I’m about as atheist as they come, but it seems pretty settled history that the man existed and was politically impactful
He was most likely a real guy. But a guy Christian’s would absolutely hate: a brown Communist Palestinian who hung out with prostitutes, lepers, pariahs, refuted the legitimacy of the state, and organized massive mutual aid events to feed the poor. Probably a good dude. It’s a shame his followers are dicks though.
Removed by mod
I’m starting to think he wasn’t all that great. He would have been someone who started a little apocalyptic religious following around himself, and those kind of people don’t tend to have the best interests of their followers at heart.
He probably did see himself as starting something that would kick the Romans out of Judea and install himself as king. Judas got cold feet about it and warned the authorities. The Romans crucified him for exactly what the gospel accounts say, except they had a lot more evidence than the writers were letting on.
The Romans crucified him for exactly what the gospel accounts say, except they had a lot more evidence than the writers were letting on.
Very well. How come Pilot didn’t take out the rest of the 11 and instead let them operate openly in Jerusalem? If Jesus was real and killed for trying to overthrow the state why wouldn’t the state go after the rest of them? Pilot wasn’t known for being a merciful guy and the Romans put down anyone who threatened them.
We know they were operating openly because Paul talks about visiting them and sending them money. Plus there are a few accounts of them.
Very strange. Almost as if there was no execution and James just made it up. Romans arent going to be interested in some weird mystery cult with a dead ruler.
The bible Jesus probably never existed, but there were clearly a guy a lot of people followed called Jesus that the romains crucified.
Except his name was probably some version of Joshua. The Jesus spelling comes from the Greek, where a lot of masculine names end in -s.
Yeshua is one I’ve heard used for his historical name.
Yeshua = god will save us. Interesting how the guy who would be a saviour would be named that. Like the rebellion leader being named Rebel, the evil villain who gets eight limbs named Dr. Octavious, or the evil guy being named Darkside.
Must be a pure coincidence
Wasn’t it the icebergs that crucified him?
Yeah, disbelieving in the existence of Jesus the Jewish carpenter is about as silly as disbelieving in the existence of Pontius Pilate.
I have physical evidence that Pilate existed as well as the testimony of people alive at the time and the claim isn’t even that big.
I’m an anti-theist, and I used to be on this page, but a while ago I read about how even this might not be true. We don’t have any real proof he existed at all.
Where’d you read that? Here are at least the known sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
There’s way less evidence of a ton of historical figures and events that are taken for granted as established history. Just my two cents
Right. It’s applying the same standard of evidence that we use for everything else on history. Truth is, we don’t have great evidence for pretty much anyone who wasn’t a regional ruler. If you rose the standard much higher, you’d end up with history being a big blank, and that’s not useful.
In other words, if you reject a historical Jesus outright, you also have to reject Socrates and Spartacus and a whole lot of others.
Spartacus was real. I know because I’m Spartacus.
I’m Spartacus!
I’m surprised that Socrates denialism isn’t a thing tbh. Plato’s Socrates is really a sockpuppet for Plato, read Xenophon and you get someone very different.
I’ve ran into a few times in these sorts of Jesus Don’t Real threads. At least it’s applying the standard of evidence consistently.
Socrates: we have the testimony of his student speaking to other people who also knew him. For Jesus we do not have that. Also the claim is small. A philosopher living in the golden age of philosophy in the center of it. It is like me saying I know a software developer who lived in San Jose in 1999 to a group of people who also knew him in 1999.
Clippy was the greatest software developer that ever lived
and events that are taken for granted as established history. Just my two cents
Very well. Please list one that is as big as a claim. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
The other person who responded before you listed Socrates and Spartacus, who both have fewer sources for their existence. Another is Hannibal Barcus and the Punic Wars, our knowledge of which is almost entirely based on the account of Polybius. There are a ton of others, you’re welcome to read history. There is nothing extraordinary about whether or not Jesus Christ existed vs any of these other people, at no point are we discussing anything metaphysical here
None of those three are as big as a claim.
There is nothing extraordinary about whether or not Jesus Christ existed
Bull. Even people decades later who opposed Christianity noticed it. Wondering why anyone would follow a dead leader. A regular guy could not have inspired multiple generations of followers when he hadn’t setup any institutions and only preached for about 6 months. If however James made it up and he lived until he was an old man that would explain it.
We think Mary and one or two others hallucinated and saw Jesus after he died. It’s actually not totally unheard of for people to hallucinate recently dead loved ones. Exactly why that kind of thing happens is an open debate, but the hallucination have a few things in common, like being more likely with people you were strongly attached to, and the hallucinated person basically assuring you things will be alright.
Anyway, so a hallucinated dead mini-cult leader could totally inspire a few key people to start a religion. Without those two key things, he probably would have been forgotten to history.
We think Mary
Just weakening the claims to slide it within the possible instead of following the evidence to where it leads. Mary could not have just been someone James hired to ramble. No? Couldn’t just go with the simplest possible explanation for the data. Have to invent this whole sequence of events that just so happen to wipe out all supporting evidence along the way.
