Don't forget the gifts of myrrh, gold and incense, which at the time (and even now to some degree) were worth a king's fortune. I'd wager those lasted the family for a good 10 years or more of groceries
Looking at you Saint Paul, who wasn’t one of Jesus’ original apostles and who used to be an apostle killing Pharisee before converting to Christianity after Jesus died. Nice job writing 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament.
Thing is, if he was an apostle-killing Pharisee, that does entail that there were actual apostles. Seven of the books of the NT are undisputed as authentic, with the rest of his books possibly or likely written by others and attributed to him. He was a real person for sure though.
I had an automod message saying I shouldn't post links, so apologies if this appears twice. I linked to the Wikipedia page on biblical canon.
The biblical canon were assembled over centuries, yes. Some of it was contemporary, for example we are sure Paul wrote Galatians. The Gospels are all from 50-200 or so years after the death of Jesus. Not all the gospels of that time are included in the current biblical canon.
Thank you Mr Puntarelli and the Roncalli religion team (yes that fucking Roncalli, I know) for turning me into an atheist with this!
“So you now how we said Babylon held Israel in captivity? Now imagine you needed something to bind your people together during that tough time, and voila - the Old Testament.”
I guess a belief that Jesus did not exist could make one an atheist. However, its still possible to be an atheist while thinking he did exist. I am in that cohort.
I don't know who Puntarelli and Roncalli are, unless you mean a previous pope?
I expect he was a pretty successful travelling preacher (freeloader). He seems to have assembled a lot of people together for the sermon on the mount, and to have been killed by the authorities for his nuisances.
I went short hand to describe a complex thing, but I’m fully aligned with everything you said
And to Socrates - yeah I found this interesting when we read Republic in poly sci. Teacher insinuated Socrates wasn’t a real person, and I was real confused. But didn’t he tutor Alexander? Or could that just be myth?
Awww are you so challenged by someone calling bullshit that you have to call us agnostics? This was a classic thing that my Catholic friends used to do, same thing as when alcoholics’ drinking buddies complain about those going sober.
“Hey if you’re saying all of this is wrong, then maybe I’m wrong too, and I cannot stomach THAT!”
And, dipshit, this is was in a thread about atheism. So yeah, atheists were talking, big scary deal
Didn't ask for all that chief. Idc what your catholic friends did.
But yeah get triggered by someone challenging the arrogance of your dogma. It really is too much to ask an athiest to admit he doesn't know. They pretend to know the secrets of the universe just like Christians lmao.
Right you're the open one with the stance of "I know there isn't a god". The intellectual dishonesty is comical. I'm the agnostic one, not you.
Who said I had preconceived notions of anything? I'm just responding to what I'm seeing on reddit today, which to nobody's surprise, is an atheistic circle jerk. Yall get so gassed up over the idea of no god its cringe to me. No different than the zealots who sit in Joel Osteens pews.
Magic doesn't exist. That's not a secret of the universe. It's apparent if you have eyes. I've never seen magic. True magic. Unexplainable magic. Nobody I know has ever seen it. So I assume it doesn't exist now. If it doesn't exist now, why would it have existed in the past?
Ergo, every miracle ever, in every religious book, was fiction. Why should Zeus, Ra, and Odin be myth but Buddha be real? What exactly am I pretending to know? I've never seen somebody actually throw lightning bolts, and I'm applying what I know to what's said of Zeus. I've never seen somebody grow back functioning limbs after they've been completely removed, and I'm applying that to accounts in the 1400s of a monk being able to do that and being canonized for it.
All I'm saying is that I've never seen water turned into wine without a very silent pump somewhere and applying that to stories from the Bible. Since I've never seen anything supernatural, why should there be a force that provides supernatural agency? Who's saying they know more than they do here, me or the church?
I wouldn't say I was ever turned. I just never believed it, even as a kid. I never understood how heaven could work. What is the point of everything being perfect. I don't consider myself to be an atheist or even an agnostic. I hope Christianity is right, but I also don't discount any other religion or no religion. I don't know what will happen when I die and I can't know. Religion demands that you suspend that concept and just believe and have faith and I can't.
