age of philosophy in the center of it. It is like me saying I know a software developer who lived in San Jose in 1999 to a group of people who also knew him in 1999.