Anyway, so a hallucinated dead mini-cult leader could totally inspire a few key people to start a religion. Without those two key things, he probably would have been forgotten to history.
Name one. Name a single time in history that a cult leader for six months produced a religion that was remotely successful. Joseph Smith 14 years, Buddha supposedly 50, Mohammed 22, Huysan 29 years.
You can’t. Religions survive their founder when they build institutions. Which takes time. The simple explanation is that James made it all up and Paul took it seriously. Those two men spent about 4 decades building up Christianity on two supports. If Jesus had really existed and died after a few months James would have not continued the mission.
Ok
Real talk, he hasn’t been proven to exist. Not even a little.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
And as you read through you will notice a heavy bias towards the assumption he did exist…but again, without proof. It’s kind of silly the lie he was real is so prevalent.
Each attempt to prove his existence relied on very loose reasoning. The closest they have ever come breaks down to one actual historical figure who wasn’t a Christian mentioning some thieves who believed in Jesus numerous decades after Jesus supposedly died - which for a long time was proof enough…somehow.
At this point scholars have admitted they will never have actual proof that he existed - that proof is “ultimately unattainable”. And much like you noted with “political impact” they have moved the goal posts to the impact on society the concept of Jesus had as their proof. So… yeah, definitely not proven.
What did you expect? We’re talking about one guy who might have lived over 2000 years ago. You’re not going to find his birth certificate and social security number.
The best anyone can do is assign a probability to his existence. And reading the article you yourself linked to, that probability seems to be pretty high.
I expect Paul to be able to say literally anything about the guy. Which he can’t seem to do. It is called the Silence of Paul problem.
The best anyone can do is assign a probability to his existence
For a person that is considered an actual god, we should expect more than “probable” existence. I think pointing out the lack of evidence for a supposed god is perfectly acceptable.
You’re missing the point or you’re being deliberately obtuse. Either way, nobody’s trying to prove that Jesus Christ existed in this thread (at least, nobody that is arguing in good faith - no pun intended). We’re talking about the real guy that MOST LIKELY really existed but, putting aside his supposed divine heritage, would have been basically a regular guy back then.
A regular guy who created three different movements in under 3 years, convinced multiple people to abandon their families and income for life with no power beyond words, who managed to somehow someway have the entire legal system in place not work properly, and was able to convince Pilot to not do the sensible thing which would be wipe out his followers.
Could you pull this off? With no money and influence could you go to say Mississippi, convince 12 men to abandon their wives/children/income, lead them on a suicide run, somehow manipulate the justice system to not give you a regular trial, yet shield all of your followers for decades after your death, and inspire two separate movements after you are dead…in under 3 years.
If a regular guy has this level of charisma I would be pretty impressed.
This happens regularly… They are called cults today… Their members also believe their Messiah is a messenger from (or literally is) god… And they get much more than 12.
In six months?
For a person that is considered an actual god
That came later, first council of nicaea was where the thing with holy trinity was made.
How Jesus Became God covers that process. Early Christianity was very complicated and divergent. Some groups thought Jesus was just a guy, others that he was just a guy who was raised to divinity, and still others that he was divine from the start. And then even among those who thought he had some sort of divinity, not all of them agreed with the trinity idea. And then Gnositcs come along and have a whole different cosmology about everything.
The Council of Nicaea didn’t come up with anything on its own. It was an official stamp on what set of existing ideas were considered orthodox or not.
Literally everything about Jesus came later, though.
We have two sources for Spartacus: Plutarch of Chaeronea and Appian of Alexandria. Both were written a century after he died. The two accounts mostly agree, but in the middle of the story they go completely different directions and then meet up again for the ending.
Spartacus is generally regarded as existing. We don’t know which account had it right, and it’s possible neither of them are. We will probably never know.
Point is, if you’re not a ruler, then historical evidence of your existence tends to be thin. Jesus likely existed, and we have better evidence for him than Spartacus.
Very well. Show me the contemporary evidence of Jesus existing
Might not be intentional lie. Take for example how we today call government “Uncle Sam”. It’s not hard to imagine made up person back in the day used for similar purposes so records survived but there’s no physical evidence. We do it all the time, witches, santa claus, boogeyman, etc.
Note how the article uses the word “scholars” as opposed to scientists. Scientists would simply state that there is no actual evidence about the existence of this guy so this is all speculation.
Then you have to do the same for a huge number of other historical figures. You end up with history being a huge blank beyond people who were rulers. That’s not useful, and not necessary.
What historical figures do you have in mind? The difference between a historical and a mythical person is the evidence available for their existence. History (the scientific kind) has a pretty clear idea which is which.
I’ll copy my writeup from elsewhere in the thread.
We have two sources for Spartacus: Plutarch of Chaeronea and Appian of Alexandria. Both were written a century after he died. The two accounts mostly agree, but in the middle of the story they go completely different directions and then meet up again for the ending.
