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?
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
Sure and coconut oil exists. No, it does not cure cancer. There for the type of coconut oil that cures cancer does not exist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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!
Do serious historians live in Scotland with True Scotsmen?
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.
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?