Just like to note that no academic of value doubts if Jesus lived or not.
Question everything, within reason. Any academic of values should take reasonable arguments (for and against something) into consideration. Boxing someone off against a hard-line of “values” projects bigotry. (I don’t want to say that was your intent, but that can be a downstream effect.)
For example, I personally believe chiropractors practice pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting chiropractic care has value. So, in my opinion, it’s possible that chiropractic treatments do something, but it more likely to be a placebo.
I say as an academic that it is our job to question everything and to find the answers. If academic consensus cannot be relied upon, then nothing can. Why would you think academics do not take reasonable arguments into consideration? (this is a rhetorical question) Stating that no academic of value doubts the existence of Jesus is a fact grounded in reality. This is not a religious statement but an acknowledgment of historical evidence. If we cannot agree on basic facts, then meaningful discussion becomes impossible, and societies like America will continue to descend into anti-intellectualism.
For example, I personally believe chiropractors practice pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting chiropractic care has value. So, in my opinion, it’s possible that chiropractic treatments do something, but it more likely to be a placebo.
This analogy is not applicable to a factual statement about someone’s existence. The existence of a historical figure like Jesus is supported by evidence and scholarly consensus, whereas the efficacy of chiropractic care is not comparable to established historical facts.
Everything written about the life of Jesus was recorded decades later from personal recollections—the words attributed to him can’t be regarded as representative of his everyday speech, to the extent that they’re accurate at all.
And the Jews were exempted from Roman religious laws—speaking against Rome might have been regarded as seditious, but not blasphemous (at least by the Romans).
deleted by creator
Pretty sure “my God why have you forsaken me?” counts.
Just a note: this line is in a Aramaic in John. Most of the gospels are in Greek, but select lines are in Aramaic. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic as his main, everyday language.
