434
Trump reveals executive order requiring Pam Bondi to prosecute ‘anti-Christian bias'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
434 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19835 readers
3903 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
The consensus of scholars that focus on academic history of that time agree that it is extremely likely that some guy named Yeshua lived around that time and place and tried to reform Judaism as others were doing at the time (the Pharisees were the reformers that ended up being successful).
There’s a whole FAQ about this on reddit’s askhistorians that goes into detail but essentially if you argue Yeshua of Galilee never existed you cannot then accept that most historical figures were real as we have similar evidence for the existence of many people.
And Im saying they might be more anarchistic beliefs than socialist beliefs as the NT isn’t pushing a pro-governance view.
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
I'm sure a guy named yesua may have existed
I'm also sure he was just another guy spouting religious beliefs, he was not magical or supernatural, because none of that exists
All Im claiming is Yeshua existed and he was a rabbi around Galilee. The religion is likely very loosely based upon things he said as well as stuff people added (eg “render unto Caesar” is just saying pay your taxes).
Im not claiming historical evidence exists for the miracles.
And yet, you have zero evidence to support that claim. In reality, there were about 100 Yeshua's (It was a common name), who were rabbis, in that region.
And some of the more fantastic stories were cribbed from already extant mythology.
Its a lot like the "evidence" of "divine inspiration" for the NT is "Well, it matches the OT!!" No shit, the people writing the NT were familiar with the OT, and made attempts to do so.
So, when we get down to brass tacks, this "Yeshua" character was likely an amalgamation of several people. Like John Mastodon.
Loads of people talk about John Mastodon right now. Does that mean John Mastodon existed or exists?
Spoiler: yes, John Mastodon exists, and peace be upon him, and may he grace us with neverending blessings delivered by his Arch Angel - ActivltyPub.
I have offered a source with multiple linked sources that explains why this consensus exists. If you choose to ignore that consensus of experts you are choosing to not accept what people who have spent decades working on this question which is your right but IMO is rarely the wise choice when you are uneducated on the subject.
What’s the proof fir this amalgamation idea you are claiming and how of you explain thousands of people all across that part of the world having the same beliefs and names for Jesus within 3-4 decades of his death and please remember this is 2000 years ago so news travelled slowly.
It doesn't exist, though. And, if it did, it's consensus without basis.
In reality, any consensus that may exists, does so purely due to environment. Why are we trying to even prove the existence of such a person? Because it's the dominant religious belief in this country. I'm sure just as much consensus around the existence of Mythras the man exists, too.
Because that's how cults start? Shit, have you seen how quickly Scientology has grown? Does Xenu actually exist?
News in the Roman empire took... well, as long as it took to walk from city to city. And the cultists were adamant about spreading the word. 100 years after the guy lived, of course.
The basis fir the consensus was explained. You clearly did not understand that.
So you have nothing to substantiate your counter claim to the one presented by historians and you think your claim has validity? That isnt how any of this works.
Yes, I get it. The basis for consensus was "It's the dominant religion, so it must be fact".
By the same basis, Hercules existed.
It's not my job to prove someone's conclusions. The onus for the evidence of existence lays with the person making the claim. And it's very clearly stated: There is no evidence. The best we got are some documents written by biased sources, half a century after the fact.
What evidence exists? I mean, we have literally multiple accounts and writings by Aristotle... Or Eratosthenes... Who would be, by and large, contemporaries, at this scale...
Yet for Yeshua? We don't even have birth records, which would have been meticulous, especially since a census happened at the same time. We can't even confirm most of the documented events that were claimed.
In fact, all writings that state he existed weren't even written until about 70 years after he purportedly died (Which we have no Roman records of the time, indicating even a scenario as described, which is kinda shocking).
In all likelihood, he is an amalgamation of several radical figures, as most of his story was cribbed from earlier, already extant, savior mythology.
Bo we have writings we believe were written by Aristotle because other people from around that time say he did. We have similar things for jesus such as the writings of people who recorded the existence of people who followed a guy named Jesus a few decades after his death. It would ge really odd for people around the Mediterranean to all follow the teachings of a guy who they call by the same name who never existed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
Yes, we have contempory, verified sources of Aristotle's lectures, and writings.
We have no such thing for Yeshua. The earliest is, as you say, "a few decades", aka 70 years. That's two entire generations. Nothing contemporary, and in fact, contemporary documents actually contradict much of what was written.
And yet, here were are, writing about a mystical man in the sky... Who never existed, as far as any evidence tells us. And, in fact, whatever evidence we DO find, contradicts the claims made by adherents to that mythology.
Hell, how many Romans wrote about how awesome on the field of battle Hercules was... Pretty certain a demigod never existed by the name of Hercules.
BTW, from your link:
"There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him"
We have things that other people who may or may not have known Aristotle claim Aristotle wrote. If you believe Aristotle and Plato were real people then you should accept that Jesus was based on somebody even if the message he was spreading isn’t the same as the faith maintains now.
Why not try reading the link rather than expounding upon a false understanding? For example the earliest writings are from around 70CE which is 37-40 years later. You shoildn’t be making any claims when you are making mistakes this simple because you clearly aren’t coming from an educated perspective.