Spartacus is generally regarded as existing. We don’t know which account had it right, and it’s possible neither of them are. We will probably never know.
Point is, if you’re not a ruler, then historical evidence of your existence tends to be thin. Jesus likely existed, and we have better evidence for him than Spartacus.
Spartacus is generally regarded as existing
That’s the whole point. We assume the guy existed but there’s no proof.
So you’re going to deny the existence of Spartacus? Really?
James Cameron did a national geographic documentary proving the guy existed. They found his ostuary. Which fits the time period. It was some astronomically absurd chance that it wasn’t him. Since everyone in the tomb had the family names of all of his relatives. Something like it was a 1 in 10 million chance that it wasn’t the nuclear family’s buried remains.
That is hilariously untrue, have you any idea how big that news would be? They don’t even know if Arimathea was a real place, we certainly don’t know about Jesus family - none of them are mentioned outside the limited references in the Bible
The Lost Tomb of Jesus https://g.co/kgs/A1gqTdn
The very first sentence in Wikipedia describes it as pseudoarchaeological docudrama. Got to love it.
Why does your sky zombie hate you so much he gives you such bad evidence?
I don’t believe in the Bible lol
But the historical figure existed. It’s not an amalgamation of fantasy. He was likely nothing like his imagery in pop culture.
Ok so if you don’t believe in the Bible what is your source of information that he existed?
The fact remains that there is no actual evidence for the existence of the guy so ultimately it’s all speculative.
There’s not much actual evidence for a lot of people of the period (e.g., Pontius Pilate) outside of historical writings. That’s pretty ludicrous way to rationalize a petty belief.
The standard for judging a person as historical as opposed to mythical is that there multiple independent contemporary sources. Neither of which exist for Jesus so saying he definitely existed is rationalizing a petty belief.
We have physical evidence for him and the claim is small.
Settled by whom? The world dominated by Christian nations to boost their own influence? This is like Indian scholars saying all their gods are real and definitely existed and selectively citing texts written to confirm that bias. History isn’t as clear cut as you think it is.
Believe it or not people lied since the they began to talk. Just because there’s some text doesn’t make it entirely accurate.
This is like Indian scholars saying all their gods are real and definitely existed and selectively citing texts written to confirm that bias
It’s actually not even remotely like that in any way
All you’ve proven is that you haven’t engaged with the scholarly arguments for historical Jesus at all. A bunch of them are not kind to a fundamentalist position. For example, there’s an argument that the census story around Jesus’ birth is a fabrication–there’s no evidence for a Roman census around that time, and why would everyone need to travel to their birth town for this?–but the fact that they’re sticking it there is because they had to deal with Jesus being an actual guy from Nazareth. They really, really want to attach him to King David by having him be born in Bethlehem, and him coming from Nazareth gets in the way of that. So they create this whole weird census story to make up for it.
No matter if you agree with this take or not, it’s clear no fundie would come up with that or accept it.
No one besides fundies believes in the census nonsense.
the fact that they’re sticking it there is because they had to deal with Jesus being an actual guy from Nazareth
So it doesn’t show up until Mark. No other documents mention it, includinf ones that talk about James who presumably would have been from there as well. We also know that no documents within a century of Jesus even mention that village existing. Josphius mentions ten villages around it without mentioning it. Archeological evidence isnt great there could have been a single barn there in 0 AD or not. Now we know that Mark made mistakes about the geography of the area. We also know that his grasp of Aramaic was pretty poor. It is very possible that he might have just misunderstood. He could have heard Nazar (sorta wandering Jewish monks) and with an old map screwed up.
In any case even if the oral tradition really did hold that this village (again it might not have existed) somehow was the place Jesus was from that doesn’t prove the oral tradition was correct.
As for the other gospels mentioning it well they all copied off Mark so that is to be expected. Pseudohistory has no correction method. Once a mistake is made it just replicates.
They really, really want to attach him to King David by having him be born in Bethlehem, and him coming from Nazareth gets in the way of that.
Yeah but noticed Paul didn’t do that since he was Jewish. The King David line was scattered to the wind, his descendents could be born anywhere. It took people who only spoke Greek and didn’t understand the history of the region to work hard to make Jesus from Bethlehem.
So this is my point. We know the Gospels are full of lies. Why are you convinced that there is a kernel of truth behind them?
The consensus among historical scholars is that some itinerant preacher who we can reasonably call the historical Jesus existed. That is the state of the field. There was lots of religious fervor at the time, it was already probably clear to everyone that something bad was going to happen to the Temple, there were lots of similar guys running around.
Arguing that the man probably existed is not arguing that he advocated for the things he was saying in the Bible, that he was in any way divine, or that one should believe in Christianity. It’s not arguing for leftist hippie Jesus either. Just that at this point in history, some sort of Jewish rabble rouser claimed to be a messiah and started a small group of followers. This is not a crazy claim - rabble rousers exist, Jewish people exist and have a complex religious/political figure called a messiah, and the group of followers was causing problems in less than a hundred years.
