@iii_hammer_iii well, what kind of evidence u want, a photo or a videotape? seriously dude, there is records of his existances, not only religious people says that, but historians, because validating his existances has nothing to do with religion, apart from that is difficult to find more evidences as remains or a tomb, because more likely for the romans of that time, he was just a regular criminal, nothing special, apart for the fact that he was some kind of "activist" of his time, more likely his body ended up mixed with other bodies in a pit

@karloz1995
Seriously, dude. The only "records" of Jesus are writings written at least 50 years after the alleged fact. What the records do show, is that the Jesus story is an amalgamation of many deity stories from other cultures: born of a virgin, rising from the dead, curing the sick, turning water into wine, walking on water, etc. You can find all of those in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Hindu mythologies.

"No one has scientifically refuted Marx yet."

You have clearly missed your vocation as a comedian. There have been countless scholarly debunkings of the entire premise of Marxism. At this stage, arguing over the viability of a Marxist worldview is like debating a flat earther.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Socialism-Failed-Idea-That-Never-ebook/dp/B07N7HK6LV: (https://amazon.co.uk/Socialism-Failed-Idea-That-Never-ebook/dp/B07N7HK6LV)

@iii_hammer_iii Well he surely existed,don't remember which document I was watching but he's never mentioned in any Roman documents,the only thing that point to him is they crucified a innocent guy which the date concord pretty much with he's crucifixion.

The thing with the bible,with all the tools modern archaeology posses,nothing concord with date,event,name,ect.The church made up the date he was born since it's not mention anywhere.

People are free to believe what they want,I don't but it still a fascinating enigma.

@karloz1995 This is patently untrue. If you would like to assert so, you will need to bring some proof to the table. That said proof doesn't presently exist, you are going to shake up a lot of historians.

There are two _nearly_ contemporaneous sources. Josephus and Tacitus and neither is considered completely reliable and certain to be referring to Christ from the Gospels, though there is more belief in Josephus' two passages. By historical standards though, neither is considered a home run, nor absolute proof of existence.

These archives you reference, do not exist, in respect to Jesus called Christ.

I don't know Rollo but I do know Romans. Please don't claim proof where none exists.

Personally, I am reasonably certain someone or someones existed at this time, and helped form a movement/narrative of different spiritual understanding of man's relationship to their deity. I would posit that it is likely influenced by exposure to trade routes that most certainly existed to the far east, especially Buddhist teachings which were around for hundreds of years prior to Christianity. (6th Century BCE). I am as near positive as I can be that this person or persons WAS NOT the child of God, as I am also 99.99999% positive God does not exist. (I am an agnostic and know I can't know, prove/disprove the existence of god but I'm right on that border of Atheism).

That said, the teaching in Matthew 5 to 7 and Luke verses 17 to 49 are, for the most part, a seismic shift in Western thought and religion. They are, for the most part, admirable and good. It troubles me though that such a large proportion of our species seems incapable of maintainign an ethical and morally just life without also needing to have reaosnable fear of everlasting punishment or promise of untold 'riches' in an afterlife to do so.

So, I am certainly no 'Jesus Hater' and I am not trying to be mean to you here, just stating historical fact.

There exists no proof that Jesus lived as portrayed in the modern bible, let alone even many of the non-canonical gospels, etc. This is a fact, and if you wish to dispute it, you are going to have to provide your sources.

@enkidu98 ok man, this tread has become very boring now, people are just blind and want to believe too bad on their stuff even if they are wrong, it remembers me of 2012 when daisy's destruction was a thing, but nobody was able to find that video to see if it was true, so people started making videos about that being a creepy pasta. until 2016 when suddenly the responsable for that where caught and now everyone believes it....

like i say i never stated jesus existed as is writted in the bible.. he do existed because there are entire records of his trial, during that time set, yet apart if he was some kind of child of god is another story, nobody is admitting that he was, i dont know why u bring ur christianophobia in to a debated, i already told that to another dude, that he more likely was some kind of activist, and for the gospel things, they more likely were invented to replace the roman gods.. sinces romans used to have a god for almost all kind of things, they used the gospel to pray for them rather than their own gods, thats how catholicism was born... 12 gospels, for 12 roman gods...

