Historical Jesus tangent

since when is there a consensus the Jesus was real?
to the contrary, most things I've studied over the years consider him to have been like Ronald MacDonald in that there were dozens of guys playing the part (along with him being a pastiche of several other demi-gods). Basically an appendix to the monomyth of the dying and resurrecting god.

The "Christ myth theory" is popular at YouTube University, however:

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

They don't agree on the details of his life, but that he was a singular man who lived in 1st century Roman Palestine, was baptized and executed -- this is consensus.

I'm sure scholars a few millenia from now will concur that Chuck Norris was a real person as well, but that many of the deeds attributed to him might be lacking context.

where did those other quotes come from?

Besides, biblical "scholars" aren't exactly any more objective than wiccan ones given how much ret-donning of demonstrable, known history conflicts with gospel accounts.

Do you understand the concept of a historian who is not necessarily Christian? Do you understand what academia is?

Feel free to get your PhD in Antiquity Studies and contest their methodology.

@Spaceturkey

You do know that there are biblical scholars who aren’t religious, right?

What is wrong with republicans?

A Biblical scholar is like getting a degree in Harry Potter.

For @Federal Farmer and @Rimjob Bob there might be a kid named Harry Potter in the UK, but I am pretty sure he isn't a fucking wizard.

There was no Jesus Christ as per the damned bible because the Bible was a completely made up work of fiction that only stupid fucking morons believe is true. Just because some Trek fan names their kid James Tiberius Kirk does not mean Star Trek is real.

I cannot believe you two morons are so fucking stupid we have to explain what fiction is to you.

na... I'll just link to wiki that supports me like you did

Luke's apparent conflation of the 6 CE census with the 4 BCE death of Herod I have led most biblical scholars to acknowledge that the gospel is incorrect.[9][10] Luke seems to have incorporated the census to move Joseph and Mary from Nazareth, "their own city" (Luke 2:39), to Bethlehem, where the birth was to occur. (The author of Matthew had the reverse problem; believing that Joseph, Mary and Jesus lived in a house in Bethlehem prior to their flight into Egypt, they move to Nazareth to avoid the recently appointed Herod Archelaus.)[3][11] Luke's author may also have wanted to contrast the rebellious Zealots with the peaceable Joseph and Mary, who had obeyed the Roman edict, and to find a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 87:6: "In the census of the peoples, this one will be born there." (In the Greek or Septuagint version, it is "princes" who will be born.)[12] The Gospel of John (c. 100 CE) portrays Christ's birth in Bethlehem as fulfilling a prophecy of Micah.[13]

Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judea was new at the time.[4][14][3] Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown postulates that Judas's place of origin may have led the author of Luke to think that Galilee was subject to the census, although the region is clearly distinguished from Judea elsewhere in the gospel.[15][16] Brown also points out that in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke the Evangelist (the traditional author of both books) dates Judas's census-incited revolt as following Theudas's rebellion of four decades later.[15]

Some religious scholars have made attempts to reconcile Luke's dating disparity.[17] Some suggest that Quirinius might have served two terms as governor of Syria and conducted two censuses in Judea, but the career of Quirinius and the names and dates of the governors are well documented and there is no time before 6 CE when he could have served as governor of Syria.[4] Anglican bishop Paul Barnett theorizes that an earlier census unrelated to taxation took place, which Brown points out requires the scripture to be reinterpreted to mean that the census took place before Quirinius's tenure.[17] Géza Vermes describes attempts to defend the historicity of the biblical birth narratives as "exegetical acrobatics";[18] Ralph Martin Novak points out that such views spring from the belief that the Bible is without error.[19]



See, look. I even went the extra inch and ct and pasted the salient points.

and much like jesus being a bunch of other mythological figures, Harry Potter was pretty much a rip off of Tim Hunter from the Books of Magic comic with elements of Worst Witch..

No one is claiming that the gospels are historically accurate. @Spaceturkey

It's actually fascinating that you guys don't understand the basic concept of biblical scholarship and seem to think it's the opposite of what it is. They reject or ignore the supernatural claims. They seek to separate the facts from the nonsense. The type of literary/historical inconsistencies that were just indicated, is a product of biblical scholarship.

They lack the ability to create their own identity, or else they think they do, and it becomes self-fulfilling, so it's a difference that isn't a difference.
From this comes their impulse to absorb into a mass that thinks for them.
From this come the hucksters more than willing to exploit such people.
These exploiters will always use a religious component, because it's so damned easy.

