• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And what’s more is the very closest written account we have shows problems. Paul never mentions the tomb and thinks Jesus was buried in the ground. Besides for the Eucharist he doesn’t seem to know much of anything about the ministry. Which is really freaken odd because by his own admission he was hunting and interrogating Christians before his conversion.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, “we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”

      Virtually all scholars of antiquity dismiss theories of Jesus’s non-existence or regard them as refuted. In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Michael Grant doesn’t know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that we know that there was some king in a certain place and time isn’t a big claim. Most places had kings. Saying that if even a quarter of the claims of the Gospels were true is a massive claim. Also whataboutism is kinda boring. I really don’t feel giving “historians” slack because they cut themselves slack.

        In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars

        Not going to have a job selling book and teaching the story of some old con. You sell books by advancing dozens of different contradictory models of the events all of them equally impossible to test.

        • blomkalsgratin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Claiming that Jesus of Nazareth existed is not extraordinary at all though. It’s hardly far-fetched to claim that he was real. Claiming that he was the son of God and could perform miracles however, is - as someone else pointed out.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right so you are trying to make the claim so small it can be snuck in. Theists try this trick with God all the time.

            Does making a claim small make it true or is that a rhetorical device to try to manipulate the argument? If I told you I was Obama and you called me out on it so I said well really I did met him once in a bar when he was in Congress, would my altered claim become true by virtue of being ordinary?

            Do you have evidence he existed yes or no?

            • blomkalsgratin
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Jesus existence has nothing to do with the religion in and of itself. He can be reall without Christianity being true. You’re getting so caught up in wanting to argue against the theists that you’re focusing on something completely irrelevant just to chalk up a victory.

              I have no evidence one way or another for our against his existence, the point is that it doesn’t matter. Jesus’ potential existence has nothing to do with the truthiness of religion unless you believe that his existence can only be a validation of the new testament - which would be akin to your Obama comparison and would be patently ridiculous.

              I have no proof that billions of specific people existed, doesn’t change that they did.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Jesus existence has nothing to do with the religion in and of itself. He can be reall without Christianity being true. You’re getting so caught up in wanting to argue against the theists that you’re focusing on something completely irrelevant just to chalk up a victory.

                We got a mind reader over here.

                I have no evidence one way or another for our against his existence, the point is that it doesn’t matter. Jesus’ potential existence has nothing to do with the truthiness of religion unless you believe that his existence can only be a validation of the new testament - which would be akin to your Obama comparison and would be patently ridiculous.

                First off you do have evidence of his non-existentence. Which I gave you. No one can keep their story straight about him. Secondly even if you didn’t have that you can say the same thing about unicorns.

                I have no proof that billions of specific people existed, doesn’t change that they did.

                And?

                • blomkalsgratin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We got a mind reader over here.

                  You’ve got a comment-reader, no magic required.

                  First off you do have evidence of his non-existentence. Which I gave you. No one can keep their story straight about him. Secondly even if you didn’t have that you can say the same thing about unicorns.

                  You’ve given no such thing. You have made a statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you fail to grasp that the existence of Jeaus would not be extraordinary. Billions of people have existed and will exist. The extraordinary part is the sin of God thing, which we don’t disagree on. Unicorns , much like “The Messiah”, are certainly extraordinary claims that would require proof. We have seen nothing to support the existence of anything even resembling unicorns. We have forever seen plenty to prove that humans exist. A specific human some thousands of years ago, is not unlikely.

                  And? And so, the claim that he exists is hardly extraordinary.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’ve got a comment-reader, no magic required.

                    Yeah no surprise. You think you can read my mind and except super low standards of evidence.

                    You’ve given no such thing. You have made a statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you fail to grasp that the existence of Jeaus would not be extraordinary.

                    Yes it would be. Even the people who try this game of finding the man behind the myth have to make so many assumptions to make this work. And I have repeatedly stated that the narratives contradict.

                    If you look at the actual evidence you have you find

                    1. Details are missing from Paul that should be there.

                    2. Every part of the Gospels shows signs of being borrowed from older stories and ideas. Almost as if two people were just writing a fanfic.

                    Nothing is unique. They had versions of messiah prophecy that including him dying. They had a popular story of a leader dying and his young follower continuing (Peter). Everything he said was cribbed from the OT or later thinkers. They had matry stories. They had stories of betrayal. They had stories of demagogues claiming to speak for God raising armies. Stories of raising the dead. The magic tricks were all known in the area at the time.

                    Not a single thing you can point to and say “ok this isn’t clearly a borrowing from earlier Jewish culture”. The Jesus con was a combination of Jeremiah, the first leader of the Maccabees, and Hillel. Which the scholars you seem to love so much are constantly pointing out. Except they need to keep selling books and you don’t do that by just admitting that it is all con.

                    But hey go ahead and shut me up. Show me a single piece of evidence that he existed.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Regardless, most historians agree that there was a human historical Jesus. Whether you think it’s all a conspiracy or scam or whatever is another matter I don’t care to get into.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And you repeat your argument from authority. Maybe if you do it another time it will convince me? Why not just address the total lack of evidence for this massive claim instead?

      • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some dude who started a personality cult around himself that grew out of control once he died. Like the warlord paedophile Muhammed after him.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m sure there was no shortage of “sons of god”, but for some reason, this guy’s claim stuck.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            He didn’t exist. The reason why the James-Peter fraud stuck was because Paul was a preaching machine and they lucked out with getting at least two good writers. Proto-Mark and M. If Paul had died on that shipwreck or Syrian scribe had found a better job there would be no Christianity today.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t really matter if a “historical human Jesus existed” because the Jesus that Christians worship, the Jesus of the Bible, is a fiction.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It does matter. Because it is near impossible to find a Christian who is fine with the Jesus story being a complete myth. Some of them will admit that not all of the contradiction-filled stories are correct but doubting he existed at all? Paul, the real founder, was at least honest about this and said all of their faith would be in vain if the resurrection had not happened.

          The evidence points to a con that got out of control.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t dug into this what-so-ever, but how would it even be possible to identify whether a specific person with that name existed 2000 years ago? It’s not like you could just Google the guys Facebook profile or social security number back in 200AD

      • Nora@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the thing. Anyone who knows how history works, knows that it’s extremely hard to prove someone existed that long ago.

        Most things we have to prove if someone existed is if other people talk about them or mention them in their writings.

        Other than the bible, no one really talked about a Jesus existing at that time. Which makes sense, since if a Jesus did exist he would be a nobody.