• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    a year ago

    The “story” aged thousands of years are several historical documents that popped up in the first century, all talking about a man who was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified, died, was buried, then rose again and ascended into heaven over a month later. The earliest was written after at most 30 years of it happening and the latest regarded by all Christians was written at latest 70 years from it happening. Several of those were written by people who knew the guy, the rest were written by people who knew people who knew the guy. They don’t contradict and have marks of being an honest account. And then there are accounts which are not even from people who believe the guy. So this “story” which is about God coming down to earth in flesh, and rising from the dead was large enough to cause several of these documents to appear and then only a few hundred of years later have more archaeological evidence appear showing signs of an early church. It was big enough for us to start counting years from roughly when this Guy was born.

    Now what about other people? Alexander the Great? Earliest source written 200 years later. Caesar? Two sources from when he was alive, one written by himself, other written by cicero, more sources will come hundreds of years later. Pompeii? Was likely witnessed by a quarter million people, saw many elite die in the Roman empire, has one source written by Pliny 30 years after the fact. We have archaeological evidence for these people and events, of course, like coinage and such. But what archaeological trace would Jesus leave personally? He lived a life in the same land, didn’t own an army, wasn’t a king, possibly didn’t even have a house. So the writings we have are obviously the best evidence for Him.

    • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      a year ago

      Isn’t that the kind of argument someone would make in year 4023 to justify the existence of Harry potter though?

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        a year ago

        No, because people weren’t claiming harry potter was real, nor setting up churches.

        • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          a year ago

          Not an HP reader but I’m pretty sure people meet up regularly all over the world dressed up to celebrate stuff from the books. If that’s not the beginning of a cult I don’t know what it is, if not kept in line give it 2000 years to snowball and by year 4023 it will be full of delusional people swearing their imaginary friend is the one and only god, same as Jesus’s, Mohamed and Santa

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            a year ago

            No, you’d need to give it 30 years, by your logic. By 2027, people are going to be thinking Harry Potter is real.