Interesting. I thought it was fairly well established that Jesus existed in some capacity but the debate was about who he actually was and (from a religious standpoint) if he did any of the things the Bible claims he did. It’s interesting to read that non-jewish people of the time seemed to have no knowledge of his existence.
At the same time though, I wonder if it’s possible that most people just ignored him, which is why there’s apparently very few accounts of him until after he supposedly died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. Kinda like a street preacher in Times Square, NYC. How many people actually acknowledge street preachers on social media, and how many of them actually know the preachers by name? Then think about how social media didn’t exist yet, so the bar to be recorded in history by uninterested third parties (even just as a letter to a friend about that “annoying Jesus guy”) is probably a lot higher.
Not saying he existed, just that it’s interesting to think that he could have existed but the lack of evidence is just because no one gave a fuck.
How much of the gospels have to be true for you to be comfortable jesus existed? On one end you’ve got a dude named Jesus (0%) to every non-magical account at 100%.
Even the non-mystical stuff should have left a mark, but it doesn’t seem like it really did.
That’s the thing. Personally I’d need an individual who fits the nonmagical description moderately well and made the majority of the claims he’s said to have made. Namely I need most of his major teachings coming from the same individual. A parable or two here or there is one thing, but the beatitudes, the greatest commandment, turn the other cheek, etc that’s important to the claim that this individual existed. If it was just some dude who got executed named Jesus who wandered around clarifying the Torah that’s not the historical Jesus
I am always struck in the reading by how Jesus basically just sounds like every other two-bit cult leader. Everything is put in very grand terms as though he were greatly respected and doing everything for a captivated public but these could actually be just have been very commonplace interactions.
Like just look at how the Mormons mythologized Joseph Smith. He was literally just a “rock in a hat” grifter and dowser of the type was reasonably common who when his life is placed in appropriate historical context was not really super notable. He just got popular. There are a metric fuckton of cults at any given point who just never make superstar notoriety and die out largely uncommented on even in our news and propriety obsessed modernity. Their internal writings however are always self centered and bombastic. Cults elevate the mundane into hyperbole when you are inside them but from the outside they retain their mundanity. There’s a lot of people who just slip through historical cracks the further back you go because their contemporaries didn’t record things they didn’t think was notable or was just the water they swum in. Hard records generally tend to be beaurcratic and stories evolve dramatically to gain staying power.
We don’t treat “Christ” as the job title it is. It isn’t applied to other people but it could be. We say “Christ-like figure” but they could just be Christs. There are plenty of failed Christs out there. You generally dunno which ones have staying power until past the general limits of a human lifetime.
I’ve read some stuff suggesting pretty much that – a cult that he started, ditched when it got out of hand and they killed his brother, but then he rejoined to reign it back in. Far from low-born, far from celibate, far from magical. He’s buried in northern Spain and was survived by three children.
Some version of Jesus absolutely existed, since is was a pretty common name. Street preachers were not uncommon either, so it’s very possible that there was one named Jesus.
The real debate about whether Jesus existed is whether any of the biblical stories are at all accurate. There is No reason to think they are.
Weird, I read that jesus was not a common name at the time and that it would have been something like yusuf in reality if he was real
absolutely existed
vs
it’s very possible
are two wildly different claims which cannot co-exist.
Jeez people, next you’re going to tell me the whole Jesus story is just a fucking rehash of other stories that already existed
Seriously, Joshua? I’m willing to give you a pass for including a resurrection in your foundational myth, but this is… No one sees it happen, there’s nothing particularly impressive about it that stays afterwards, it’s just- some women find the corpse is no longer there, and they tell the men, and the men confirm that the corpse is indeed no longer there. What am I even suppose to do with this? It’s not just that you’re using the most tired trope there is, it’s that you don’t do ANYTHING with it. And I don’t mean anything new or innovative, I mean anything at all! What’s even the purpose of this resurrection? It even works against your narrative! You’re telling me that the father kills the son as a sacrifice for humankind, but then the son just resurrects? Then what’s even the point of the sacrifice? Does the son even have ANYTHING to do afterwards? No…?
I’m sorry, Joshua, but I’m going to have to give you an F. This might have been interesting before Osiris or Zagreus, but you’re literally thousands of years late. Try better with your next religion.
This might have been interesting before Osiris or Zagreus,
BTW, there’s a theory that Judaism has been heavily influenced by Akhenaten’s attempt at introducing monotheism in Egypt. It really feels as its skeleton is not Semitic, though it of course includes lots of things reminiscent of Semitic religions too.
Your telling me there was no Jewish zombie carpenter?
Saying the Bible is based in history is kinda like saying Cocaine Bear is based on a true story
In fact I’m pretty sure we have more evidence of Cocaine Bear’s existence
All of history should be taken with a grain of salt. Was a historical figure as bad as history said? Or did the patron of the guy writing things down really hate him? “Hey scribe, write on that scroll that this guy fucks donkeys.”
Or maybe the patron of the scribe really likes someone. “Write down that the Emperor made Rome Great Again!”
And you may be shocked to learn about many non-christian documents mentioning the gods they believed in at the time. Should they be ignored too?
Everything in history requires interpretation. And many times religious texts do contain indication of things that happened. Viking Sagas talked about going to North America. Next page they might talk about fighting dragons. Should all of it be ignored.
This is the importance of archaeology. Gotta dig up some stuff to confirm or reject the things they were writing down back then. Because none of it is really things we can fully trust.
History is just a story that tell each other until we find evidence that conflicts with it.
Read this wiki about Boudica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
Seems convincing, right? It’s all made up. The only thing we know of this person (if she even existed) comes from two accounts from Tacitus who wrote about her many years later (sound familiar?) and Cassius Dio who wrote about her a centurey later. There’s archaeological evidence that four towns in Britain were burned to the ground in the same time period. I guess that might have been Boudica? It’s possible, so we’ll go with that.
“It is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters” - Boudica to her army, as documented by a Roman historian that wasn’t there.
I think that this is true for ancient and medieval history, but ever since the printing press we’ve got massive amounts of contemporary primary sources. So it’s not like we cannot say with certainty what happened during World War I, World War II, 1930s Germany, civil rights movement, etc.
Zealot by Reza Aslan is a great read on this subject.
It compares and contrasts between Jesus of Nazareth vs Jesus the Christ.
Basically says that Jesus hated the rich for fucking up the temples and stealing from the common folks.
But somehow that shit got twisted by rich people and now you have prosperity gospel which is basically a lie to take advantage of people who don’t know much.
Part of the prosperity gospel is just modification of the middleman racket run by priests. Instead of being the interpreter and conduit between the person and god you now pay for that service with the idea that the more you pay the better your chances of god noticing you and your desire to go to heaven. Rich people have always assumed they can just buy their way into or out of any situation, heaven and hell included.
Exactly. It’s indulgences for Protestants, but without the priestly vows of poverty or the internal justification that the money is going to the poor. Hell they don’t even believe in purgatory, at least in indulgences there’s the idea that you’re going to be having a bad time and that through acts of charity you can buy your way into less. No this is instead you trade wealth on earth for divine favor in the form of wealth on earth. I struggle to imagine a lazier scam.