This king and serf paradigm is born out of the agricultural revolution, which was a really great scam that promised bounty, and only ended up creating the wealthy class and overpopulation.
And, you'll notice, the big three Abrahamic religions are farmer religions.
Tending wheat and goats is diabolically important in Judeo-Christianity.

That's what's wrong with Republicans.

Plus, they're cunts.

We don't really need to overcomplicate it.

And there will be debate on whether Molly Weasley did or did not, in fact, make Chuck Norris eat his vegetables.

It is fiction you fucking retard. Harry Potter mentions real world places in London. That does not make it non-fiction or even something you could teach a child as somewhat factual. Yes, there are harry potter geeks who discus it in academic ways, but they are discussing fiction. Biblical scholars are the exact same people as two geeks having in depth discussions on Kirk vs Pickard. The only reason those assholes have jobs is because way too many people think the bible is real history.

You are an absolute liar and fuckwit for defending them and pretending because a Jesus Christ may have existed in a non-fictional way we should study the bible as a historical do0cument. You are the real world version of the aliens from galaxy quest, only instead of being able to create amazing technology based on works of fiction, you need to defend god did it as a correct answer to 2+2=.

There is a big difference between accepting idiot christi9ans and letting them do9 imp0ortant things. If you think the Bible/Torah/Koran is real and a factual historical document you should not be allowed to work in government, as a teacher, or any other job that requires real world knowledge. I feel the same way about a person who runs face first into brick walls at the train station because if they just believe enough they will go to harry potter school. I will hang out with harry potter fans, cosplay, and have a party with them. However, if they claim harry potter is an actual historical document I put them on the n3eds mental help list with people who do not recognize the bible is fiction and no amount of belief will change that.


Jesus was not the son of god. jesus never walked on water. Jesus never performed a miracle. Jesus did not rise from the dead. There was never a world flood. Moses did not build an ask. You are a lying sack of shit for attempting to confuse kids and idiots so they donate money to the oldest grifters in the world.

The comparison to Harry Potter doesn't really work, unless the actual scenario is "there is a guy in England named Harry Potter whose parents were killed when he was a baby and who went to a boarding school, but he wasn't a wizard and the boarding school is a perfectly normal place."

There is near-universal agreement among historians that Jesus was a Jewish man from Galilee, that he led a religious sect, and that he was executed.

The stuff about walking on water, healing people with his touch, and being resurrected from the dead is obviously bullshit.

And then the question of what exactly he said, versus what statements were later attributed to him by others, is somewhere in the middle.

dude
you claimed historic accuracy when you said

yet I've shown to the same depth as you, at least, scholarship (including biblical scholarship) that states otherwise and goes on to explain the evidence.

I guess the real question is if you understand the notions of academia or scholarship?

Actually not true as there is no Jesus Christ who did all the things in the bible. The religious liars say because a JC might have existed that everything might be true. Maybe there was a JC who wandered the earth back then. He was not Born a virgin. There was no Marty or Joseph who had a child in a manger under a star and 3 old wise men came bearing gifts for the son of god. It is exactly the same thing to claim that because there might have been a Harry Potter in the UK that he was a wizard who went to hogwarts.

Let us go down the actual existence road also. No one claims there is any physical or acheological existence of Jesus Christ. The only thing that makes any reference to JC existing is stories from people. Of course the stories exist. Of course religious scholars need these fictional stories to have some basis in fact because those idiots have spent their entire lives studying a fictional story. without the story they are as valuable as a star trek geek. In other words they would need another skill if it weren't for a whole lot of gullible people.

To go even further we know the stories of Jesus are a combination of ripped off myths of the time. You cannot trust one of the stories to be true as every one of them is based off of a game of telephone across cultures about imaginary people. Hurcules may have been a real person, but that does not make any story about him true.

You want top claim jesus existed, throw me a bone. No literally throw me a bone with the DNA of the son of fucking god. Again, I am not bothered with discussing if there was some schmuck named JC back in the day. Everything in the bible is myth and fiction regarding him even if some dude named JC actually wandered the earth. Even the scientists say that everything we know about the non-son of god JC that might have existed is based on stories and word of mouth that cannot be proven to be anything but a story.

Oh, and for all the people trying to claim biblical stories of JC or any event of the bible are real.



This is what always happens when you get cornered lying like that. That is always what you have to do when you present fiction and lies as supposed fact and everyone starts forcing you to prove bullshit true.

Exactly.