Remember that historical argumentation and proof looks fundamentally different than argumentation and proof in physics or math. You can’t do “Josephus minus The Testimonium Flavianum plus Pliny’s letters equals Christ.” No one is going to be able to trot out a photo of Jesus. Although here’s something fun: here’s one of the first depictions of Jesus.
There’s a set of atheists who don’t stop at saying the Bible is full of contradictions. They feel the Bible must be wrong in every single aspect. This is a position just as fragile as fundamentalists–after all, some events like the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians definitely did happen–and you don’t need to make that claim in order to disregard the bible as divinely inspired.
Edit: clarified wording
That’s dope that Jesus had one of those horse-heads masks all the way back then. Truly ahead of his time.
Dude was shitposting all the way to the end. Truly a man worth worshipping.
My Lord and Savior of Memedom
I like leftist hippie Jesus tho
The consensus is also that Mark at least somewhat more accurately represents the historical figure than the other gospels, which are all either fairly culturally Greek or Greek to the core (John).
What part of Mark? Give me the passage that references something that Jesus said or did that you are confident that he did say or do that thing.
I ask because I have no idea. Every time I try to do this I find out it happened in the OT or in Greek literature or in the letters or it served a selfish purpose for Paul.
Jesus almost certainly claimed that he and his twelve disciples were going to rule over the new kingdom of God (more or less a new era of the world in which suffering didn’t exist). We can be pretty sure because Judas then goes and betrays him, which we’re also very certain actually happened. No one has any idea why Judas flipped on Jesus, but we’re pretty dang certain he did. In any case, if Jesus really were everything people claimed about him later on, he wouldn’t have said all 12 of his disciples were going to be glorified in the next world.
Furthermore, we can be pretty certain John the Baptist really did baptize Jesus. My understanding of why is a bit more limited but basically that action put John in a higher position of authority than Jesus which would have been a big issue. Scholars think Jesus was originally a disciple of John.
Finally, Jesus probably actually was from Nazareth, because that town was basically like being from nowhere in those days. It would be strange to invent a story about a god and have them come from a podunk place, especially in those days where class mobility didn’t exist.
I’ll be honest though, if you’re going to come at me expecting a deep discussion, we’ve pretty much reached the limit of everything I know. I’m a very casual learner in this area.
Jesus almost certainly claimed that he and his twelve disciples were going to rule over the new kingdom of God
Prove it.
We can be pretty sure because Judas then goes and betrays him, which we’re also very certain actually happened.
Prove it. Also explain why Paul doesn’t seem to know about it.
Finally, Jesus probably actually was from Nazareth, because that town was basically like being from nowhere in those days. It would be strange to invent a story about a god and have them come from a podunk place, especially in those days where class mobility didn’t exist.
Not if you held to a doctrine that “the last shall be first and the first shall be last”. A very popular theme in Jewish mysticism. Plus it would explain why there is no Jesus family around to claim the throne, except for James.
Furthermore, we can be pretty certain John the Baptist really did baptize Jesus. My understanding of why is a bit more limited but basically that action put John in a higher position of authority than Jesus which would have been a big issue. Scholars think Jesus was originally a disciple of John.
Criteria of embarrassment is the term you are looking for. That thing almost never used outside of biblical studies since it is a weak argument. It doesn’t work here. John the Baptist was more well known than Jesus was at the time of Mark. By attaching Jesus to him it was just another form of name dropping. Additionally Mark has John still humbled in the role. So even less embarrassing for Christianity.
It’s not that there is one part of Mark where we can say, “Oh yes, Jesus really said that specific thing.” It’s Mark presents what is called a “low Christology”. That is, Jesus was a guy, who was especially wise and holy, and therefore rose up and become somehow more than a man and imbued with the supernatural. This is what his followers almost certainly believed about him during his life and shortly thereafter.
Later gospels, especially John, present a “high Christology”: Jesus was with God on high and descended to earth and enlighten humanity, then went back to God.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read the Gospels but I believe that there are some things Jesus says in Mark, like, “Don’t preach to the Greeks”, or “Avoid the Sumerians” that are right on the money, so to speak, about what a Jew form Judea at the time would have said. These statements are generally ignored by the modern Church because they contradict Christianity’s catholic/universal current state.
It’s not that there is one part of Mark where we can say, “Oh yes, Jesus really said that specific thing.” It’s Mark presents what is called a “low Christology”. That is, Jesus was a guy, who was especially wise and holy, and therefore rose up and become somehow more than a man and imbued with the supernatural. This is what his followers almost certainly believed about him during his life and shortly thereafter.
It is possible the James community thought that way but Paul certainly didn’t. Also worth mentioning that Mark borrows the Latin fiction trope of the empty tomb meaning ascending to godhead. So even if Mark downplays Jesus while he was alive he makes him a god on his death.
Later gospels, especially John, present a “high Christology”: Jesus was with God on high and descended to earth and enlighten humanity, then went back to God.
