You're viewing a single thread.
Ehrm sweaty I think you'll find that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus actually was emperor of Byzantium in 12th century Andronikos Komnenos.
He was also largely demonized in the historical retelling due to his anti-aristoctatic policies which benefitted the common citizenry.
He was likely born in Crimea so it should be pine trees.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've read on this site to date.
I don't mean OP's comment, which is funny as hell. I mean the linked article. You've gotta love it when someone makes an argument that disregards what is written in the Bible and then uses what's written in the Bible as a justification for their argument. It's either one or the other. Stick to historical records only, or embrace, at the very minimum, that the entire Bible book that is being referenced is a reliable record. If one cherry picks "Well that part must be true, but that over there is irrelevant", the entire argument falls apart.
Let's step back a minute. Assuming Jesus was a real person or based on a real person, what does proven history say? The oldest extant fragment of the "New Testament" is Papyrus 52, and dates to around 125 CE. Fragment 66 contains most of the "Gospel of John", and dates to around 200 CE. Even if one were to disregard Papyrus 52 for not haven't enough material to count, Papyrus 66 places the historical Jesus, at the latest, prior to 200 CE. Add to that that Flavious Josephus wrote of a "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" and we have a stronger argument that the historical Jesus likely lived in the first or second century CE. Most likely first century.
Now, if one is going to argue their point based on "the star" that led the wise men to the baby Jesus is a historical event, then they must also acknowledge that Jesus is recorded in the gospels entering the temple courtyard multiple times, and spoken of as being "at the temple". The temple was destroyed, and the Roman army looted the temple late in the first century. That is a historical fact. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The entire premise of your linked article is flawed, based on conflicting justifications.
I googled and the theory is even more crazy. To justify the timeline an author claims that ancient Greece and Rome were invented by medieval clergy.
Honestly it reads like a well read troll, I'm hoping that's what it actually is. To be clear, the article, not OP. OP is cool as shit
The Peloponnesian War was actually between medieval city states too in that chronology
The entire premise of your linked article is flawed, based on conflicting justifications.
Yes I know, not going to debate it because it's really silly, but it's still a funny reason why it should be pine trees that makes people mad for some reason.
I GET ANNOYED BY VERY SPECIFIC THINGS!
AKA
Thanks for being a sport, my sarcasm is a little too subtle sometimes ;-D
Who among us hasn't been the person in that XKCD when the right subject comes up 🙃
We most definitely have enough sources about Christianity existing pre 12th century that this claim can be easily refuted. Even the most simple ones like having christian catacombs around Rome dating to the second century.
I thought you were serious until I read more of your comments.
This is the funniest article I may have ever read, and I will now pretend that it is gospel and lie to my religious family saying all of this as truth.
You should be ashamed, giving me a reason to stupify my christofascist family further.