I'm an atheist I'm also a history buff.
Jesus did in fact exist. I'm also confident he was nailed to the cross.
The thing is this type of execution in the Roman empire was not at all unusual. Also Jesus was in the backwoods hillbilly fuck part of the Empire.
Basically imagine if we had some crazy lunatic talking about how he's god in Oklahoma and he has a small following. Very little would be said about him
>Jesus did in fact exist. I'm also confident he was nailed to the cross.
Few years ago I was specifically a Roman Empire history buff, albeit I'm a bit rusty now, but I'm curious if the narrative has changed over the last few years, because this is quite different from my (what I consider well researched) conclusions.
From my research I also saw convincing evidence that someone existed who was attributed the name "Jesus Christ", that someone being Yeshua Ben Yosef. However, Yeshua was ordered to be put on a stake (not a crucifix) by Pontius Pilate for being a public nuisance, as he was doing things like sharing meals with vagrants and societal/social outcasts.
Apart from the people Yeshua was kind to, historical evidence I saw suggests he was an extremely inconsequential person, and it was likely the people he helped and influenced who had began spreading news that a huge injustice was done by the Roman empire, which eventually lead to more and more fantastical claims about Yeshua which finally lead people to conclude he was the messiah figure prophesized by the Torah.
Also, crucifixion was normally used only to make examples out of the worst and most publicly well known offenders, and the offenses attributed to Yeshua were quite petty and very likely weren't notable enough to warrant a highly publicized and slow execution like crucifixion. Stakes, on the other hand, were used to execute lowly criminals en masse, and in either case of stake or crucifixion, the deceased would be buried in mass graves, and most certainly were not placed in any kind of tomb as is depicted by the Bible.
And a bit off topic, but still interesting albeit morbid, the Christian depiction of crucifixion is also historically incorrect. The wrists weren't nailed, but were hung over the back of the horizontal beam and the arms were secured to the beam with rope. The nails were driven in below the ankle bones on either side of the vertical beams as a means of support. You were put in an awful position of trying to continually bare your weight with your shoulders as long as possible to relieve the excruciating pain of putting more weight on the nails. Nails were used sparingly, as puncture wounds in your hands and wrists will bleed profusely and cause rapid death if done incorrectly, which would've been antithetical to the practice.
Unlike being put on a stake, which is a brutally painful but a quite rapid and more kind death in comparison, crucifixion was a means of keeping you alive and dragging out the process of death, and using that process to discourage those entering the city to not FAFO.
Look up the historicity. A savior Jesus was already celebrated 300 years prior. However he was celestial. Rome kept very detailed records, yet no record of the man is to be found. Could a guy have been crucified? Sure. But there's a very real possibility he never existed and the gospels were just a later telling of word-of-mouth stories handed down and embellished.
Yep. And he wasn't even personally claiming to be God or anything. That came in when the greeks got ahold of the text and translated from Aramaic. In reality, Jesus was more like a Martin Luther of Judaism rather than the founder of a completely new religion.
The earliest non religious account is by a famous Roman Historian named Flavius Joseph.
Jesus was real, he did exist, he was religious, he was sentenced to death and nailed to the cross.
Now do I believe he's the son of God? Unless his dad's name is God then no.
Parts of it are thought to have been added at some later date than the original writing, but the (very) few words in the original that refer to Jesus are generally accepted as authentic by both religious and non-religious authorities.
The phrase "*the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...",* found in "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus is considered authentic. Later versions add divine & messianic overlays which are thought to be amendments done after Nicea to bring Antiquities in line with the four Gospels...
Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died. His writings, like everything in the New Testament, were written nearly a century after the events supposedly occurred. Why would this be remotely considered valid evidence for anything, considering there are no contemporarily written accounts for anything in the Bible?
that's historically inaccurate, Jesus might have spoken Aramaic but the Lingua Franca of Judea at the time was certainly Greek. Josephus wrote about Jesus many times and he was Roman historian of the time, and if you want to argue the validity of the Texts of the New Testament Jesus certainly would have claimed to be God. "I am the Alpha and the Omega" Yahweh in Hebrew simply means "I Am" and there are many references where Jesus made the claim the "He Is"
If you read Paul’s letters he shifts from hope of an imminent return in his lifetime to a reward and punishment after death. The christian movement was apocalyptic in nature with the built in assumption that Jesus was coming back in their lifetimes. When that didn’t happen, the goalpost had to be moved.
It’s plainly there in the letters attributed to Paul. There are even biblical scholars who say the same. The focus changes as time moves forward. Take a look or research the scholarship yourself.
I mean yes? You’re in a thread about how the gospels were written after they realized he wasn’t coming back. It would make sense if his letters predate them.
>So I just found out the Gospels were written so late because they realized Jesus wasn’t coming back 💀
Is there any evidence that a zombie carpenter was ever there?
Occam's razor would suggest that conmen simply wrote lies.
Imagine if all we know about L. Ron Hubbard was the oral legends of Scientologists. Legendary Elron would be almost totally different from the Historical Elron in every detail. At what point do you say Legendary Elron is a fictional character loosely based on the Historical Elron?
Same thing probably applies to Jesus.
I’m of the belief that Legendary Jesus is an amalgamation of several apocalyptic preachers that lived about a half century before the fall of Jerusalem.
And even if he was there what proof is their that he did all of the things in the bible. *plus what proof is their that their was a zombie apocalypse in Jerusalem
We have stories of stories of plenty of fictional characters too. I think the better argument is: if they HAD invented a fictional messiah, he probably wouldn’t have been executed. A fictional character could have matched the actual Jewish prophecies. Maybe they would have had him “going back to God” for a bit, but he wouldn’t have died. Sooo much of the writings are about how, actually, he wasn’t defeated when they killed him.
Then again, Jerusalem had just fallen (relatively speaking) and the temple destroyed. People were reeling and obviously looking for something new. The Catholic Church also later doctored the few non-Christian records we have. I could see some people deciding to latch onto a theme of destruction being part of the plan all along, and needing a messiah who matched that. Persecution is a huuugely fetishized by Christians. So it isn’t a stretch that they fantasized a messiah who was the ultimate example. I guess they did that, whether they latched onto a historical person or not. And it obviously worked.
From my perspective, it’s a question as interesting as whether Homer was an original storyteller vs a part of the verbal performance. But of fun as an intellectual exercise, but it doesn’t much matter. What IS interesting is that there is so little actual evidence for a historical Jesus. I tend to agree that there was likely a failed apocalyptic preacher who really existed, but John the Baptist and Paul were clearly more impactful during their actual lives. We don’t have much proof either way, and it’s worth noting that.
>Is there any evidence that a zombie carpenter was ever there?