Paul said nearly the same thing about a century earlier. What John added was the whole bit about the word. Paul does not talk about a normal person he talks about a celestial being who came to earth, did stuff, and unlike other humans (Paul didn’t believe in an afterlife) came back to life in heavenly body form. Which meant he was the new Adam.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read the Gospels but I believe that there are some things Jesus says in Mark, like, “Don’t preach to the Greeks”, or “Avoid the Sumerians” that are right on the money, so to speak, about what a Jew form Judea at the time would have said. These statements are generally ignored by the modern Church because they contradict Christianity’s catholic/universal current state.
I am being honest and not snarky at all here but I have no idea what you are talking about. I did double check this morning and saw nothing like this in Mark. Could you quote the passage?
No worries, I know you’re not being snarky!
My impression is that Mark and to some extent Matthew were probably written by Helenized Jews who may have even spoken Greek as a second language. They were not part of Paul’s proto-church.
But I really am not an expert. I will defer to you because I have the impression you are a bit more well read than me in this area.
It’s fine.
Mark I can’t really see it. He doesn’t speak Aramaic and makes some mistakes about Judaism. Matthew it is possible but he doesn’t seem to know Hebrew and speaks greek fluently. Plus Matthew is a bit antisemitic.
Really it is just easier to accept that they were outsiders looking in vs insiders who kept making mistakes.
Interesting. You make me want to find some time to read about all that stuff again.
No worries, I know you’re not being snarky!
My impression is that Mark and to some extent Matthew were probably written by Helenized Jews who may have even spoken Greek as a second language. They were not part of Paul’s proto-church.
But I really am not an expert. I will defer to you because I have the impression you are a bit more well read than me in this area.
Removed by mod
The consensus among historical scholars
Argument from authority, logical fallacy. Also you don’t apply it consistently. The consensus among humanity (95%) is that the supernatural does exist. The consensus among Bible scholars is the resurrection is a real historical event and that Luke wrote the 3rd gospel.
it was already probably clear to everyone that something bad was going to happen to the Temple, there were lots of similar guys running around.
80 football fields in area and one of the most prominent locations of the Empire. By a lot you mean the 2 we know about I assume.
Arguing that the man probably existed is not arguing that he advocated for the things he was saying in the Bible,
We follow the evidence and build claims off of it. What you are doing here is taking a claim, and weakening it so you can sneak it in. It is no different than what the diests do. They continue to hide their God in smaller and smaller amounts of time and space and scope on the very edge of what we know. It also isn’t different than what astrology does. Used to be astrology predicted the paths of empires now it is predicts that parts of your personality. All pseudoscience and fake history follows the route of ever decreasing effects.
Remember that historical argumentation and proof looks fundamentally different than argumentation and proof in physics or math. You can’t do “Josephus minus The Testimonium Flavianum plus Pliny’s letters equals Christ.”
When we don’t have enough evidence we make no claims. We don’t weaken our standards of evidence.
Argument from authority, logical fallacy.
Actually not worth reading anything past this, literally just jerking off on your keyboard while sounding like an idiot.
Yeah kind of agree. Argument from authority isn’t even a fallacy, really; we do this shit every single time we go to a doctor’s office or hospital. Ad Verecundiam really has more to do with blindly trusted singular experts (without looking at consensus) or false experts.
We also utilize expert consensus in something called science and peer-reviewed journals.
Argument from authority is a fallacy. You are confusing what we do vs what we know.
We follow experts on things we do not have time to research ourselves as a practical means to live life. We don’t blindly accept something is true because an expert said it. I work with chemists all the time who knows more than me about their field. I follow them that doesn’t mean that literally every single thing they say I trust as wholly true.
We also utilize expert consensus in something called science and peer-reviewed journals.
Already explained this to you.
Now, the majority of experts on the Bible believe the resurrection is a true historical event. Do you believe this yes or no? If yes then why are you in an atheist area if no why don’t you blindly have faith in authority?
Brilliant rebuttal. I am very much convinced in your Messiah now. Man you Christian apologists are so clever.
The consensus among Bible scholars is the resurrection is a real historical event and that Luke wrote the 3rd gospel.
Lolwut, that never came up in my graduate religious historiography class.
Dude, I’m not going to get into endless arguments with you. You don’t have the reading comprehension. I’m pretty sure you’re not even 18 yet. It takes you about two comments to start accusing anyone who calls you a Christian.
I used to laugh at folks who suggested that atheists could be as fundamentalist and dogmatic as Christian’s are, but you’ve given me cause for pause.
Yes clearly if you never saw something in class it isn’t true.
You don’t have the reading comprehension.
Personal attack no evidence.
Okay, prove to me that the mainstream academic historical view is that Jesus was resurrected and that Luke wrote the third gospel.
And if you’d like to prove your reading comprehension skills, see how many comments you can make it before accusing me of being a Christian lol.
The one true JC
set DeusEx.JCDentonMale bCheatsEnabled True
And now he can do wonders, too.
I’m reinstalling
Aw shit, here we go again…
I remember reading about this.
