How do we know Jesus existed?
>It says it in the Gospels.
Who wrote the Gospels?
>We don´t know, they were anonymously written.
Isn´t that a bit dubious? I´m not exactly convinced.
>YEAH WELL VIRTUALLY ALL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT HE WAS REAL SO SHUT UP AND ACCEPT JESUS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there a more moronic argument? "Virtually all" is false. Not only that, even if it were "virtually all", it doesn´t make something objectively true. 500 years ago "virtually all doctors" agreed that bloodletting is a remedy for almost everything. 2000 years ago "virtually all scholars" agreed that the Earth was the centre of the universe. What´s your fricking point?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>How do we know Jesus existed?
Tacitus and Josephus
>a solitary reference to his execution, 83 years after the supposed fact
Yeah still not convinced. As for Josephus, I think it´s very interesting if you read "Works" by Flavius Jospehus and then read the New Testament. How many parallels can you find? The answer is NUMEROUS. Almost as if they could have been written by the same person/people?
>Yeah still not convinced.
No one cares if you're convinced. The academic consensus is that he was real and for there to be multiple references about him in different parts of the Empire shows that it is extremely unlikely that it is a fabrication.
>How do we know Jesus existed?
>>It says it in the Gospels.
>Who wrote the Gospels?
>>We don´t know, they were anonymously written.
this isn't true though what are you talking about?
>Yeah still not convinced
it doesn't matter if you're convinced or not. the documentation of Tacitus and Josephus are good enough to historically date and identify people.
You closing your eyes and saying no doesn't change academic standards.
What are YOU talking about? Search "who wrote the Gospels" and on any Christian website or Wikipedia the it´s the same. For example, one of the first sites I clicked into
> Tradition considers these men the authors, but there’s one problem: not one of these books names its author. The gospels are anonymous.
This is the same shitty argument Christians repeat ad nauseam. "Well the academics say it, so it must be true". Like I said in the OP, just because there´s a general consensus on something that doesn´t mean it´s objectively true. People thought the Earth being the centre of the universe was an undeniable fact. It´s not. People until quite recently believed that creationism was true. Even most Christians today can safely say that it´s not.
As for Tacitus and Jospehus, they´re nothing burgers. One solitary reference from Tacitus´ on his execution, a century later, proves nothing. Where are the biographical or historical records from when Jesus was actually "alive", 0-33AD? There are literally ZERO. And again regarding Josephus, how do you explain the uncanny, and I really mean uncanny, amount of parallels between "Works" by Josephus and the New Testament? Just one big coincidence I´m supposed to believe?
Literally no one cares about what your schizoid brain thinks. Jesus was a historical figure and it's a fact.
I'm an atheist so your "bb-b-b-b-bbuh christians!!!" shit doesn't work here, homosexual.
>Literally no one cares about what your schizoid brain thinks
You clearly care enough to take time out of your day and post in my thread though?
> Jesus was a historical figure and it's a fact.
That´s not an argument.
>Jesus was a historical figure
Why do you believe that? Because of a story about a magic israelite written in a foreign land, in a foreign language, decades after he allegedly lived?
>What are YOU talking about? Search "who wrote the Gospels" and on any Christian website or Wikipedia the it´s the same. For example, one of the first sites I clicked into
This reads like you're a boomer that has never used the internet before. What you found on some blog is irrelevant if you're going to say "We don´t know, they were anonymously written" then you're going to need to back that bazaar claim up
>This is the same shitty argument Christians repeat ad nauseam. "Well the academics say it, so it must be true".
Its not an argument, its calling out your non argument. why should I care if you're not convinced and disagree with modern scholarship. You disagree with modern academic standards but have given no reason to think yours are superior.
Ok, I´m going to ignore any Christian websites because according to you they´re just irrelevant blogs. Let´s use Wikipedia instead, globally regarded as the go-to enyclopedia.
>In the New Testament, they bear the following titles: the Gospel of Matthew; the Gospel of Mark; the Gospel of Luke; and the Gospel of John. These names were assigned to the works by the early church fathers in the 2nd century AD; none of the writers signed their work.
>none of the writers signed their work
Anonymously written.
>Its not an argument, its calling out your non argument. why should I care if you're not convinced and disagree with modern scholarship. You disagree with modern academic standards but have given no reason to think yours are superior.
I´ve given you arguments. In my OP image, it highlights the amount of similarities between Christ and previous pagan deities. That alone is cause for alarm. I´ve also highlighted how there are zero references to Jesus´ from the time he was alive. You would think, considering he performed magic miracles and had a cult following, that someone somewhere would´ve written about him at the time, or at the very least, a later work, like Tacitus´, would´ve referenced someone´s contemporary work that talks about Jesus. None of those things exist. I´ve also highlighted how there is an uncanny amount of parallels between Works by Flavius Jospehus and the New Testament. That aside, there are a lot of parallels between Moses and Jesus too, in addition to other Greco-Roman myths. What´s your argument?
>THE ACADEMICS SAY SO
zzzzzzzzz
>Ok, I´m going to ignore any Christian websites because according to you they´re just irrelevant blogs. Let´s use Wikipedia instead, globally regarded as the go-to enyclopedia.
you're citing wikipedia now? are you moronic? honestly?
hold on so you're premise is:
>I'm not convinced by what modern academia says about the historicity of the gospels
>Wikipedia is correct.
sounds like you are just picking which source agrees with you and ignores ones that don't.
why should I trust Wikipedia over modern historians?