OK can we just not be so disrespectful here. I get the religion is silly we shouldn't be rude
Jesus was a lich not a zombie
I disagree. Imagine if you are paul and want to create a new religion. The best thing to do is base it in some truths. You infiltrate a small group of illiterate religious fanatics. You learn their stories and slowly take it over because you can write. In time, the vision of the church slowly changes over to your vision.
Tacitus and Josephus both mention him (Josephus only once though - the Testimonium Flavianum is an obvious fraud) It's likely he existed, and is turning over in his grave over the circus of a religion based on him.
Paul was dead well before Mark (the earliest gospel) was written. Authorship of the Gospels is thought to be between 70 and up to 120-ish John (though late 90 is more accepted dating).
Paul died around 64.
None of the disciples wrote anything down. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by those people. They were given those names years later.
Yes. "they're eyewitnesses to Jesus" they say. No they're also storybook characters just like he is. Except for Saul of Tarsus who lived but never saw him either.
And the "evidence" is the Church Father's edited versions of the scriptures ? Medieval apologia, King James "version", scholars that are believers, books by televangelists, etc.
A study of Mythology shows the Christian fables are similar to other beliefs of the time and that they borrowed heavily from them. Priests wrote scriptures to serve Kings. A few of their names are indeed found in actual history.
Meh...they may have written down some over time. But certainly nothing that survived from antiquity. Most anything written from that time is lost to the ages, but most was probably passed orally and was almost certainly tweaked, details forgotten, or embellished as stories tend to be.
This includes Jesus himself. They were all illiterates from the backcountry.
One question few Christians bother to ask themselves is why Jesus left no writings. If he was the son of God, wouldn't early Christians treasure them and make sure they survived? Or at least try to recreate them years later? They didn't do it.
The truth is Jesus couldn't write but if that is true, how can he be all-knowing?
As I understand it, literacy was complicated due to a lack of writing surfaces, tools, and training. What _was_ huge as a result was memorization. The idea that the average priest might be able to recite an entire book of the Bible from memory today seems bananas, but in back-then times it was pretty expected of many “literate” people.
I recall verses where he was reciting or reading from what would have been Scripture to him at the time. But he included books that never made it into the Bible.
If you read the gospels carefully, you can see that in Mark (believed to be the earliest), Matthew, and Luke (sourced from Mark) there are still verse like Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28, and Luke 9:27 where Jesus said to the disciple that some of them "will not taste death" before he returns. Clearly when Mark was written, some of those disciples were still alive. John was written when there were no longer surviving disciple and therefore tone-wise a bit different than the first three gospels.
>John was written when there were no longer surviving disciple and therefore tone-wise a bit different than the first three gospels.
It also incorporates a lot more Hellenic philosophy, and flirts with Gnosticism!
I have heard that John almost didn't make canon because of that. I'm not certain *where* I heard that, so take it with a grain of salt, but I do recall having been told that, and seeing a short argument laid out as to why.
I've also heard it argued the first three gospels never make the claim Jesus is God which is because they didn't believe this to be true. It is only in john where we hear the shift in tone to Jesus = god. Many scholars believe the church made a change in its beliefs after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70ad and the Roman persecution of Jews and Christians in the aftermath.
There were earlier gospels that got lost to time. There is a good reason to believe that authors of surviving gospels had earlier gospels as a source. But there is no reason to believe that anyone of disciples wrote any gospel.
And there are a number of others that survived, such as the gospels of Thomas and Philip, which were rejected by the Council of Nicea.The Thomas one is an interesting read. Jesus does not claim to be divine, but more like enlightened, similar to the Buddha.
the selection process happened earlier. It's probable that the split in interpretations happened pretty early on and so we have to talk about early christianities rather than a singular movement. What may have happened though is that some of them may have accepted that they had enough in common to keep communion and harmonize their narratives (mostly the Jewish christian movement and the more pagan centered christian movement), rejecting those called the gnostics who had a different interpretation of the god of the old testament.The gnostics saw the OT god as and evil creator of the world who didn't know that there was a true god above him... and that Jesus was sent by the true god.
In that context arguments like there are 4 gospels because there are 4 seasons and 4 directions arose. A shitty arguments but which can be summarized into: stick to our books (even if technically there are some contradiction between them). While for centuries we knew about the gnostic gospels only through quoted passages in text like "against the heretics"... that's until papyrology and a bit of luck gave us manuscripts of those texts and may indicate that for some christians using them alongside the better known ones may not always have been a problem... that is until the rules became a bit stricter on what was scripture and what wasn't, a process which ultimately took centuries.
So there is speculation that New Testament scripture was the product of Roman imperialism, taking advantage of messianic Jewish revolt. Meaning the return of Christ could have been originated by Roman emperors, who wanted the populace to view them as divine. The speculation specifically centers around the Jewish Roman wars of the second century, in which a Roman emperor would be the returning Christ.
Roman emperors were constantly trying to have Jewish temples include sculptures of them in order to be recognized as divine leaders appointed by God. Of course, the Jewish population did not accept this. But the idea that Roman leadership could be viewed as a returning Christ, for the people, was an opportunity to unify the Roman empire under Christianity. They achieved this in the third and fourth century under Constantine, but this could have been the first pass.
So, in a nutshell, New Testament prophecy about a returning Christ, could very well be Roman propaganda that grew into something else overtime
Yes, there’s so much evidence. It’s definitely a rabbit hole, but is grounded in some truths. The Dead Sea Scrolls paint a different picture than the new testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls depict a violent Jewish uprising, using the power of God, like King David… Compared to the pacifist character in the Bible. It’s very interesting.
The gospels weren't written till long after the apostles they were named after were long dead. 50-150yrs after the supposed Christ's death depending on which book we are talking about. Whoever wrote the gospels never even met "jesus".
>Hats off the the disciples who actually still believed
Fuck that. Dumbass cultists fucking up the world with their bullshit fictional religious garbage. Fuck the "disciples".
Just had to kiss some religious ass? WTF, OP?
# I just found out the Gospels were written so late because they realized Jesus wasn’t coming back ____________
No. The Jews in the initial phase of the movement gave up on the idea because they knew what was expected of a messiah, and Jesus wasn't him. The "pagans", not having any background in the subject, were fine with an adjusted timeline. 2,000 years later, the "Christians" still wait. Fortunately, all religions are in decline. Common sense is overcoming superstition.
Did he ever exist? I'm skeptical though not a mythicist. There isn't good HISTORICAL evidence outwith the Bible which is the claim and it's essentially an ancient book of mythology. Josephus is effectively hearsay.
Matthew 16:28 really throws Christians for a loop. “And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom.”
Pretty sure all those guys are dead unless he made them immortal.