IRC before Emperor Constantine there was still a bit of a religious taboo of portraying Jesus (a god), due to the whole bible being against idolatry thing. So it was mostly metaphorical images of a buff shephard, if there were pictures at all, because Jesus was a shephard to his followers, and buff because why wouldn’t you make him buff?
After Constantine converted, Christianity was romanised. The Romans loved idolatary so that taboo went out the window ASAP. The image of Jesus was partly inspired by images of Apollo and Dionysus (hence white, fit and feminine) then later Zeus (hence the authoritative beard). It’s not actually inspired by actual Jesus, whose appearance was (perhaps deliberately) not described properly in the New Testament. The Church basically adapted its product to the tastes of the Roman market, just like the whole Christmas tree and Saturnalia gift giving becoming Christian traditions.
Apparently there’s a similar thing in Islam, where a lot of the stuff that’s supposedly a core Islamic value, is just Arabic culture that predates Islam. Something that annoys non-Arabic Muslims. From what I can tell, Muslims are even more likely to pretend their religion came fully formed and never changed/adapted in its long history. Understandably, I tend to avoid discussing this with devout Muslims. LOL
Obviously, religious extremists can’t admit that their religion changes and adapts, or they’d have to admit that that one value they think is really important might be changed too or that their religious texts aren’t the inerrant word of their god. Which is probably one of the reasons why different religious sects love to fight each other over stupid shit, rather than admit that they’re both the same religion, but just a bit different based on local tradition and history because their religious texts were written by humans not gods.
Or at least, that’s my theory.
Dear Jesus. Not responding to every “prove it” remark. But look, you people know that just because the supernatural clearly isn’t real, does not mean that Jesus was not a real historical figure. No serious historian thinks he wasn’t real. Most who study this period of history believe he was a real apocalyptic preacher, who was killed somewhat unexpectedly by the Romans, and whose followers at least claimed to have visions of him after his death.
None of these things are particularly far out there claims. There are many apocalyptic preachers today, no today we don’t kill them, but their followers also often claim they’ve seen some crazy things.
This is one of those silly arguments that only makes sense before you think about any detail of it. When you actually look at events in the narrative you start having to throw things out one at time until there’s almost nothing left - no trial. no last supper.no temple whipping, No feeding the 5000. No census…
1% Jesus isn’t Jesus, but if what you mean is that a real person inspired the foundation of the church then what you’re saying is they were able to make up a completely fictional account of every detail of a popular characters life - if they can do that then they why not just make him up entirely?
It is diesm all over again. Just keep making God do less and less until he doesn’t exist at all.
Because he was a real person, who was an apocalyptic preacher, was unexpected killed while Pontius Pilot was Governor of Judaea, and whose followers though they had visions of him after his death.
Supernatural things obviously aren’t real. But the historicity of this preacher we call Jesus of Nazareth, whose life inspired Paul to start what much later became the Catholic and Greek churches isn’t up for debate by anybody other than morons online.
Obviously essentially no details of any gospel is true. But that doesn’t mean the man did not exist, nor that the gospels aren’t interesting insofar as they elucidate aspects of the development of the early church and early Christian theology.
You can pretend it’s not up for debate but that’s not reality, there are plenty of very credible academics doubt the existence of a physical person as the inspiration.
Paul doesn’t even pretend to know anything about the real person so there’s no reason to imagine he needed a real person to have existed. For such a significant person don’t you think that the people who actually knew him would be prominent in the early church rather than totally vanishing from existence? There’s only Peter that has any claim of knowing Jesus and as soon as you start to look into that you start seeing red flags.
Early church history is fascinating and you’re doing yourself a great disservice to ignore the interesting side of things like where it all came from because you want to believe an easy fiction.
Credible academics in some humanities related field, sure. No expert on this period in history.
None whatsoever. Nope never happened in the history of the world.
I’m laughing at this functionally religious furvor we have going on in here. “Prove it!” Bruh, if old-ass writing that generally agrees with other old-ass writing isn’t good enough for you, might as well just throw out everything before about 1500 outside of China.
if old-ass writing that generally agrees with other old-ass writing isn’t good enough for you
Follow that to the logical conclusion and we’re expected to believe in the Great Flood myth, the existence of Angels, and the Aristotelian scientific theories of Four Elements and Four Humors.
Define generally agrees.
Sure and coconut oil exists. No, it does not cure cancer. There for the type of coconut oil that cures cancer does not exist.
No serious historian thinks he wasn’t real.
One of the big problems with “Historical Jesus” isn’t that “historians don’t think he’s real” but that “historicans can’t prove he is”.
The period covered by the Bible had a surplus of Messiah-esque figures who all kinda had some of the characteristics attributed to Big J. And Roman historians of the period who had made a point of writing histories of the region failed to mention any of the key events recorded in the early Christian scriptures.
Most who study this period of history believe
The prevailing view among most serious historians is simply “Not Enough Information”.