Also feels like most of the debate over whether or not he was real involves people talking past each other and using different boundary conditions of what counts as "Jesus".

Was there a cult leader who collected some followers in that time period who went on to inspire a religion? Yeah, most likely. However many of the stories involving him seem to be retellings and adaptations of previous figures, along with a bunch of common themes replicated in other cults at the time.

It is certainly the case that many of concrete historical claims made around his birth, life, and death aren't corroborated by any other sources, and often go against other known history.

If you reduce it down to "there was a man who prompted a few followers to write tell stories none of which may have actually happened" is it meaningful in any way to try and debate if "he" was real or not?

Just a slight tweak none of Jesus’s followers actually wrote down any of his stories. Only *supposedly* orally recorded them. IIRC Mark (earliest gospel) was written down over sixty years after his death with Matthew and Luke being ~80-100 and John around 120. But it has been 20 years since I took a course on it so…

"minus the supernatural embellishments"

Please tell me you don't think THAT is how they are presenting him.

Anyway, wasn't this thread supposed to aggregate instances of hate and bigotry? Does vague theism in schools constitute that?"

A religion that puts forth the theology that god hates you for that which you are, and which you cannot change, and will only forgive you unless you are rid of it is...
kinda hateful and bigoted.

The "vague theism" reinforces that specific sort, not just general religiosity.

Good point, but then you educate yourself on who wrote the new testament and the things about JC. You find that many of these stories were made by people who were not alive when he was, and the bible was compiled by people who certainly never met him with stories they had a bias to never do any research that might disprove them.

The stories of the bible are perhaps based on an actual person, but that is a hollywood fiction level of basing something on a true story. Under hollywood fiction rules if JK Rowling knew a kid who she thought might be great as a wizard she could say HP was based on a real person.

Let us also remember that the Judeo Christian mythology has been touted as true, and the whole church system only has power in the real world based on their idea of god being seen as true. This includes the muslim world as they base their beliefs on previous prophets that did not exist as they say. Let us remember JC is who he is because of the Jewish Faith in things like a great flood, the parting of the red sea, burning bushes, god speaking to people eating desert plants because they were starving. Cities were wiped from the earth by freak physical events that left no evidence. people lived for a thousand years, yet that was only 6k years ago, and there is no physical evidence of any of these things. Worse yet there is physical evidence proving the stories never happened.

For JC to be as mentioned you also have to say everything the old testament claimed is true. Not just the existence of people and cities, but miracle events that would have scarred the earth with evidence. If Jewish prophecy and stories are not literally true then there is no reason to think any JC that existed was anything but your normal religious con artist.

These stories do not exist in a vacuum. The miracles you claim never happened are important because they are proof of god. If you do not believe in the magic and impossible claims that have been disproven by science, then JC, Abraham, and Muhammed are just people. You have to have the miracles to have their god. The miracles are all stolen from fictitious stories. So even if you believe there is a JC it is like believing there is a boy named Harry Potter in the UK. Without the world of magic Harry Potter is not a wizard. Without a portal to hogwarts the brick wall in the London train station (I might be wrong about the location, but the train station was based off a real train station) is a real brick wall as many idiots have found out trying to run into it. All the faith in the world does not mean shit for existence.

Any attempt to pretend JC or another religious creature existed without proof to establish their magical nature is

This is precisely the problem. The first step in proving god hates fags is that you have to prove that particular god. Proving a JC existed is not proving there was a god, the bible is true, and that miracles happen. It does not even prove your god exists over others. The whole purpose of pretending a JC existed is to substantiate miracles without any proof of them at all. We have not even gotten to a JC being the son of god, or that he said gays are evil. We do not have a single direct writing of his despite writing being common at the time.

Even proving JC existed is


Because you never proved god exists or a stated miracle happened.

The first step should be to prove one of the miracles of the Torah that was the prophecy of JC. Start with the world flood which would have made a mark all over the world in the geologic record. If that is wrong then the claims of prophecy of god in the Torah are false. Every one of those miracles has to be true because they are the evidence of god presented in the Torah. Since it is physically impossible to have flooded the earth's surface with water, and we can see there was never in a billion years a flood of the surface of the earth the Torah is false. If the Torah is false then every judeo christian claim based on the miracles claimed within is false. That is the proof of god offered in the Torah, and that proof is false.

If you want to prove the JC of the bible existed then you have to prove the miracles of the torah and god existed.

