It's not surprising you believe there's no debate about this, but the historicity of the Yeshua ben Yosef of the Christian scriptures is not a proven fact. That's not discussed much, since the question cuts straight to the heart of the West's dominant religion and there's no way to prove a negative, so it's basically a pointless exercise that will cause grave offence to many religious nuts.
What can be said is that there is zero unbiased contemporary or near-contemporary historical evidence of a guy who supposedly wandered around Israel raising the dead, walking on water, and performing other acts that violate the basic laws of physics and biology.
It can also be said that the story of Jesus in the Bible has much in common with the mythological tales that surround other god-men and which predate the period when Jesus supposedly existed.
There's just about as much chance that the Jesus of the Bible existed as there is that Robin Hood and King Arthur were real people. Both of those characters are legends who are _possibly_ based on real men (or a confused combination of men), but it's also impossible to prove that they never existed. What can be said is that the historical and archaeological evidence for both of them is minimal and non-conclusive, so it's very unlikely that even if they did exist, they probably didn't do anything like what the tales say they did.
Us naked, upright monkeys have always lived in a pretty damn scary world where lots of invisible forces seem to conspire to thwart our desires and kill us at whim. It's always comforting to know that someone bigger and stronger is on our side, whether that's a parent, the biggest kid in the school playground, or some invisible, all-powerful deity.
I understand the need for a higher power, i meant specifically the ideas that were documented before move able type and are the foundation of much of the wests beliefs
Im not very religious. I do believe something intelligent had to be responsible for making us tho. Doesnt have to be a god it could be a alien or a giant bowl of poo. I've always heard there are historical documents to prove he existed. Apparently Rabbis of his time documented him and called him a magician or something like that. I honestly didnt know there was an argument that he never existed as a human.
It seems less likely to me that people would have converted to this religion in that time if he never existed. Of course likelihood isnt 'proof'. So maybe you're right. Ill look into it.
People have genuinely believed in a multitude of gods in every culture throughout human history. Belief in a deity no more makes him or her real than believing that the world is flat makes it so.
I agree, but I'm saying whatever happened during that time really shook up the world. I don't know how that could have happened if the man didnt even exist and was not really crucified. Its more likely Jesus did exist even if he were a nutcase and didnt really perform miracles. Jim Jones acquired a huge cult following too before the mass suicide at Jonestown. Do you think Jones could have aquired such a big following had he never existed? There were tons of people that converted to Christianity in Jesus' time. Jesus had an army of followers through his life. Its hard for me to put it into words but I hope that makes sense. Jesus was written about and documented outside the bible also.
Where was Jesus written about contemporaneously by someone who wasn't a member of his cult and so didn't have a vested interest in persuading others to believe as he did?
The earliest credible mention of the Jesus sect in Judaism is dated to around 100 CE.
Just like all religions, Christianity is a meme. The Jesus sect developed and spread because its tenets happened to resonate with a particular group of people living in a particular place at a particular time. The religion was successful because those tenets were flexible enough to be used by people to further its spread, often by very violent means.
Those in power loved Christianity because it's an ideal religion for slaves and the down-trodden: be nice to each other, render unto Caesar, accept that it's the will of God that your life is shitty, and trust that you'll get your reward in heaven.
As for the existence of the Jesus sect in Judaism proving the historical existence of someone resembling the Jesus described in the gospels, that just doesn't wash. Look into the history of the gospels - including the ones that didn't make the cut because they didn't tell a story that was consistent with the line that the early leaders of the cult wanted to follow. None of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They're just tales that were passed around by word of mouth until someone decided to write them down, and everyone knows how stories get embellished and altered as they spread.
There were loads of charismatic Jewish religious figures active in the centuries either side of the time when Jesus was supposedly born. That's not surprising, given that a group of people who believed they were specially chosen by Jahweh to do great things had suddenly been conquered by an irresistible power that accepted a whole pantheon of gods (not including the one that spoke from a flaming bush and used his finger to write on stone tablets).
Maybe there was someone who bore some resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels, but it's also possible that what he's described as saying and doing is a mish-mash of the teachings of more than one person.
What is certain is that the supposedly infallible gospels get one of the few verifiable historical events they mention wrong. The census mentioned in Luke is known to have happened in 6 BCE, but it's also stated that it occurred under the reign of Herod the Great, and it's known for a fact that he died nine years before that. If the author of Luke got something as simple as that wrong, it's daft to assume that he got anything else right.
Do you believe that Jesus existed historically?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
It's not surprising you believe there's no debate about this, but the historicity of the Yeshua ben Yosef of the Christian scriptures is not a proven fact. That's not discussed much, since the question cuts straight to the heart of the West's dominant religion and there's no way to prove a negative, so it's basically a pointless exercise that will cause grave offence to many religious nuts.