That said, a bunch of the more miraculous events attributed to the figure are common to prior religious icons - virgin birth, walking on water, loaves and fishes, raising the dead, exorcising demons - while the parables predate the “Historical Jesus” by centuries, as well.
So the task of “disproving” Jesus is as sticky as “disproving” Paul Bunyon. Which is to say its trivial to announce a 60’ tall man who formed the Grand Canyon with his axe isn’t real. But nearly impossible to prove “famous tall lumberjack” never existed.
None of these things are particularly far out there claims.
The thing that made Jesus stand out above the parables and the miracles was his famous walk into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, his Last Supper, and his crucifixion. These are events that we find incredibly difficult to prove.
In fact, the entire historical record around Christianity as a faith is incredibly thin for its first 150 years.
To wrap your brain around this, consider if the modern American state had approaching zero preserved historical evidence of its existence until halfway Calvin Coolidge’s second term, in 1926. Then tag in claims that George Washington could fly and shoot lasers out his eyes. Or that Abraham Lincoln used a magic staff to part the Potomac and lead Confederate slaves out of bondage. Then try to have a conversation about “historical Presidents”. Imagine if the Constitution was revealed to James Madison on gold tablets that he found in a magic hat. How do you then take the Battle of Saratoga or the Gettsyburg Address or the Louisiana Purchase at face value?
This is the fundamental problem with “historical Jesus”. What records do exist are comically unreliable.
According to Paul he learned about the last supper in a dream and we know there was a popular fictional book in the empire that describes a last supper in a very similar manner.
Our historical evidence of the man is a dream based on a novel he had read. Not exactly a good argument
According to Paul
It gets worse than that, as the attribution to Paul is itself fuzzy. You’re talking about a possibly-historical figure recounting a dream based on a story that wasn’t properly codified until after Hadrian’s Wall had been in the ground for several decades
You think Paul was made up? That I find a bit surprising. What do you got?
You think Paul was made up?
I think you’re going to struggle to find any primary sources to support his existence. Even the Gospel of Mark is dated at around 70 AD, a solid 30+ years after the events it proposes to document. The Epistles all date to 175-400 AD.
Again, imagine if the only surviving copy of the US Constitution we had was composed under the Kennedy Administration.
The common assumption around the New Testament is that it was an oral tradition for at least a generation, and probably far longer. That’s plenty of time for a story to shift and spread. Was Paul an original Apostle of Jesus or was he an Evangelical living a 50 years later who had just appropriated the original Gospel messages? Was this a real person or a pen-name? One guy or a cult-branch of the new faith? A church leader who had people working on his behalf? A legacy heir writing on behalf of an elderly/deceased apostle father? A Roman convert using the name of an Apostle to engage in theological debate without exposing his identity to hostile state government?
Its all purely up for speculation.
Yeshua Ben Hur existed. Jesus Christ, not so much.
Why are you booing me? I’m right!
No serious historian thinks he wasn’t real.
Do serious historians live in Scotland with True Scotsmen?
None of these things are particularly far out there claims. There are many apocalyptic preachers today, no today we don’t kill them, but their followers sure also often claim they’ve seen some crazy things.
Name a cult whose founder only preached for 6 months and the cult survived. Name one. You can’t. Because it never happens making your model of the events the ultimate black swan event in history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
I find when people identify someone else’s usage of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to be disingenuous, as if it’s impossible to make objective statements ever. No true historian promotes knowledge which hasn’t been proven. There is no evidence that a man named Jesus the Christ of Nazareth who could perform miracles and spoke to Pilate and was known throughout the kingdom as a troublemaker ever existed. There was a Yeshua Ben Hur who historically could be an avatar people can associate these fantastical tales with, but that would obviously not be real history.
Look no serious historian who studies that period of history believes this. You can think whatever you want and spew dumb rhetoric. But you’re incorrect.
Do serious historians live in Scotland with True Scotsmen?
Of course if I list off historians who do you then say “they aren’t serious”. We have moved from the argument from authority logical fallacy to the True Scotsmen fallacy.
Why don’t you just produce your evidence?
You forgot supply-side Jesus
Is that a bottle of, uh, personal lube?
It’s a candle, but I suppose if you’re real determined…
Scientifically, he was probably a real dude.
Probably, but there were tons of apocalyptic Jews at the time. Did any of them turn water to wine, rise from the dead, etc? Nah
Ronald Reagan didn’t do most of the things that his followers believe either but saying Regan wasn’t real is getting reeeealy existential.
How many of them founded a religion? None. So it is isn’t comparable
Prove it
Jesus was a cave man from the upper paleolithic era who survived and studied under the Buddha, then went west to try and spread those teachings, and was unintentionally ascribed godhood by his followers.
If you got that reference, I’ll buy you a drink of your choice should we ever meet.
What a great movie! I’m not the one for rewatching movies, I’ve seen this one three times, so yeah… That’s a lot for me
What’s the movie?