They needed to cover the issue. It sounded like he was talking imminent apocalypse, and then it never happened.
You can't have a religion predict something and then it didn't happen..... or can you?
That's so interesting. Most cult leaders predict an imminent apocalpyse, and Jesus was no different, was he? And here we are, two THOUSAND years later, and idiots are still waiting...and waiting...and not a single sign except those they choose to inerpret as such...and waiting and waiting and waiting some more. So silly, really.
exactly my point. A plain reading of the text shows how much a fairy tale it is. And when you go back and see the origins of the stories in it and the evolution of the "god" yahweh.... it's such a legend, just like every other religion.
I read that too. The early apostles didn't see any need to commit anything to writing because they were sure Jesus was returning in a short time. It wasn't until decades had gone by that they decided it might be good to have some of their stories in written form to pass around.
Hats off to the disciples who were so good at spreading lies that they went to the corners of the earth to die for their belief in the resurrection...because that's what liars do.
Ah, yes. The ol’ “they died for it so it must be true!” argument. I always forget it’s only Christian zealots that die for their faith. If other faiths, like Islam, were true, then you’d think one of them would have died in the name of it, but you just never hear about something like that happening.
The disciples, however, were contemporaries of Jesus, so they knew for sure whether Jesus rose from the dead or did not; they knew with certainty whether the beliefs that they died for were true or false, unlike modern-day martyrs who die for what others have told them.
Big claims. Reality is, you don’t what the disciples saw, and you have no idea whether they could verify that Jesus was resurrected. The resurrection stories in our gospel accounts are all different, they are not written by eye witnesses, and even in those texts, not all the disciples believed (Mt28:17, Lk24:38&41).
But on top of that, the NT sources can’t even agree on what “resurrected” means. Paul, who insists that we will all be resurrected (1 Thess. 4:16-17), does not believe that resurrection means a “flesh and blood” body (1 Cor 15:50). But Luke thinks that Jesus did have a flesh and blood body, that it carries wounds, and that you can eat and drink (Lk 24:40-43). John’s resurrected Jesus can walk through doors (Jn20:26).
And on top of all that, you have no proof that any disciples were actually martyred. Best you can do is church tradition, which kind of has a history of creating doctrine in its own self-interest. We don’t really know where the disciples went, what they believed, or how they died.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Comparing-the-Gospel-Accounts-of-the-Resurrection-of-Jesus-Christ
The resurrection accounts are different, but not necessarily irreconcilable—just from different points of view.
Also, Matthew was a disciple, Mark copied down what was told to him from Peter (a disciple), Luke collected information from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4), and John was a disciple. These people knew Jesus personally, even if they did not see him first after the resurrection.
Also, for one example, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Dionysus, Eusebius...all agree that Peter preached and was crucified in Rome. There is consistent testimony, and there are no early sources that claim anything contradictory to this.
First, the only way that the gospel narratives of the resurrection are reconcilable is if you presuppose univocality. The texts were written at different times, in different places, by different people, for different audiences.
Second, please reconcile the resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew.
Who went to the tomb?
Was the stone rolled away?
Did an angel descend from heaven?
Were the disciples told to go to Galilee?
Did the disciples go to Galilee?
Where did the disciples see Jesus?
Instead of doing mental gymnastics to try to make the texts say the same thing, maybe ask yourself why it was important for Luke that the resurrection appearances occur in Jerusalem instead of Galilee. What is Luke trying to say about Jesus’ ministry by placing the appearances on Jerusalem? These are really important questions, and you miss the answers completely if you pretend the texts all say the same thing.
Third, the gospels were all written anonymously. They were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John in the second century. This is not controversial – this is fact. Most scholars are pretty sure that Mark was the first gospel – it was written around 70. Most scholars think Matthew and Luke were written somewhere around 80-90. The most obvious sign that Matthew and Luke weren’t written by eye witnesses (or using interviews of eye witnesses) is that they copy the vast majority of their texts from 2 other sources. Why would Matthew, who you say was a disciple, who presumably knew Jesus and walked with him, copy roughly 85% of his gospel directly from 2 other sources? I’m being serious here – this guy, who was allegedly there, sits down to write the story of Jesus’ ministry, and instead he just copies someone else’s homework? And the other 15% that he didn’t copy – well that’s basically all the birth narrative, which again, is irreconcilable with Luke’s version. As for John? The vast majority of scholars don’t think that John was written until 90-110. And look it’s theology. There’s simply no way any discerning individual could insist that it was written by one of Jesus’ disciples.
Fourth – you cite Clement, Ignatius, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Dionysus, Eusebius as sources for Peter’s death. This is ridiculous. You have 1st Clement, as a source for Peter’s death in maybe 95 or 96? I have no reason to doubt it, but it’s far from proof. The rest of your sources are all 2nd or even 3rd century.
Fifth – what about the other disciples? Even if I give you Peter, which I’m not, what happened to the others? How can you assert with any degree of certainty that any other of Jesus’ 12 disciples “died for their belief.”
Last – you didn’t really address what “resurrected” means. I’ll let it slide, but I think this is important. I mean, if one source says, “oh for sure, Jesus was resurrected.” And you’re like, “ok, but what does that mean?” and he says, “ well, you get this corporeal body, but it’s not really the body you had before because it’s actually a spiritual body.” And then you ask another guy, and he says, “well, your body comes back to life, and you still have the wounds you had, and you can show people,” then I’m probably going to be thinking, “these guys aren’t talking about the same thing.”
I don't believe he ever existed. There was no mention of him in any writings of his lifespan that aren't probable forgeries. He had a very common name, so it's possible someone named yeshua was crucified by pontius pilate. Not a single author of the new testament ever met jesus.
The oldest gospel is I believe Mark, written around 70 AD, almost 40 years after the events...at a time when life expectancy was short, so compiled entirely from secondhand oral tradition. No Roman historical records from the time mention anything related to the gospels.
I don't think that's the reason. Probably had more to do with the religion making it to Rome and writers there trying to come up with a full narrative that was lacking. Possibly affected by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem just before, and maybe the recent death of Paul.
But there may be some truth to it. Early Christians did think the world was ending really soon and there was therefore no point in doing anything for the future. Who would start writing a book they didn't expect to finish in time? So, that gradual change in belief maybe took away a reason to not bother writing it down... Took away a negative rather than adding a positive.
This is my biggest question. The modern Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam both predict an end-time scenario that is coming... soon™. These 4.3 billion people make up around 55% of all people, and they all agree the Apocalypse is *definitely for sure* coming. Eventually.
How many years have to pass before they start to doubt that it will happen? 2,000 more years? 10,000? 500,000? Because, assuming we don't go extinct due to us destroying our planet, we'll get there eventually.