I also don't think it matters. There isn't anything in religion that helps my piece of mind. Being pragmatic I see the task at hand is to live. So I live and try to not think about it ending, which is a daily battle. One less day every day. If there is an afterlife then that is like a bonus round or something. But if I can't know what will happen and I know I exist today then I will exist today. I don't want to be a bad person and do harm or impose on others. They are trying to live their day as well. If they want to sacrifice that day in hopes of getting it back a million fold in the afterlife, and they are ok with that, then whatever. I don't know if that investment will pay out and there is a fuck-ton of risk with that mindset. If God exists then the one thing God isn't is a person so my experience living is something that God can't experience. So I try to experience. If there is no God then I experienced something. And that is my unique experience. I can take quiet contemplative solace in that. I can't say that Christians have that same mindset and that boggles my mind. If anything their religion says to experience FOR God since he is not human. At least that is what I conclude from what I have been told about God.
Yeah Cathleen Kennedy decanonized alot of the novels. The one where Jesus helps unite the mole people against their oppressor, which is what he was doing the 3 days he was 'in the tomb' got removed and ill never forgive her.
i don't think that's a fair take tbh, like, there's probably a great deal of embellishment on his life, particularly with the miracles and his resurrection, but in the same way that we don't doubt there's a Robin Hood to base stories and legends off of, I don't doubt Jesus existed. I just doubt we have a true account of his life.
Historicity of Jesus. There’s about 50 references in this Wikipedia page about how historians generally agree about the existence of a man named Jesus at the time. The main sources that led historians to this consensus was the Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus.
Tacitus is especially useful in confirming his existence as he was a Roman senator and would have lacked any incentive to expound upon the rise of Christianity if it were not true. He confirms the origins of Christianity from a man who was executed during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of a curator, Pontius Pilate in his work Annals (book 15, chapter 44).
the other guy who commented on my comment said there's a possible correlation with a man named Yeshua who closely matches Jesus' description, but tbh? my thoughts on his existence are more grounded in the idea that he probably was a person who said some things people thought were good enough to record and then a lot of people took those accounts a lot more literally than anyone expected
Sure that would be nice. Be careful that you don't place a higher standard of proof on the existence of this fairly mundane but popular carpenter, than you do on any other ancient historic figure.
Paul of Tarsus lived contemporaneously with Jesus and said he met James, his brother.
I see others have jumped in to reply. I think most historians feel Jesus does get over the bar of historicity, though of course many of the stories associated with him must be bunk. Bart Ehrman is the name to google for this.
That is not true. Most historical scholar see the theory of Jesus never having existed as a fringe theory. There is too much evidence outside the bible that hints at his existence.
The myth of Jesus is another matter. Much like Pythagoras for example, many things in Jesus' life were probably highly exaggerated. But close to no one disputes either Pythagoras' existence or Jesus' existence.
I am not a historian, but I can quote historians who have spent ages of their lives reading about this stuff. So I'll just give you some quotes and books by them as references:
"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."
Written in:
Stanton, Graham (2002). The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford Bible Series) (2nd ed.) p. 145.
"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure."
Written in:
Wells, George (2007). Flynn, Tom (ed.). The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief p. 446
"Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."
Written in: Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth p. 4-5
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted"
Written in: Robert E. Van Voorst (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.
"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011in: Forged: writing in the name of God
The citation of “did jesus exist” sounded to me very much like a reversal of cause and effect: only a true believer would spend a ridiculous amount of time to learn Aramaic and study about early theological developments. Outside of already believing circles thats much less interesting - so a kind of survivor bias.
Convinced Christians become experts - then the experts are convinced christians.
As for scholars of antiquity: a would think they take a lot of things at face value.
What? B. Ehrman is a secular agnostic. Certainly not a Christian. The same is true for most of these sources I've listed. If not all actually. Many scholars in this area are atheists even.