I know there are a lot of people that think Jesus was buddhist so I thought it was about that
Man from Earth good luck finding it if you don’t sail the high sea’s
Anything that says IPA on it I tend to like but really my favorite beer is free, so just whatever you want to get me. It is the Man from Earth. Not really a great movie. When he said John T. Party from Boston a little part of me died.
You know what one really annoying thing, amongst many, with that movie is? There are connections between the Buddha and the Gospel Jesus. However, with the sole exception of the Golden Rule, all the details are biographical. Which hints really strongly that it is just a typical way the human mind likes a story since presumably if there was a connection between the Gospel writers and Buddhism they would have his teachings instead of his biography.
Nah that movie was great for what it was. Literally one set and some of the acting was really bad but the writing makes up for all of it. Anybody who appreciates dialogue in Cinema should check it out if you haven’t already.
I don’t understand your point trying to disprove connections between Buddha and Jesus. Jesus’ part of the Bible does have his teachings. If Jesus and the Bible were real, the “biography” is basically a supercut of all the times he learned a lesson, taught lessons to others or performed miracles (sometimes the last two are the same). So I don’t understand how you’re saying his “biography” doesn’t have his teachings. But even without my explanation, I don’t see a 1+1 equation from what you said.
Nah that movie was great for what it was. Literally one set and some of the acting was really bad but the writing makes up for all of it. Anybody who appreciates dialogue in Cinema should check it out if you haven’t already.
Ok you know what? I am going to walk that back. If you enjoyed it I am happy for you. I didn’t. And that is okay.
I don’t understand your point trying to disprove connections between Buddha and Jesus. Jesus’ part of the Bible does have his teachings.
Hmm perhaps you can provide a few?
But even without my explanation, I don’t see a 1+1 equation from what you said.
A man was in heaven and came to earth to help humanity. Before his birth a magical man tells the parents that he will be great. He leaves home a bit before age 30, wanders in the wilderness for about 2.5 years. Encounters a being with red skin and horns on his head who tempts him three times. The man outwits this avatar of temptation. The man comes to a place where people have gathered and he gives a short speech which becomes one of the most significant speeches of all time laying out his entire philosophy. Of those that listened some became his first followers.
He travels around with 12 followers. He fights with the religious and political figures of his day. Befriends criminals and the outcasts of society. Has a difficult experience at the temple one day and is betrayed by one of his men. He spends his last day telling people to forgive the one who killed him and speaking to his youngest follower about taking over. The man dies and three days later the body is moved.
I am of course telling you the story of the Buddha recorded in the 6th century BCE.
Now there are parallels which I am sure you see. The thing is I don’t see teaching parallels. So if the Gospel writers were familiar with the story of the Buddha I find it weird that they were familiar with any of the teachings of the man. Nothing Jesus taught was groundbreaking, it was all available in earlier Jewish works. It would be pretty impressive if Jesus had started for example talking about the Wheel of Becoming or the eightfold path.
Okay thanks for explaining it further. I misunderstood what you said and therefore you misunderstood something I said. I’m definitely dumb and you are probably right about their teachings not being similar. I would say the golden rule is enough for me but I can definitely see why it would feel dumb for someone more educated in the subject. That happens a lot in movies and even more in TV
You aren’t dumb. We disagreed that is not the same thing at all. Best of luck to you
Well I didn’t understand you were saying Jesus didn’t teach Buddha’s teachings. I thought you were saying the Bible didn’t have Jesus’ own teachings. Use of the word “him” in various places is where my confusion came from. That’s what qualifies me as stupid. The only thing we disagree on if whether Man from Earth is good.
I’m “white” and look like the dude in the middle.
Honestly we need to stop using the words “white” and “black” to refer to skin. All the humans I’ve ever seen are brown. Maybe we should call albinos “white people”. Maybe. Probably not.
Jesus on the left looks like he’s got jaundice.
Yeah, yellow Jesus looks like his liver failed… didn’t even make it to the cross…
Nah, Jesus existed.
A lot of people were called Jesus back then.
Jesus of Nazareth on the other hand …
A lot of people were called Jesus back then.
Still are, I know a bunch of Jewish dudes named Joshua.
There are a lot of Hispanic dudes named Jesus as well.
I was aiming for that authenticity factor, though. I feel like a Jewish dude named Joshua is closer to the original than a South American dude with a Greek translation of the name.
I made American Jesus
I see him on the interstate.
A band called Bad Religion did, too! EDIT: On a second thought and based on the replies, I guess you knew from the start. Aaaanyway.
I finally got to see them last spring at punk rock bowling. They’re pretty old now, but still a good show.
He is undecided as to whether he prefers a straight or a banana mag.
Old but always relevant
He’s the force the army wields.
LMAO
Confirmed John Cena is Jesus.
Darkmatter2525?
Palestinians can be quite pale skinned though. Maybe a degree in between the two Jesii here
Must be one of those transitional forms I keep hearing about from creationists
Jesus was not Palestinian. He was Judean.
Modern Palestinians are basically Arabized Judeans.
A grift by James the Just. Nothing more and nothing less.