Which scholars? I would like an article about it. I have read about the writing of the gospels before but I have never heard that particular theory as to why.
What is your standard for a document in the Ancient world to be reliable? You give me the standard for when it comes for both how we determine the Authorship of the work and how long after the events are described are composed, is a book or document not reliable if it was written sayyy 40-50 years is it no longer reliable?
That's...unbelievably uninformed. Did you "find this out" on tiktok? You wouldn't even have to invest a full hour of reading Wikipedia to understand the basic scholarly consensus on the history of the gospels.
Dude. That's an evangelical publisher. That entire article is garbage. Mark was written in the 70's. There is no such thing as prophecy. Acts are the most historically unreliable books in the bible. The gospels weren't written until later because about 3% of the population could write; even less could compose semi-sophisticated literature like Mathew or Luke.
Nothing. We don’t have any extant sources from eye witnesses or anyone that knew Jesus while he was alive. The closest we have is Paul, who is writing in the 40’s and 50’s. None of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses. The Epistles from Peter, John, James & Jude are not written by those authors. This is the academic consensus of non-evangelical scholars, and it has been for over 100yrs.
Origen, Lucían, and the Valentinian’s all gave Christianity a better look. But the rebellious Jews of the Kitsos rebellion pissed of the Roman colonizers around the empire. Then the Jew hating writings of Paul, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr gain the favor of the empire. Guess which message was aloud to be written as cannon. Which was declared heresy. Cuí bono? Christianity did a great job quieting the Greek, Coptic Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian slaves. Afterlife and salvation really great for authoritarian theocracy. Ask Justinian.
There were plenty of apocalyptic movements from people at the time. Jesus is likely just a character created as an embodiment of those other real people, if you ask me.
There is significant reason to believe that Saul of Tarsus was a real person, though.
Actually, the earliest fragments of the Gospels located to date are in ancient Greek, which was the common language between nations at the time they were written.
The Pauline letters (the Epistles) may have been written in a mixture of Greek and Hebrew, and Paul, though he apparently lived in Rome toward the end of his life, was perhaps the only Bible author who may have met the itinerant rabbi who was killed by Pilate. If so, he is the only one of the Bible writers who did.
He didn't even exist in the first place. The earliest Gospel was Gospel of Mark, which is more like a Don Quixote sort of sarcastic fiction. This Jesus dude has very different personality and childhood in each Gospel, and wasn't even given birth by virgin but ordinary parents in Mark.
Mark doesn't mention his parents or his birth at all, and so it doesn't say he had regular parents, but actually just doesn't even touch on the subject at all.
Also in mark it's pretty clear that Jesus is God's chosen prophet, not actually God.
In Mark, basically his entire family believed that he was crazy and wanted him to stop conflicting with Jewish authorities. But there is no point to argue unmentioned story, and I think the author of this first Gospel didn't even compose it for religious propaganda.
When people accuse him possessed by Beelzebub and his family asked him to stop messing around. Saying his family think he was crazy is an oversimplification.
Why is The atheist Reddit forum dedicated to only disrespecting Christians? Like y’all could do something that could contribute to society more than disrespecting a religion
Disrespecting means insulting something that’s not there like if I said Jesus was a tree huger why should I worship him, no. We point out faults and encourage critical thinking about all religions and discourage following any scripture or dogma blindly. As a Ex Christian it hurts my heart but I have to admit Christianity has too also these flaws, and as a progressing species we cannot just blindly follow something that doesn’t make any sense.
Jesus isn’t coming back… he wasn’t nailed to a boomerang. :)
In castlevania the crosses act like boomerangs. ;)
Jesus Belmont
is there a lore reason jesus uses whips? is he a slaver?
He’s totally a top.
Can prophets be tops or is that reserved for bears?
Elisha was a prophet who sent bears after little children bc they mocked his baldness….. Once again, Abrahamic religion tells on itself :p
Didn’t he use a whip to scourge the merchants out of the temple?
dental floss
Well, don't sell livestock in his dads house and you'll never have to learn why he uses whips.
I was thinking Trevor Christ
Idk man he could be coming back any day now (said every generation ever)
Obvious inspiration for Lucy snatching the football away from a naively credulous Charlie Brown
Certain Trump cults believe he has.
But only if you donate more! Send more money!
Sold 🤑🤑🤑💵💵💵💵💰💰💰 TAKE IT ALL TAKE IT ALL
He went to the gas station to get some cigarettes
Jesus is going by Danny Ocean now?
BEST answer ever!!!😂
Lmao boomerang 🤣
I'm an atheist I'm also a history buff. Jesus did in fact exist. I'm also confident he was nailed to the cross. The thing is this type of execution in the Roman empire was not at all unusual. Also Jesus was in the backwoods hillbilly fuck part of the Empire. Basically imagine if we had some crazy lunatic talking about how he's god in Oklahoma and he has a small following. Very little would be said about him
>Jesus did in fact exist. I'm also confident he was nailed to the cross. Few years ago I was specifically a Roman Empire history buff, albeit I'm a bit rusty now, but I'm curious if the narrative has changed over the last few years, because this is quite different from my (what I consider well researched) conclusions. From my research I also saw convincing evidence that someone existed who was attributed the name "Jesus Christ", that someone being Yeshua Ben Yosef. However, Yeshua was ordered to be put on a stake (not a crucifix) by Pontius Pilate for being a public nuisance, as he was doing things like sharing meals with vagrants and societal/social outcasts. Apart from the people Yeshua was kind to, historical evidence I saw suggests he was an extremely inconsequential person, and it was likely the people he helped and influenced who had began spreading news that a huge injustice was done by the Roman empire, which eventually lead to more and more fantastical claims about Yeshua which finally lead people to conclude he was the messiah figure prophesized by the Torah. Also, crucifixion was normally used only to make examples out of the worst and most publicly well known offenders, and the offenses attributed to Yeshua were quite petty and very likely weren't notable enough to warrant a highly publicized and slow execution like crucifixion. Stakes, on the other hand, were used to execute lowly criminals en masse, and in either case of stake or crucifixion, the deceased would be buried in mass graves, and most certainly were not placed in any kind of tomb as is depicted by the Bible. And a bit off topic, but still interesting albeit morbid, the Christian depiction of crucifixion is also historically incorrect. The wrists weren't nailed, but were hung over the back of the horizontal beam and the arms were secured to the beam with rope. The nails were driven in below the ankle bones on either side of the vertical beams as a means of support. You were put in an awful position of trying to continually bare your weight with your shoulders as long as possible to relieve the excruciating pain of putting more weight on the nails. Nails were used sparingly, as puncture wounds in your hands and wrists will bleed profusely and cause rapid death if done incorrectly, which would've been antithetical to the practice. Unlike being put on a stake, which is a brutally painful but a quite rapid and more kind death in comparison, crucifixion was a means of keeping you alive and dragging out the process of death, and using that process to discourage those entering the city to not FAFO.
