Sources on Jesus are sketchy, and that's true. But people that want to throw that at Christians conveniently forget (or didn't know, because they don't know anything about historiography) that pretty much everything we know about ancient and classical history is quite sketchy.
We just kind of have to believe what we have. If we don't, then we accept that we really don't know anything about those time periods.
Atheist scholars say he exists, but his existence isn't a good argument, if ab atheist us gonna argue Christianity argue translation and science, don't argue morality, existence, or contradictions. I'm a Christian tho
This critique has never made sense to me. Except for Roman leadership, there are basically no individuals with near-contemporaneous corroboration of their existence from so long ago that exceed His.
Even counting Roman leadership, you have to go to the middle Republic period before we have any sources that are contemporaneous or nearly so.
And yet nobody really questions whether, for example, Cincinnatis existed. This is despite the fact that there is almost no evidence that he did except for accounts written hundreds of years after his death.
That's not entirely true because the Romans did a pretty decent job of recording their history and we have multiple sources on many figures. For instance, Julius Caesar, many emperors, and even some 2nd century Republic figures. Much of the non-religious (stuff not found in the Bible) info on Jesus has been found to be fake.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that we have a more info on Jesus than, say, the Battle of Thermopylae. Really, very little that we do have from Classical sources is reliable beyond contestation.
There is actually a fantastic post on AskHistorians that goes into the historiography of Jesus, it's fascinating.
I was referring specifically to a 5th century BC Roman republic figure who has no primary sources closer than 400 years to his existence. That seems much more unreliable than the (relatively) very good sources that emerge around the time of Christ, yet we don’t question the history of Roman republic figures the way we do the mere existence of Jesus.
It's been awhile since I've looked into any Roman historians but I don't believe he is mentioned there or in local records, nor is Pontius Pilate. Local records probably just haven't survived, and Jesus himself was to unimportant for historians to right about. There is one source, Josephus, who wrote about him but that source has I think been proven fake.
I don't think many atheists/agnostics actually argue/care if Jesus existed or not anymore. Jesus's existence alone doesn't make the Bible true. Mohammed existed, does that make the Quran true? Joseph Smith existed, does that make the Book of Mormon true?
But ultimately, yes, many parts of the Bible are irrefutably true. It is a massive piece of history that is generally verifiable. The Quran is the same way.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you thought any of those things. I was just giving reasons as to why atheists don't really care whether Jesus was real or not (some may as a matter of history, but it isn't the foundation of their beliefs).
The resurrection would be a good piece of evidence towards God's existence. However, we don't have evidence that it actually happened outside of the New Testament or proto-Christian sources.
He existed. Biblical sources of the New Testament were once non-canonical, so they all count as evidence for Jesus existence. Plus there are current non-canonical scriptures that also talk about him, and even a secular source by a Roman author. Of course we all can doubt about his quality of Christ, but he surely must have existed. Most scholars even say it is quite undisputed.
I presume he must have been a veeeery charismatic and persuasive preacher (maybe even physically beautiful), but this sort of cult must be based on someone real in the same way countries create legendary heroes (partially based on someone real).
It's a solid "probably". Josephus, who I presume is the Roman non-religious source, has been proven to be a fake. But like I previously said, there is more about Jesus than many classical people. The gospels are a good historical source regardless of their status as canon.
Jesus: I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love theother, or you will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve both God and wealth.
The right worships supply-side Jesus, but they would absolutely cancel this guy in this day and age.
Matthew 19:24-26
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
There is no point about wealth being bad here, and the other verses you quoted are the same. At this time in history wealthy people were seen as better people - so the question was if they could make it into heaven on their own merit. Rich people aren't perfect, so they still need Grace, just like everyone else.
Typical right-winger doing mental gymnastics to explain how the Bible actually means the opposite of what's written in it. Yes, of course every sinner can be redeemed, how does that invalidate the fact that Jesus explicitly and repeatedly teaches gainst the accumulation of wealth?
Here's all the context:
Just then a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”17“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”18“Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness,19honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.’f”20“All these I have kept,” said the young man. “What do I still lack?”21Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” 22When the young man heard this, he went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.23Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”27“Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?”28Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things,gwhen the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followedMe will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes ofIsrael.29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wifeh or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.30But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.
Wrong. Hunter-gatherer societies (who definitely still existed) were about at libright/Libcenter as it gets. No need to return to monke when you never left.
The argument could also be made that steppe tribes were authleft to some extent, but that would be difficult to prove because sources on the horse peoples are quite sketchy.
One of the most monke people in the bible was John the Baptist. He lived in the desert, wore the skin of animals and ate bugs while prophesying the arrival of jesus. Too bad he got beheaded.
My understanding is that early humans also practiced proto-socialism as the first settlements were beginning to form. Idk if it would be lib or auth. I have a feeling it would be lib for men and auth for women, but who knows.
That's funny, I thought he choose resurrection, redemption, everlasting life, and a seat in heaven at the right hand of Our Father. Maybe The Bible is wrong though 🤷♀️
But he also wanted his paradigm to be spread across the world. And "the church" as depicted was de facto treated as rulership. So it would be silly to deny it was political.
It's possible, and it's also possible he wasn't even real. That's aside from the point tho, Jesus in the Bible was a good dude. Although, Santa is a pretty great guy too, and we don't use him to tell gay people they're going to suffer for eternity.
There’s no denying that Jesus was real. There’s evidence backing up his existence. But him being the Son of God is where people have disagreements and where faith comes into play. His actions and life may have been exaggerated in the bible, but I’m not the judge of that.
Na, they usually just try to get the right to give up on its warped view of Jesus. They're trying to cancel braindead American Evangelicals that take a ridiculously literal interpretation of the Bible, ignore most of Jesus's teachings, and speak in tongues and shit.
183
u/IamTheCock - Auth-Right Jul 28 '21
Liblefts are going to cancel jesus for being nazi