In an earlier post, I argued that the historicity of Jesus was doubtful. Some religion scholars questioned one of my sources. Now, recent scholarship comes as close as possible to settling the issue.
When I was young I was in a foster home that forced me to go to church. I read the entire bible several times over (And a couple different versions) and the more I read, the less it made any sense. So I started asking questions, and the answers were always the generic bullshit ones like “god works in mysterious ways” etc. Conveniently the only real proof you’ll ever get is after you’re dead. Then, it dawned on me, the entire concept of a god isn’t much more than Santa Claus for adults. The only “mystery” is how people can follow something so blindly in hopes they’re not getting scammed.
When I was young I was in a foster home that forced me to go to church. I read the entire bible several times over (And a couple different versions) and the more I read, the less it made any sense. So I started asking questions, and the answers were always the generic bullshit ones like “god works in mysterious ways” etc. Conveniently the only real proof you’ll ever get is after you’re dead. Then, it dawned on me, the entire concept of a god isn’t much more than Santa Claus for adults. The only “mystery” is how people can follow something so blindly in hopes they’re not getting scammed.