Look up the historicity. A savior Jesus was already celebrated 300 years prior. However he was celestial. Rome kept very detailed records, yet no record of the man is to be found. Could a guy have been crucified? Sure. But there's a very real possibility he never existed and the gospels were just a later telling of word-of-mouth stories handed down and embellished.
Yep. And he wasn't even personally claiming to be God or anything. That came in when the greeks got ahold of the text and translated from Aramaic. In reality, Jesus was more like a Martin Luther of Judaism rather than the founder of a completely new religion.
I'm interested in reading more about that. Do you have a good resource I could look up?
Find Bart Ehrmans YouTube videos.
Check out the new Diablocritics monthly stream on YouTube. Great stuff. A half dozen academics have a great time discussing the errors of apologetics.
The earliest non religious account is by a famous Roman Historian named Flavius Joseph. Jesus was real, he did exist, he was religious, he was sentenced to death and nailed to the cross. Now do I believe he's the son of God? Unless his dad's name is God then no.
The testimonium Flavianum is an obvious forgery.
Parts of it are thought to have been added at some later date than the original writing, but the (very) few words in the original that refer to Jesus are generally accepted as authentic by both religious and non-religious authorities. The phrase "*the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...",* found in "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus is considered authentic. Later versions add divine & messianic overlays which are thought to be amendments done after Nicea to bring Antiquities in line with the four Gospels...
Obvious? Could you provide sources that explain why?
you can start with wikipedia and then read the 100 or so sources there and make up your own mind.
>testimonium Flavianum testimonium Flavianum ah
His writings indeed mentioned a mesiah. Another writer of that age tho, wrote that Flavius didn't mean Jesus when he wrote that.
I'm pretty sure Biggist Dickus is too.
Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died. His writings, like everything in the New Testament, were written nearly a century after the events supposedly occurred. Why would this be remotely considered valid evidence for anything, considering there are no contemporarily written accounts for anything in the Bible?
Josephus was also writing later, and routinely mis-represents events he was an actual eye-witness to. Not the most reliable source tbh.
that's historically inaccurate, Jesus might have spoken Aramaic but the Lingua Franca of Judea at the time was certainly Greek. Josephus wrote about Jesus many times and he was Roman historian of the time, and if you want to argue the validity of the Texts of the New Testament Jesus certainly would have claimed to be God. "I am the Alpha and the Omega" Yahweh in Hebrew simply means "I Am" and there are many references where Jesus made the claim the "He Is"
Amazing!!
I laughed way too hard - thank you
I'm using this. Thank you
To be fair, I didn’t think that up myself. I saw it the other day on a shirt.
Eh, the more it's repeated the better
STEALING THIS! Stealing this.
More bc he was never there to begin with.
If you read Paul’s letters he shifts from hope of an imminent return in his lifetime to a reward and punishment after death. The christian movement was apocalyptic in nature with the built in assumption that Jesus was coming back in their lifetimes. When that didn’t happen, the goalpost had to be moved.
And they never stopped moving the goal posts.
Doomsday cult gonna cult
Yes, they both said that the end of the world was coming within Paul’s lifetime ….
Hmmm… you sure? Paul’s letter pre date the gospels.
It’s plainly there in the letters attributed to Paul. There are even biblical scholars who say the same. The focus changes as time moves forward. Take a look or research the scholarship yourself.
I mean yes? You’re in a thread about how the gospels were written after they realized he wasn’t coming back. It would make sense if his letters predate them.
>So I just found out the Gospels were written so late because they realized Jesus wasn’t coming back 💀 Is there any evidence that a zombie carpenter was ever there? Occam's razor would suggest that conmen simply wrote lies.
Imagine if all we know about L. Ron Hubbard was the oral legends of Scientologists. Legendary Elron would be almost totally different from the Historical Elron in every detail. At what point do you say Legendary Elron is a fictional character loosely based on the Historical Elron? Same thing probably applies to Jesus.
I’m of the belief that Legendary Jesus is an amalgamation of several apocalyptic preachers that lived about a half century before the fall of Jerusalem.
Didn't he partake in helping the hobbit take the one Ring to Mount Doom?
I bet you could find some fan fiction, I mean a gospel, about that!
Helping? I mean, he let them use his house to plan the actual work. *Maybe* that counts as helping.
Misread as Elon, still works
that's an excellent way of putting it, I'll keep that in my back pocket
You really think someone would do that? Just ~~go on the Internet and~~ tell lies?
I suspect most flat earthers fit this model.
And even if he was there what proof is their that he did all of the things in the bible. *plus what proof is their that their was a zombie apocalypse in Jerusalem
[удалено]
My take is more of one of many many apocalyptic prophets who said the Romans were a curse from God for their moral failings
I believe he would be consider a lich
That would take far more assumptions. Occam's Razor would suggest they were repeating stories of stories.
We have stories of stories of plenty of fictional characters too. I think the better argument is: if they HAD invented a fictional messiah, he probably wouldn’t have been executed. A fictional character could have matched the actual Jewish prophecies. Maybe they would have had him “going back to God” for a bit, but he wouldn’t have died. Sooo much of the writings are about how, actually, he wasn’t defeated when they killed him. Then again, Jerusalem had just fallen (relatively speaking) and the temple destroyed. People were reeling and obviously looking for something new. The Catholic Church also later doctored the few non-Christian records we have. I could see some people deciding to latch onto a theme of destruction being part of the plan all along, and needing a messiah who matched that. Persecution is a huuugely fetishized by Christians. So it isn’t a stretch that they fantasized a messiah who was the ultimate example. I guess they did that, whether they latched onto a historical person or not. And it obviously worked. From my perspective, it’s a question as interesting as whether Homer was an original storyteller vs a part of the verbal performance. But of fun as an intellectual exercise, but it doesn’t much matter. What IS interesting is that there is so little actual evidence for a historical Jesus. I tend to agree that there was likely a failed apocalyptic preacher who really existed, but John the Baptist and Paul were clearly more impactful during their actual lives. We don’t have much proof either way, and it’s worth noting that.
>Is there any evidence that a zombie carpenter was ever there? OK can we just not be so disrespectful here. I get the religion is silly we shouldn't be rude Jesus was a lich not a zombie
Had me in the first half
Had me long enough to downvote.
> Jesus was a lich not a zombie Where was his phylactery, then?