It is the same thing as arresting a John Smith and claiming he is the John Smith who committed a crime because he has the same name. We know people can have the same name but be different people. Saying a JC existed does not mean the JC portrayed in the bible walked the earth. To prove the son of god JC existed you need to prove the christian god. You cannot even just prove god, you have to prove that god.

Fascinating how you deliberately omit from my quote the part about discounting supernatural embellishments.

There can can be a historical Jesus who lived a remarkable but human life and inspired a movement that evolved into Christianity.

And the New Testament can present his life in an inaccurate, embellished way, making him out to be a god.

These two statements are not contradictory.

It doesn't seem to me that what you posted addressed that question at all. The Christ-myth stuff is interesting but it's simply incorrect to maintain that it's other than on the fringes. The consensus among scholars (and these are not those driven by religious expediency) is indeed that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure and that early Christian writings preserve - in a wholly distorted form - some historical facts about him.

Fair point. Except you offered no detail or any link whatsoever, so the details are anyone's guess.

not really... the supernatural embellishments aren't in question and are irrelevant.

the evidence about Roman governance conflicts the biblical accounts of his birth to death.

no one is providing these scholars, yet everything I find suggests there was no person fitting his description recorded outside of biblical sources.
all we have are fraudulent artifacts and stories from decades after his supposed existence.

like here:

we've got a for and against presentation despite the article's obvious slant in the title.

which expert seems more objective? the one from Cambridge or the one from the Christian University?


A BROAD CONSENSUS AMONG SCHOLARS
But the ancient references to Jesus are not just found in works by Christian authors, an argument that supports the historical authenticity of the character. “Jesus is also mentioned in ancient Jewish and Roman texts,” says McCane. For example, around the year 93, the Pharisee historian Flavius Josephus left in his work Jewish Antiquities at least one indisputable reference to the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Two decades later, the Romans Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus; the latter explained that the founder of the sect of Christians was executed during the mandate of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governing in Judea.

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

And all this despite the fact that physical remains are virtually non-existent. “There is no archaeological evidence directly for Jesus. Non-textual evidence begins around the year AD 200,” says Gathercole. Leaving aside the archaeology referring to episodes in the life of Jesus, the veracity of which is questioned, there are various physical artefacts associated with the crucifixion. The alleged fragments of the cross scattered around the churches of Europe are so numerous that, according to what the Protestant theologian John Calvin wrote in 1543, there are enough of them to fill a ship. A similar phenomenon has happened with the nails, which number up to thirty.

What is more likely? That there was this man that there was no physical evidence of that people generations out knew about, or that evidence was manufactured by a group of people tryi8ng to convince others to give them money and power based on some similar storytelling about a god who wanted people to give money and power to his creators?

The same logic that is used to pretend there might have been a historical jesus can be applied to say there was a historical john connor. Does that mean the creators of the terminator had some sort of insight when they warned us of the dangers of AI? or were they just people who made up a story that enforced the narrative they were trying to project?

You people have to realize this was common for philosophers to do. Think of Plato's cave. You could put names and places to that sort of thing to make it seem more real, but he did not bother because the message he was trying to portray came across in the parable. Parables were common ways to convey ideas and messages, but even if those parables were made about a person who might have existed at one point in time, it does not actually make them historical.

The Terminator story is not historical even if we found out there was a sarah connor who gave birth to a john connor in that area at that time. Even if the creator of that story used the names of real people in that real place, it does not make it historical at all. However, we might want to take warning from the terminator and make sure AI is not wired to nuclear devices capable of launching them.

We have to do a full stop of academically trying to make excuses for obvious fiction because it is confusing the idiots. We have to start telling people judeo christian mythology is made up and not factual based on evidence we have. There is no JC that was executed as they say. There was no flood. there is no ark of the covenant. There was no parting of the red sea. There doesn't even seem to be this great migration of jews from egypt at the time.

We have gone too far in playing make believe with the idiots. Actually I am wrong, we have never smacked the idiots upside the head properly and said you can believe in fairy tales all you want, but we cannot base our science and worldviews on your imaginary friend and ridiculous stories anymore. We have to do this because the idiots view any little bit of uncertainty as proof science is wrong. This has been killing people forever, and we have to stop it to evolve.

Any attempt to give an inch to the mass of stupid that is the human animal population always leads to death, regression, and trouble.

Try Bart Ehrman for a start. He has written extensively and is probably the most prominent in the field.

There are several independent sources attesting to his existence. Some of these are "biblical" - which is not a reason to ignore them. There are also a handful of non-Christian sources, which are referenced in the article you posted but apparently have not read.