I’m not saying Jesus Christ in the Bible is a historical figure. I am saying there was a real human being that was a basis for the faith.
And again all of this is based on what actual academic historians maintain not religious figures. What is your take based upon other than conjecture?
We have many things, written right about the same time, all making the same claims, about what Artistotle wrote.
We do not have congruent, contemporary writings about Jesus/Yeshua.
I did. And there is not evidence of his existence, as your link stated. Does that mean Yeshua, the individual, did not exist? No. But, it's also not on us to prove he did not exist! That's impossible (Proving a negative).
What we can say: There is no evidence he existed, even in places it should exist. And, exceptional claims (Such as a virgin birth, son of god, major political decisions) require exceptional evidence.
You cannot prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun, either. However, we can safely assume there is not, until such evidence has been found to support said claim.
Fine. The closest writings are from 40 years late. One full generation. Did the prior generation not think to write ANYTHING about this guy? Not even a Roman notice somewhere? A proclamation of all male children being executed? NOTHING. Until 40 years after the claimed event.
Where do you think this evidence should exist? Do you think the Jews and Romans kept birth records for the equivalent of working class people?
Again Im not claiming there was a messiah. Im not claiming miracles were real so put own that straw bale you keep returning to.
Ok and how do you think thousands of people all separated by massive distances all arrive on the same name and basic stories if they weren’t based on a single guy?
Why would you think Rome has records of random people? We cannot prove the existence of almost anyone from Rome that way other than the extremely wealthy and influential.
Do you have any actual historical education beyond secondary school? You don’t seem to
Yes
why and on what? Remember papyrus and vellum were expensive and paper was invented in China in 105CE. The state wasn’t expending money on this.
There was no record of these births/deaths for most people until relatively recently in many countries.
Well, to start... Contemporary accounts.
Its literally claimed that Yeshua was subject to a census, performed by Romans, who were meticulous in their record keeping. We have no record of a census, period.
Or, even decrees by Pilate ordering his execution.
Or even, just, news of some radical with his name, causing trouble. NOTHING.
What we have are accounts from 40-100 years later, making bold claims. Much like we have similar sets of evidence for the existence of a man named Hercules who was a demigod as well.
You are, however, expecting us to believe something with no evidence.
Same way all mythology forms. Tall tales told, and retold.
This isn't "random people"... This is a person, who was so hated by his own community,they demanded a Roman governor try, and execute him. And Roman's kept pretty detailed records about this sort of stuff.
SOMETHING would have survived. Nothing survived, or more likely, never existed.
Yes, I actually do, thanks. And none of the mythology should be taken any more serious than any other mythology we study.
Every source of evidence I have heard of concerning Jesus having actually existed is either from the Bible or from religious relics like the shroud of Turin, that also aren't even real.
So you look at biased non-academic resources and then conclude that the belief is not academic? Do you not get the problem is the resources you are using?
I mentioned a very specific source to start with which is Reddit’s askhistorians FAQ. Try looking at that because it is entirely constructed off of academic history.
You can choose to believe whatever you want but the consensus of historians focused on this is that he had to exist in some fashion albeit not as a messiah.
"There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him."
And, not even where it should be at.
But, I suppose we should all accept Hercules lived, was a demigod, and was a great warrior, because a lot of people wrote about him.
And, while we're at it, we all know, and should accept as fact, that Mythras lived, because a lot of people wrote about him, and how he died, and rose again to save his people.
And you’re ignoring all the nuance explained there about why historians accept the existence of someone for what reason? It isn’t because you are educated in this field.
You keep trying build strawmen as Im not claiming Jesus was divine. Why?
There's little to no nuance needed here: Is there evidence? No. Should there be? Yes.
Because that's how credibility works. If you start your research at bad sources, you get to bad conclusions.
Does Xenu exist? I mean, Scientology at one point pre-internet, was one of the fastest growing religions, and they all talk about Xenu. Obviously, Xenu MUST exist, right?
Are you trying to defend a strawman argument? Are you that daft?
Im not claiming the Bible is true dummy
No, I'm building on "credibility of sources". And the credibility for the sources of a single person, named Yeshua (Or Jesus, or Christ, or whatever) being the single person responsible for setting off the formation of a sect of judaism is... thin, to say the least.
In fact, most documents lack any credibility at all.
Let me ask you: Is it more likely the above scenario as laid out is accurate, or would it be more likely a group of reformists, started creating tall tales about things that happened, and speeches given, and every telling adding more fiction to each recounting, and possible a core group coming up with the "core story" of a man? Like how a group of people developed the persona of "Anonymous" back in 2007-ish? Or, do you believe there is a single person named "Anonymous" who did all the hacking and griefing too?
Basically, the latter is what I consider to be far more likely. Just like Hercules and John Mastodon. I do not believe either of those individuals spoken of all the time actually existed, and are rather an amalgamation of ideas, into one person. He is a meme. That's all.
You got a specific link for this source of info? Because I'm looking at their FAQ right now and the only thing even mentioning Jesus is specifically about what Askhistorians users think of Reza Asland and his work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
This is the answer in the FAQ which links to another as well.