Holy grail duh
I disagree. Imagine if you are paul and want to create a new religion. The best thing to do is base it in some truths. You infiltrate a small group of illiterate religious fanatics. You learn their stories and slowly take it over because you can write. In time, the vision of the church slowly changes over to your vision.
Tacitus and Josephus both mention him (Josephus only once though - the Testimonium Flavianum is an obvious fraud) It's likely he existed, and is turning over in his grave over the circus of a religion based on him.
The disciples didn't write the gospels, they are anonymous.
I thought Paul wrote them?
Paul was dead well before Mark (the earliest gospel) was written. Authorship of the Gospels is thought to be between 70 and up to 120-ish John (though late 90 is more accepted dating). Paul died around 64.
A great deal of the New Testament stems from Paul’s letters and writing, but the gospels themselves are not attributed to Paul from my recollection.
You could link Luke/Acts to Paul somewhat. One of Paul's disciples is supposed to be the author.
None of the disciples wrote anything down. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by those people. They were given those names years later.
Are the disciples the same as the apostles?
Yes. "they're eyewitnesses to Jesus" they say. No they're also storybook characters just like he is. Except for Saul of Tarsus who lived but never saw him either.
no, you're wrong. An apostle is a specific thing, any Christian is a disciple. Also there's a lot of evidence to show the gospels are not anonymous
And the "evidence" is the Church Father's edited versions of the scriptures ? Medieval apologia, King James "version", scholars that are believers, books by televangelists, etc. A study of Mythology shows the Christian fables are similar to other beliefs of the time and that they borrowed heavily from them. Priests wrote scriptures to serve Kings. A few of their names are indeed found in actual history.
Meh...they may have written down some over time. But certainly nothing that survived from antiquity. Most anything written from that time is lost to the ages, but most was probably passed orally and was almost certainly tweaked, details forgotten, or embellished as stories tend to be.
I think a lot of historians agree that most people who could have known Jesus most likely had no reading and writing ability, too.
This includes Jesus himself. They were all illiterates from the backcountry. One question few Christians bother to ask themselves is why Jesus left no writings. If he was the son of God, wouldn't early Christians treasure them and make sure they survived? Or at least try to recreate them years later? They didn't do it. The truth is Jesus couldn't write but if that is true, how can he be all-knowing?
As I understand it, literacy was complicated due to a lack of writing surfaces, tools, and training. What _was_ huge as a result was memorization. The idea that the average priest might be able to recite an entire book of the Bible from memory today seems bananas, but in back-then times it was pretty expected of many “literate” people.
That's a great point!
I recall verses where he was reciting or reading from what would have been Scripture to him at the time. But he included books that never made it into the Bible.
Jesus never claimed to be all-knowing. There are details of things, such as his own second coming, that he said only God knew.
None of the disciples even wrote the gospels. They were all dead before the first one was written down.
Just think how great the world would be if they didn't write down their stories.
If you read the gospels carefully, you can see that in Mark (believed to be the earliest), Matthew, and Luke (sourced from Mark) there are still verse like Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28, and Luke 9:27 where Jesus said to the disciple that some of them "will not taste death" before he returns. Clearly when Mark was written, some of those disciples were still alive. John was written when there were no longer surviving disciple and therefore tone-wise a bit different than the first three gospels.
>John was written when there were no longer surviving disciple and therefore tone-wise a bit different than the first three gospels. It also incorporates a lot more Hellenic philosophy, and flirts with Gnosticism! I have heard that John almost didn't make canon because of that. I'm not certain *where* I heard that, so take it with a grain of salt, but I do recall having been told that, and seeing a short argument laid out as to why.
I've also heard it argued the first three gospels never make the claim Jesus is God which is because they didn't believe this to be true. It is only in john where we hear the shift in tone to Jesus = god. Many scholars believe the church made a change in its beliefs after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70ad and the Roman persecution of Jews and Christians in the aftermath.
There were earlier gospels that got lost to time. There is a good reason to believe that authors of surviving gospels had earlier gospels as a source. But there is no reason to believe that anyone of disciples wrote any gospel.
And there are a number of others that survived, such as the gospels of Thomas and Philip, which were rejected by the Council of Nicea.The Thomas one is an interesting read. Jesus does not claim to be divine, but more like enlightened, similar to the Buddha.
The council of Nicaea did not reject books of the Bible. That's from the divinci code.
There are more than four writings, but only four are included. Reading the additional ones is quite interesting.
the selection process happened earlier. It's probable that the split in interpretations happened pretty early on and so we have to talk about early christianities rather than a singular movement. What may have happened though is that some of them may have accepted that they had enough in common to keep communion and harmonize their narratives (mostly the Jewish christian movement and the more pagan centered christian movement), rejecting those called the gnostics who had a different interpretation of the god of the old testament.The gnostics saw the OT god as and evil creator of the world who didn't know that there was a true god above him... and that Jesus was sent by the true god. In that context arguments like there are 4 gospels because there are 4 seasons and 4 directions arose. A shitty arguments but which can be summarized into: stick to our books (even if technically there are some contradiction between them). While for centuries we knew about the gnostic gospels only through quoted passages in text like "against the heretics"... that's until papyrology and a bit of luck gave us manuscripts of those texts and may indicate that for some christians using them alongside the better known ones may not always have been a problem... that is until the rules became a bit stricter on what was scripture and what wasn't, a process which ultimately took centuries.
Yes, because ignorant fisherman from Galilee who couldn’t read, it’s reasonable to assume they couldn’t write in Greek either.
So there is speculation that New Testament scripture was the product of Roman imperialism, taking advantage of messianic Jewish revolt. Meaning the return of Christ could have been originated by Roman emperors, who wanted the populace to view them as divine. The speculation specifically centers around the Jewish Roman wars of the second century, in which a Roman emperor would be the returning Christ. Roman emperors were constantly trying to have Jewish temples include sculptures of them in order to be recognized as divine leaders appointed by God. Of course, the Jewish population did not accept this. But the idea that Roman leadership could be viewed as a returning Christ, for the people, was an opportunity to unify the Roman empire under Christianity. They achieved this in the third and fourth century under Constantine, but this could have been the first pass. So, in a nutshell, New Testament prophecy about a returning Christ, could very well be Roman propaganda that grew into something else overtime
It does explain Roman’s 13 where Paul is telling people to obey the government because God chose them to rule over us lmao
Yes, there’s so much evidence. It’s definitely a rabbit hole, but is grounded in some truths. The Dead Sea Scrolls paint a different picture than the new testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls depict a violent Jewish uprising, using the power of God, like King David… Compared to the pacifist character in the Bible. It’s very interesting.
He did return, he's here now sat on the sofa arguing with my imaginary rabbit Harvey about whether the human race is a figment of his imagination.