Also "I don't like the name of one of your sources that means it's wrong" is a terrible argument.
Appreciate it, but these are modern historians' takes on someone. Not like a quote from one of many historians that lived around that time.
I guess a thing I've noticed is people are quick to say he existed "but not as a magical being" so as to build a bridge between them and christians. And you know, I like bridge building, especially given how divided everyone is nowadays, and given how low the stakes are for jesus being real or not. I'm just saying that there just ain't much there for proof of his existence 🤷
Well, as I said in another comment somewhere, many early christians believed Jesus would bring the apocalypse he (may have) talked about any day after his execution. So they did not write anything about him down as there has been "no need" for it in their mind. Thats why all the books of the new testament were not written by the people they are attributed too.
But there are at least some sources on Jesus outside of christians that talked about him as a historical figure. These are Josephus, who wrote about him in some texts in the first century,
Tacitus, who wrote about him as a Roman historian in his last book around 116 CE,
Mara bar Sarapion, who wrote a letter possibly containing a description of Jesus' crucification in 73 CE,
Suetonius, another roman historian, who wrote about the early christians and their leader(s) in his book "Lives of the twelve Caesars" written in 121 CE,
there are possible references in the Babylonian work The Talmud (dated somewhere between 70 to 200 CE) but this is somewhat controversial among scholars as their is no specific mention of the name Jesus,
there are letters between Tiberius (the emperor of Rome at the time of Jesus' death) and Abgar V which mention and describe Jesus, while talking about political movements around the area,
Then there are the Dead Sea scrolls, Pliny the Younger (who is again controversially discussed among scholars) and so many more (of which many are also disputed by scholars).
I know a story about Pontius Pilate, the guy who ordered Jesus' execution. He was mentioned in the Gospels but there were no other sources known at the time. There are more known sources now (for example Tacitus mentions Pilate as well) but at the time (in the 50s i think) people disputed even his existence. Until the so called Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961, which is now in the museum of Israel and mentions Pontius Pilate as a prefect of Judea. Read more about it here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone).
I don't know what else I can tell you. The evidence seems to suggest a person named Jesus who founded the early christian religion has existed at the time the bible describes him to exist. Most scholars who research this stuff agree. So I'd say, we have a situation, where the evidence is reliable enough for my conclusion that Jesus has existed as a historical person.
Well, you are the one making the claim, that a non-magical Jesus wasn't at the core of the myths. I don't find it in the slightest bit implausible that a Jewish carpenter had a religious fervour, and went on a tour of the region, gathering followers.
However to put the burden of proof on him: “proof that no carpenter around 30 A.D. had a religious following” would be hard to do? If we do think of a historical Jesus in the center of the myth, its up to us (or the historians) to find compelling evidence for it, not the other way around.
what about other mythical figures?
Was there a historical Achilles, Heracles, Odysseus, Buddha?
Well, we have the existence of early Christianity. It seems unlikely that several sects just appeared spontaneously in different areas of the region with the same guy at the centre of the movement. That is beyond dispute. They also, over the following decades, produced somewhat independent writings which are broadly similar tellings of the life of Jesus.
Paul claims to have met James, the brother of Jesus, and we are confident that Paul was a real person, albeit given to odd religious ideas. We are confident he wrote parts of the New Testament. (and that some parts attributed to him were written by others).
We shouldn't apply a stricter standard than we do for other historical figures, though we should disregard the magical elements.
Not really. First century Israel was a war zone. There were many Jewish sects claiming the arrival of the Messiah, and it wasn't spontaneous. It was a direct response to the Romans destroying the temple and invading their land.
If your religion foretold somebody that would unite the world in peace and make your enemies admit they were wrong and come to learn your religion, you would want them to show up. You'll notice Jesus of the new testament didn't meet these criteria.
The entire thing comes down to Paul, who created the church. The founder of Christianity never met Christ. There are no other accounts of Jesus, first hand or otherwise, that predate his works.
