this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
99 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
851 readers
763 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was working within the framework of the Bible, the vast majority of which has very little to no historical support.
fair enough, I was thinking of the historical dude
No serious historian thinks that. Jesus was definitely a real dude who was really a religious leader and really got executed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
That's not really a good comparison at all. There is not actually any direct evidence for King Arthur at all, even if it's possible he's somehow extremely loosely based on a figure that might have existed somewhere at some point. There is literally nothing we can say about a historical King Arthur. And Robin Hood has always been a purely folkloric figure, never even claimed to be a real historical person.
Compared to Arthur, we know far more about Jesus from far more sources - where he lived, when and how he died, who killed him, a few specific events from his life (baptism by John being the strongest one). We know about him from Jewish, early Christian, and Roman sources. We can guess within a decade where he was born. We know the name of his brother and the role he played in running the religious movement that formed after Jesus died! We have sources from only a decade or two after his death that discuss people who knew him personally.
Yes, the gospel stories are either obviously legendary or at least impossible to verify with the sources we have available. They were written after the religion was establishing a doctrine and they're full of contradictions with each other and with the non-canonical gospels as the followers of Jesus competed to define who he was and what he did. They probably do contain some genuine historical truths - specific actions, sayings, or miracles performed (magicians were a big deal in Judaism at this time). There's probably no way for us to separate out the real from the fictional, but that is not the same as saying it's all fictional.
Obviously. If they didn't live in a palace, who's address do we know? Preposterous and irrelevant.
We don't need to assume a guy got killed because there are multiple sources for Jesus's crucifixion by the Romans. There were definitely hundreds of itinereant preachers who could've spawned religions. One of them, Jesus, led to Christianity and a complex web of mythologies were constructed around him after his death.
Rome killed him. What scholars, exactly, are arguing for an earlier century?
Most of the Pauline Epistles were indisputably written by a dude named Paul in the Levant a few decades after Jesus's death. He wrote about James. He wrote about actually existing churches and conflicts. These were not constructed a century later (except for the ones that obviously were,which has been determined via textual criticism and analysis) - they are much closer to contemporary than most classical historical figures! Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically fake. It is a corpus to which we can apply historical criticism like any other, not some exceptional fabrication.
The bible is also Roman propaganda
Majority is a pretty bold statement. There are aspects without historical support, jews were most likely never Egyptian slaves and were probably a sect within the Canaanites that grew to dominance. I woild say that literal divine intervention is ahistorical, but while for sure skewed to the side of the writers, there is a solid amoimt of historical support behind the broad strokes of events in the Bible. The specifics and the god stuff isnprivsvlt made up but to say the vast majority has no historical support is absurd.
The majority of the new testament is personal testimony that was handed down by word of mouth for generations before actually being written down......