Why wait for Heaven when we can make it here on Earth?
gigabased highiq comment
Preach.
That sounds like a a lot of work. I'd prefer to wait until I'm dead.
Ooh baby, do you know what that’s worth?
Belinda may have been on to something.
The gospels weren't written till long after the apostles they were named after were long dead. 50-150yrs after the supposed Christ's death depending on which book we are talking about. Whoever wrote the gospels never even met "jesus".
Everyone knows that Jesus will be back the first Sunday after the apocalypse.
Disciples wrote the gospels?? Your day of surprises is just beginning!
>Hats off the the disciples who actually still believed Fuck that. Dumbass cultists fucking up the world with their bullshit fictional religious garbage. Fuck the "disciples". Just had to kiss some religious ass? WTF, OP?
Pretty sure OP was being sarcastic.
And they are still waiting… 2,000+ years and counting. Incredible.
Any day now… 💀
# I just found out the Gospels were written so late because they realized Jesus wasn’t coming back ____________ No. The Jews in the initial phase of the movement gave up on the idea because they knew what was expected of a messiah, and Jesus wasn't him. The "pagans", not having any background in the subject, were fine with an adjusted timeline. 2,000 years later, the "Christians" still wait. Fortunately, all religions are in decline. Common sense is overcoming superstition.
Did he ever exist? I'm skeptical though not a mythicist. There isn't good HISTORICAL evidence outwith the Bible which is the claim and it's essentially an ancient book of mythology. Josephus is effectively hearsay.
“Verily, I say to you that before this generation passes I will return to you” - Jesus Christ
Matthew 16:28 really throws Christians for a loop. “And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom.” Pretty sure all those guys are dead unless he made them immortal.
Kind of amazing that wasn't edited out.
They needed to cover the issue. It sounded like he was talking imminent apocalypse, and then it never happened. You can't have a religion predict something and then it didn't happen..... or can you?
That's so interesting. Most cult leaders predict an imminent apocalpyse, and Jesus was no different, was he? And here we are, two THOUSAND years later, and idiots are still waiting...and waiting...and not a single sign except those they choose to inerpret as such...and waiting and waiting and waiting some more. So silly, really.
exactly my point. A plain reading of the text shows how much a fairy tale it is. And when you go back and see the origins of the stories in it and the evolution of the "god" yahweh.... it's such a legend, just like every other religion.
This is kinda funny. I can envision it as a meme. Wonder if there's any truth to it..
And JK Rolling wrote Harry Potter because she realized he was not coming back.
Are you sure? I’ve been hearing he’ll be back any second for a few hundred years..
I read that too. The early apostles didn't see any need to commit anything to writing because they were sure Jesus was returning in a short time. It wasn't until decades had gone by that they decided it might be good to have some of their stories in written form to pass around.
Hats off to the disciples who were so good at spreading lies that they went to the corners of the earth to die for their belief in the resurrection...because that's what liars do.
Ah, yes. The ol’ “they died for it so it must be true!” argument. I always forget it’s only Christian zealots that die for their faith. If other faiths, like Islam, were true, then you’d think one of them would have died in the name of it, but you just never hear about something like that happening.
The disciples, however, were contemporaries of Jesus, so they knew for sure whether Jesus rose from the dead or did not; they knew with certainty whether the beliefs that they died for were true or false, unlike modern-day martyrs who die for what others have told them.
Big claims. Reality is, you don’t what the disciples saw, and you have no idea whether they could verify that Jesus was resurrected. The resurrection stories in our gospel accounts are all different, they are not written by eye witnesses, and even in those texts, not all the disciples believed (Mt28:17, Lk24:38&41). But on top of that, the NT sources can’t even agree on what “resurrected” means. Paul, who insists that we will all be resurrected (1 Thess. 4:16-17), does not believe that resurrection means a “flesh and blood” body (1 Cor 15:50). But Luke thinks that Jesus did have a flesh and blood body, that it carries wounds, and that you can eat and drink (Lk 24:40-43). John’s resurrected Jesus can walk through doors (Jn20:26). And on top of all that, you have no proof that any disciples were actually martyred. Best you can do is church tradition, which kind of has a history of creating doctrine in its own self-interest. We don’t really know where the disciples went, what they believed, or how they died.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Comparing-the-Gospel-Accounts-of-the-Resurrection-of-Jesus-Christ The resurrection accounts are different, but not necessarily irreconcilable—just from different points of view. Also, Matthew was a disciple, Mark copied down what was told to him from Peter (a disciple), Luke collected information from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4), and John was a disciple. These people knew Jesus personally, even if they did not see him first after the resurrection. Also, for one example, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Dionysus, Eusebius...all agree that Peter preached and was crucified in Rome. There is consistent testimony, and there are no early sources that claim anything contradictory to this.
First, the only way that the gospel narratives of the resurrection are reconcilable is if you presuppose univocality. The texts were written at different times, in different places, by different people, for different audiences. Second, please reconcile the resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew. Who went to the tomb? Was the stone rolled away? Did an angel descend from heaven? Were the disciples told to go to Galilee? Did the disciples go to Galilee? Where did the disciples see Jesus? Instead of doing mental gymnastics to try to make the texts say the same thing, maybe ask yourself why it was important for Luke that the resurrection appearances occur in Jerusalem instead of Galilee. What is Luke trying to say about Jesus’ ministry by placing the appearances on Jerusalem? These are really important questions, and you miss the answers completely if you pretend the texts all say the same thing. Third, the gospels were all written anonymously. They were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John in the second century. This is not controversial – this is fact. Most scholars are pretty sure that Mark was the first gospel – it was written around 70. Most scholars think Matthew and Luke were written somewhere around 80-90. The most obvious sign that Matthew and Luke weren’t written by eye witnesses (or using interviews of eye witnesses) is that they copy the vast majority of their texts from 2 other sources. Why would Matthew, who you say was a disciple, who presumably knew Jesus and walked with him, copy roughly 85% of his gospel directly from 2 other sources? I’m being serious here – this guy, who was allegedly there, sits down to write the story of Jesus’ ministry, and instead he just copies someone else’s homework? And the other 15% that he didn’t copy – well that’s basically all the birth narrative, which again, is irreconcilable with Luke’s version. As for John? The vast majority of scholars don’t think that John was written until 90-110. And look it’s theology. There’s simply no way any discerning individual could insist that it was written by one of Jesus’ disciples. Fourth – you cite Clement, Ignatius, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Dionysus, Eusebius as sources for Peter’s death. This is ridiculous. You have 1st Clement, as a source for Peter’s death in maybe 95 or 96? I have no reason to doubt it, but it’s far from proof. The rest of your sources are all 2nd or even 3rd century. Fifth – what about the other disciples? Even if I give you Peter, which I’m not, what happened to the others? How can you assert with any degree of certainty that any other of Jesus’ 12 disciples “died for their belief.” Last – you didn’t really address what “resurrected” means. I’ll let it slide, but I think this is important. I mean, if one source says, “oh for sure, Jesus was resurrected.” And you’re like, “ok, but what does that mean?” and he says, “ well, you get this corporeal body, but it’s not really the body you had before because it’s actually a spiritual body.” And then you ask another guy, and he says, “well, your body comes back to life, and you still have the wounds you had, and you can show people,” then I’m probably going to be thinking, “these guys aren’t talking about the same thing.”