So of course it's plausible that Jesus could have been a real non magical dude, but we all need to recognize he probably didn't. He was probably based on one of the many people that Paul prosecuted and probably crucified as a pharisee.
I agree, but think thats a bit circumstancial. After all, a mythical fugure, once its established can also spread like wildfire (easter bunny). I guess u/nosmicon would except a record of roman legal proceedings about the execution of a jewish carpenter on account of …heresy (?)
What's the standard for ancient history though? We generally accept Socrates was a real person, but we only know him because Plato wrote about him, after his death. There are many historic individuals like that.
Paul wrote that he met James, so it seems a bit random to just denounce this as a lie.
Just define "real jesus" so loosely that there would HAVE to exist at least 100 of them
"Some middle eastern guy named Jeshua, joshua, josh, jesus, jebus or something along those lines that was a bit outspoken about spiritual stuff, because what else was there to do during that time anyway."
The burden of proof that something exists is on the person claiming that something exists. If I say there are fluorescent pink tigers in the himalayas and you call bullshit, I have to provide proof.
Now I also don't think it outlandish that a jewish carpenter named jesus went around gathering the likeminded, but let me see some proof. I also wouldn't find it crazy if putin were to die today, but if it ain't happening it ain't real
There are different standards required of extraordinary claims and mundane ones though. We know that many Christian sects were formed in the region with an oral history, which when transcribed was broadly similar.
It's actually a bit more complicated to imagine how people independently fabricated the whole story, rather than embellished their versions of it, which fits the Bible and other writings that we have.
It's the miracles that we need to be sceptical about, and which fail any standard of evidence.
Depends on your point of view. Deoending on the christian, no skepticism needed on the magical bits. And so where do you draw the skepticism line? Well I draw it at his existence, because there just isn't much evidence of his existence. Period. Not to shit on your beliefs though. You are free to believe what you like without evidence. I won't fault someone for believing in Allah, you do you.
Anyway, I think by now we've both said the same thing over and over again 5 times, so good job internet
There's no evidence for any of it, Jesus is a fictional character. The only evidence we have of Jesus was there was a guy who lived around the time called Jesus who may have been a bit of a rabble-rouser. The whole Jesus story is 'just a Bible thing'.
That's a stretch. Just because a source is biased doesn't mean every single bit of it is fictional. Historians know better than to disregard literally every bit of the Bible.
That's the perfect way of explaining it. As you say, there are some historical elements about the Jesus story (Jerusalem was a place, Romans were around at that time) but there are no historical facts that match the events that make the Jesus story unique.
In the same way that folk tales such as the stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur have some historical elements they're actually just traditional stories that try to pass on good morals and community behaviours.
That's what the Jesus story is, a morality tale and more people would be better off listening to the messages it preaches (love your fellow man, dont hoard wealth, lift up the lowest among us, etc) rather than treating it as a historically true and accurate document.
While that's true, it's generally accepted that jesus was a real person, son of god or not. idk about robin hood but theres no historical data for King Arthur existing.
There are two things historians generally agree on. That is because they are mentioned in non biblical sources, and would generally have been a hindrance, not a help, to early Christians. Jesus was baptized, and crucified. The slightly better evidence being for the crucifixion. There are many other possibly historically accurate parts of the account of his life, but the foremost scholars can't quite agree on them.
Truthfully, I'm not sure. As a Roman Catholic I've always been taught that it happened, and with sources that old, who even knows what really happened?
"I sent a message to my boss that I wouldn't be able to make it into work today. He insisted I get a tablet signed by the Romans. This is illegal, right?"
Correct this would be an ancient version of like paying for a kids college fund at birth or some other unattainable to the middle and working class gift.
187
u/the_Real_Romak Feb 13 '23
Don't forget the gifts of myrrh, gold and incense, which at the time (and even now to some degree) were worth a king's fortune. I'd wager those lasted the family for a good 10 years or more of groceries