What can be said is that there is zero unbiased contemporary or near-contemporary historical evidence of a guy who supposedly wandered around Israel raising the dead, walking on water, and performing other acts that violate the basic laws of physics and biology.
It can also be said that the story of Jesus in the Bible has much in common with the mythological tales that surround other god-men and which predate the period when Jesus supposedly existed.
There's just about as much chance that the Jesus of the Bible existed as there is that Robin Hood and King Arthur were real people. Both of those characters are legends who are _possibly_ based on real men (or a confused combination of men), but it's also impossible to prove that they never existed. What can be said is that the historical and archaeological evidence for both of them is minimal and non-conclusive, so it's very unlikely that even if they did exist, they probably didn't do anything like what the tales say they did.
--
Ummitsstillme
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
WeirdGuyFromTheSouth
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How do you explain the following and the extreme devotion towards someone that is just an historical figure like robin hood?
--
Boojum
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
karmasAbich
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Us naked, upright monkeys have always lived in a pretty damn scary world where lots of invisible forces seem to conspire to thwart our desires and kill us at whim. It's always comforting to know that someone bigger and stronger is on our side, whether that's a parent, the biggest kid in the school playground, or some invisible, all-powerful deity.
--
Ummitsstillme
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I understand the need for a higher power, i meant specifically the ideas that were documented before move able type and are the foundation of much of the wests beliefs
Indoctrination. Dogma. Control.
Exactly
Im not very religious. I do believe something intelligent had to be responsible for making us tho. Doesnt have to be a god it could be a alien or a giant bowl of poo. I've always heard there are historical documents to prove he existed. Apparently Rabbis of his time documented him and called him a magician or something like that. I honestly didnt know there was an argument that he never existed as a human.
It seems less likely to me that people would have converted to this religion in that time if he never existed. Of course likelihood isnt 'proof'. So maybe you're right. Ill look into it.
--
Boojum
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
People have genuinely believed in a multitude of gods in every culture throughout human history. Belief in a deity no more makes him or her real than believing that the world is flat makes it so.
--
WeirdGuyFromTheSouth
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree, but I'm saying whatever happened during that time really shook up the world. I don't know how that could have happened if the man didnt even exist and was not really crucified. Its more likely Jesus did exist even if he were a nutcase and didnt really perform miracles. Jim Jones acquired a huge cult following too before the mass suicide at Jonestown. Do you think Jones could have aquired such a big following had he never existed? There were tons of people that converted to Christianity in Jesus' time. Jesus had an army of followers through his life. Its hard for me to put it into words but I hope that makes sense. Jesus was written about and documented outside the bible also.
--
Boojum
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Where was Jesus written about contemporaneously by someone who wasn't a member of his cult and so didn't have a vested interest in persuading others to believe as he did?
The earliest credible mention of the Jesus sect in Judaism is dated to around 100 CE.
Just like all religions, Christianity is a meme. The Jesus sect developed and spread because its tenets happened to resonate with a particular group of people living in a particular place at a particular time. The religion was successful because those tenets were flexible enough to be used by people to further its spread, often by very violent means.
Those in power loved Christianity because it's an ideal religion for slaves and the down-trodden: be nice to each other, render unto Caesar, accept that it's the will of God that your life is shitty, and trust that you'll get your reward in heaven.
As for the existence of the Jesus sect in Judaism proving the historical existence of someone resembling the Jesus described in the gospels, that just doesn't wash. Look into the history of the gospels - including the ones that didn't make the cut because they didn't tell a story that was consistent with the line that the early leaders of the cult wanted to follow. None of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They're just tales that were passed around by word of mouth until someone decided to write them down, and everyone knows how stories get embellished and altered as they spread.
There were loads of charismatic Jewish religious figures active in the centuries either side of the time when Jesus was supposedly born. That's not surprising, given that a group of people who believed they were specially chosen by Jahweh to do great things had suddenly been conquered by an irresistible power that accepted a whole pantheon of gods (not including the one that spoke from a flaming bush and used his finger to write on stone tablets).
Maybe there was someone who bore some resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels, but it's also possible that what he's described as saying and doing is a mish-mash of the teachings of more than one person.
What is certain is that the supposedly infallible gospels get one of the few verifiable historical events they mention wrong. The census mentioned in Luke is known to have happened in 6 BCE, but it's also stated that it occurred under the reign of Herod the Great, and it's known for a fact that he died nine years before that. If the author of Luke got something as simple as that wrong, it's daft to assume that he got anything else right.
I suggest you watch the film "The Case for Christ". Tho, I respect your opinion bro.