@enkidu98 In the case of Rollo, his life between his arrival in Neustria and his death is pretty well documented by the French of that time, which is not a big surprise as he had direct diplomatic contacts with the kingdom of France/the Franks. Several battles of his are also pretty clear and its final nomination as Jarl of the Normans is also clear and well documented.
All we miss is what he did before coming to Neustria/Normandy, and his death (we dont know for sure where and how it happened, or well we have sources but they tend to contradict themselves)

All in all nothing to do with a fictional character like Jesus, only mentioned by pseudo-historians posterior to him and church men who wanted his name to appear in the texts so they added him artificially in them. No reliable Roman source for instance. So there we have clearly of religious motivation, what kind of motivation could we have for trying to prove that a guy called Rollo existed or not. Who cares if he didnt, there is no ideology behind that. He's a historical figure, even if we dont know all about him.

As for the monument you're right, it proves nothing.

There are two _nearly_ contemporaneous sources. Josephus and Tacitus and neither is considered completely reliable

indeed.
The passages where they mention Jesus are written in a different style than the rest of the text, which tend to prove that they were added later by copyist monks. "what? No mention of Jesus in Josephus!? What an outrage. Let's correct that ...mistake. "
Tacitus is also writing about a guy born in Nazareth, a village which were created 200 years later, and about a "procurator" of Judea, a title created 50 years later, the real title was "praefectus" at that time. Someone obviously "helped" Tacitus and Josephus a little

@torfinr those christianophobic are a joke :v u dont agree with them "pseudo historians" everyone can use that childish arguments seriously hahaha thnx for the laugh bye

@TORFINR Oh so we actually have decent documentation on prominent early vikings! (for once!) That's cool! To be fair I never said Rollo DIDN'T exist, mainly that we don't know for sure. But since he would have been interacting with people that were generally much better at keeping records than the vikings themselves tended to be, it's entirely believable that there would be decent contemporary documentation rather than a bunch of semi-historical sagas that weren't written until hundreds of years later. As for the statue, you are right. Statues aren't always a good indicator as to just who they're supposed to represent. People have even saved statues of prominent figures from invading armies that wanted to destroy those statues simply by changing the names on the inscriptions. "Hiding them in plain sight" as it were. (My favorite example of these is when the nazis wanted to destroy a bust of a Jewish Composer in a Concert Hall in Prague, but because the busts had no inscriptions on them, they had to guess which sculpture looked "the most Jewish" to them. They missed the actual bust of the Jewish Composer, instead they mistakenly destroyed a bust of Wagner, Hitler's favorite composer.)

Going back to to the topic at hand. (rather than wasting time engaging with this nonsense with people like Karloz who clearly suffer from Far Right Brain-Shrinking Disorder) One of OP's points they were complaining about at the beginning were how there were no "decent Christian Characters" in the game who are featured prominently, to which having played further in the game now I can safely say; what about Ceolbert? The Anglo-Saxon Kid who joins your settlement after the Ragnarssons Questline? He seems like a pretty "Decent Christian Character" who is a big part of the main story.

I also suggested that perhaps Ubisoft could have implemented an option to "convert Eivor" and have them choose to be baptized. And I actually think I know pretty well how it could have been implemented, without really changing a whole lot of the game as it is. At this time period, people who chose to convert to Christianity would do so for political reasons rather than out of "true faith" as it were. A Pagan King would settle in England, realize that all his neighbors are Christian, and come to the decision "Ok so I don't want to provoke any religious wars and it'll be easier for me to make alliances if I'm part of the same faith as everyone else." Making alliances is a pretty big deal to Eivor and Ravensthorpe, at least where I'm at in the game's story so far; it's literally been the motivation for both main story arcs I've completed thus far. Ubisoft could have perhaps given the option to baptize Eivor to players who would have wanted to, making it easier for Eivor to secure alliances with Christian neighbors (like perhaps Aelfred the Great, who I'm ASSUMING will show up in the main story as he has been referenced to quite a bit) at the expense of making it harder to ally with still-Pagan Factions like the Ragnarssons. And of course it could be a player-choice thing, not everyone will want to have Eivor get baptized, so it would be optional, but one of those choices you CAN make that would affect the story.