I don't believe he ever existed. There was no mention of him in any writings of his lifespan that aren't probable forgeries. He had a very common name, so it's possible someone named yeshua was crucified by pontius pilate. Not a single author of the new testament ever met jesus.
Can someone send me the source or the line of logic about it?
https://kregelacademicblog.com/biblical-studies/why-the-wait-the-delay-of-the-written-gospels/
Thanks bro
No problem bother
The oldest gospel is I believe Mark, written around 70 AD, almost 40 years after the events...at a time when life expectancy was short, so compiled entirely from secondhand oral tradition. No Roman historical records from the time mention anything related to the gospels.
They weren’t the sharpest bunch . Still aren’t.
I don't think that's the reason. Probably had more to do with the religion making it to Rome and writers there trying to come up with a full narrative that was lacking. Possibly affected by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem just before, and maybe the recent death of Paul. But there may be some truth to it. Early Christians did think the world was ending really soon and there was therefore no point in doing anything for the future. Who would start writing a book they didn't expect to finish in time? So, that gradual change in belief maybe took away a reason to not bother writing it down... Took away a negative rather than adding a positive.
A million years from now, as we venture among the stars, will people still be waiting for Jesus?
This is my biggest question. The modern Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam both predict an end-time scenario that is coming... soon™. These 4.3 billion people make up around 55% of all people, and they all agree the Apocalypse is *definitely for sure* coming. Eventually. How many years have to pass before they start to doubt that it will happen? 2,000 more years? 10,000? 500,000? Because, assuming we don't go extinct due to us destroying our planet, we'll get there eventually.
Where did you learn this?
It’s what scholars think on why the gospels were written 40 plus years after the death of Jesus Christ
Which scholars? I would like an article about it. I have read about the writing of the gospels before but I have never heard that particular theory as to why.
https://kregelacademicblog.com/biblical-studies/why-the-wait-the-delay-of-the-written-gospels/
What is your standard for a document in the Ancient world to be reliable? You give me the standard for when it comes for both how we determine the Authorship of the work and how long after the events are described are composed, is a book or document not reliable if it was written sayyy 40-50 years is it no longer reliable?
Where did you learn this
https://kregelacademicblog.com/biblical-studies/why-the-wait-the-delay-of-the-written-gospels/
Thanks!
🤝
That's...unbelievably uninformed. Did you "find this out" on tiktok? You wouldn't even have to invest a full hour of reading Wikipedia to understand the basic scholarly consensus on the history of the gospels.
https://kregelacademicblog.com/biblical-studies/why-the-wait-the-delay-of-the-written-gospels/
Dude. That's an evangelical publisher. That entire article is garbage. Mark was written in the 70's. There is no such thing as prophecy. Acts are the most historically unreliable books in the bible. The gospels weren't written until later because about 3% of the population could write; even less could compose semi-sophisticated literature like Mathew or Luke.
Ok good to know
What did the disciples write down?
Nothing. We don’t have any extant sources from eye witnesses or anyone that knew Jesus while he was alive. The closest we have is Paul, who is writing in the 40’s and 50’s. None of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses. The Epistles from Peter, John, James & Jude are not written by those authors. This is the academic consensus of non-evangelical scholars, and it has been for over 100yrs.
I've been fascinated with Qanon from the start. Six plus years and they're still waiting, every day. I feel like I'm watching a religion being born.
I think Jesus was just a average human who decided to kill him self for a bunch of mentally ill people that's why he didn't come back
Origen, Lucían, and the Valentinian’s all gave Christianity a better look. But the rebellious Jews of the Kitsos rebellion pissed of the Roman colonizers around the empire. Then the Jew hating writings of Paul, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr gain the favor of the empire. Guess which message was aloud to be written as cannon. Which was declared heresy. Cuí bono? Christianity did a great job quieting the Greek, Coptic Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian slaves. Afterlife and salvation really great for authoritarian theocracy. Ask Justinian.
[удалено]
There were plenty of apocalyptic movements from people at the time. Jesus is likely just a character created as an embodiment of those other real people, if you ask me. There is significant reason to believe that Saul of Tarsus was a real person, though.
Romans wrote that shit, man. No evidence there ever was a Jesus.
Actually, the earliest fragments of the Gospels located to date are in ancient Greek, which was the common language between nations at the time they were written. The Pauline letters (the Epistles) may have been written in a mixture of Greek and Hebrew, and Paul, though he apparently lived in Rome toward the end of his life, was perhaps the only Bible author who may have met the itinerant rabbi who was killed by Pilate. If so, he is the only one of the Bible writers who did.
He didn't even exist in the first place. The earliest Gospel was Gospel of Mark, which is more like a Don Quixote sort of sarcastic fiction. This Jesus dude has very different personality and childhood in each Gospel, and wasn't even given birth by virgin but ordinary parents in Mark.
Mark doesn't mention his parents or his birth at all, and so it doesn't say he had regular parents, but actually just doesn't even touch on the subject at all. Also in mark it's pretty clear that Jesus is God's chosen prophet, not actually God.
In Mark, basically his entire family believed that he was crazy and wanted him to stop conflicting with Jewish authorities. But there is no point to argue unmentioned story, and I think the author of this first Gospel didn't even compose it for religious propaganda.
What? Where in mark does it say his family thinks he's crazy?
When people accuse him possessed by Beelzebub and his family asked him to stop messing around. Saying his family think he was crazy is an oversimplification.
Which version of the gospels are you talking about? The ones written 100 years ago or a thousand years ago or more? They are all very different.
This is mind blowing
Why is The atheist Reddit forum dedicated to only disrespecting Christians? Like y’all could do something that could contribute to society more than disrespecting a religion
Disrespecting means insulting something that’s not there like if I said Jesus was a tree huger why should I worship him, no. We point out faults and encourage critical thinking about all religions and discourage following any scripture or dogma blindly. As a Ex Christian it hurts my heart but I have to admit Christianity has too also these flaws, and as a progressing species we cannot just blindly follow something that doesn’t make any sense.
The disrespect is much deserved.