Just some thoughts about potential game design in this thread consisting mostly of angry mindless whining man-babies.

@o-e-smith Sorry. I just noticed this comment about "changing history by having black people in 9th century England." And against my better judgement, I need to respond. We know for a fact that there WERE black people in 9th century England. We have contemporary sources at the time referring to "Bla-Moars", or "Black Moorish People" being among the Vikings that invaded England in the 9th Century.

Were they a majority? No, of course not. But it's not trying to change history to include people of color in a depiction of 9th Century England. What would be trying to change history would be to say that there were ONLY WHITE PEOPLE in England and Norway in the 9th Century.

(plus if we're being honest, the earliest humans that inhabited the British Isles, like the Cheddar Man, had dark skin. So technically black people were in England before white people were. Of course that is several THOUSANDS OF YEARS before the events of AC Valhalla.)

@karloz1995 when a historian is blinded by his religion, falsifies historical facts, and transmit false ideas, I think it's safe to call him "pseudo historian".
Usually religious persons are not too comfortable when history or science is brought to the table, hence their "hahaha" and heavy usage of words like "childish" and other "good laugh bye".
We can understand it though, the mystical bubble is swaying. Frightening!
Christians spent too many centuries burning books instead of reading them.
But my thought tonight goes mainly for the people victims of them, tortured, murdered, persecuted in the name of a Jesus who most probably never existed.
Yes, karloz, I am christianophobic, like most of the people who used their brains for at least 30 sec and read about the atrocities made in the name of that "god of love" for now almost 2000 years.

@TORFINR Why are you still engaging with someone who clearly has nothing valuable to contribute to the conversation? Karloz is gonna be a jerk no matter what. He has nothing to say that is worth listening to.

Anyways, that wasn't really why I wanted to post again here though. I wanted to get back to OP's point. Going back to them claiming there are "no decent Christians" in the game, this evening I just completed the East Anglia Questline. Without spoiling too much, the plot is basically Eivor helping a group of Christians and Pagans fight off a brutally murderous Viking clan who are making life miserable (and very short) for everyone in East Anglia, Christian and Pagan alike. And there's one really badass Christian Character who comes off as one of the most brave and noble characters in the game so far. (those who have played through this part of the game will know who I'm talking about.)

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that OP's original post about the game's "Anti-Christian Sentiment" is highly exaggerated. It's not just "All Christians are Evil" in this game, instead the story and it's characters are treated with far more nuance than OP claims. I'm starting to come to either one of two conclusions about this entire topic; either OP hasn't reached this part of the main story yet, OR this is another case of a whining thin-skinned Right-Winger who can't handle it when everything around him doesn't conform to his worldview 100% at all times; for whom even the slightest bit of nuance is a grave insult. Like one of those "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT CHRISTIANS USED TO BURN PEOPLE ALIVE" types.

The former is still certainly possible (in which case OP, sorry for spoilers) but given the tone of this entire topic? I'd say the latter is more likely.

Yeah, for what it's worth, I think the game does a decent job of balancing the sides- I don't think anyone is portrayed as being specifically evil for being a Christian just as no one is specifically good for being a Norseman or Dane (after all, the first several villains are all Norse anyway).

Do keep in mind that, as the game is told through Eivor's POV, some things she's not particularly associated with might not seem especially favorable. Monastaries, for instance- you say that they're messy, but we see them during raids, so the game's depiction might just be specifically displaying that.