>I´ve given you arguments. In my OP image,
no where is there an argument
>it highlights the amount of similarities between Christ and previous pagan deities
with no sources mind you, so you're ignoring historians in favor of random images and wikipedia? quite telling.
> I´ve also highlighted how there are zero references to Jesus´ from the time he was alive
this isn't any sort of standard
>I´ve also highlighted how there is an uncanny amount of parallels between Works by Flavius Jospehus and the New Testament. That aside, there are a lot of parallels between Moses and Jesus too, in addition to other Greco-Roman myths. What´s your argument?
you're assuming these "parallels" are true which you haven't shown and even if they were true parallels existing isn't any sort of proof against the existence of Christ.
please use more brain cells
>a bunch of sperging about Wikipedia
Anon, do you really need historians to spoonfeed you the fact that no one signed the Gospels? Open one of the Gospels yourself and show me where it shows the author signing it.
>no where is there an argument
Jesus you really need everything to be spelled out to you like a child. Horus was born of the virgin Isis, on the 25th of December. So was Attis. Mithras was also born on the 25th of December. So was Dionysus... No one claims that these figures actually existed in physical form though. Most can agree it´s largely mythology or metaphysical paganism, just like Jesus Christ. Which literally just means "saviour messiah".
>you're assuming these "parallels" are true which you haven't shown
Here are 2. Word limit won´t let me post more. There are plenty more. Go look
At the same time, both Jesus and Josephus talk of sedition.
At this very time, Gospels tell that when asked whether he had come for ‘peace on earth’, Jesus tells the israelites that he has not come for peace but warns- (I have come for) ‘rather division, for from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three.
Josephus writes, ‘that sedition, which had been divided into three factions, was now reduced to two’.
An important parallel that Atwil mentions is that of –
Matthew 7:19 – Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Picture shows Jesus cursing a fig tree.
Josephus writes that Titus, intending to pitch his camp nearer to the city…gave orders for the whole army to level the distance, had made about their gardens and groves of trees, and cut down all the fruit trees…
>Anon, do you really need historians to spoonfeed you the fact that no one signed the Gospels? Open one of the Gospels yourself and show me where it shows the author signing it.
you've given no reason to trust wikipedia over historians
>Jesus you really need everything to be spelled out to you like a child.
you can't make a clear argument cope.
>Horus was born of the virgin Isis, on the 25th of December. So was Attis. Mithras was also born on the 25th of December. So was Dionysus
proof?
>No one claims that these figures actually existed in physical form though. Most can agree it´s largely mythology or metaphysical paganism, just like Jesus Christ. Which literally just means "saviour messiah".
is there an argument here?
>This is the same shitty argument Christians repeat ad nauseam. "Well the academics say it, so it must be true".
Conservative Christians regularly attack critical scholarship as atheism in disguise. You're right a consensus doesn't prove something is true, but the question is if you accept the historical method, and critical textual annaylisis in the first place. If you do than its pretty hard to make the case that Jesus being a real person is not the probable truth. That is just were the evidence points.
> And again regarding Josephus, how do you explain the uncanny, and I really mean uncanny, amount of parallels between "Works" by Josephus and the New Testament? Just one big coincidence I´m supposed to believe?
Well they were both written at around the same time in the same language and are translated today by people with the same education in translating Greek to English. Personally I don't think they read that similarly.
They don't say Jesus existed. They say followers of Jesus existed.
Neither of them mentions Jesus. Tacitus talks about an unknown man named Chrestus and Josephus talk about "James the Just the brother of Jesus (son of Damneus) called Christ.".
The Gospels contradict the Josephus btw: Josephus does not mention the census of Qirinus, he infact claims that procuator of Judea was Coponius rather than Qirinus, he does not mention the massacre of the innocents, and he claims that Herod killed John the baptist because he felt threatened by his growing influence rather than to please Herodias.
Can I get a fact check on that image?
Seems like it singlehandedly debunks the bibble if that stuff is true.
https://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6-famous-documentaries-that-were-shockingly-full-crap.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/did-jesus-exist-the-jesus-myth-theory-again/
https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/40huxv/jesus_is_just_a_made_up_saviour_copied_from_pagan/
I googled each name and half of it is wrong, some is not mentioned at all and a small amount is true - mostly resurrections. Seems like a massive reach especially with how the main details of each figure are extremely different
> "Virtually all" is false.
It's not.
>500 years ago "virtually all doctors" agreed that bloodletting is a remedy for almost everything. 2000 years ago "virtually all scholars" agreed that the Earth was the centre of the universe. What´s your fricking point?
Yeah, and if you lived in those times, you would have been incredibly stupid and irresponsible as an ordinary person to disagree with them.
>you would have been incredibly stupid and irresponsible as an ordinary person to disagree with them.
le appeal to authority
it's not the own you think it is when you have no alternatives
The "alternative" is the perspective we have now to see that those guys weren't always right.
sure, 500 years later
you still haven't provided an alternative aka explaind why jesus wasn't real
I'm not OP.
nyet
Appeals to authority are perfectly respectable arguments when the authority is relevant.
no
Yes.
Conspiratorial theories are very stupid
>Well someone wrote a story about a magic israelite so I guess it must be based on a real person. Nobody could possibly make up a story about someone who isn't real. Although we have no way of knowing what kernel of truth can be gleaned from the magic israelite story any more than we could glean historical fact by assuming there was a real Robin Hood.
That's the state of so-called "biblical scholarship".
>I’m not that convinced
Your loss
If you believe in Jesus it all makes sense and theres a fair collection of evidence he existed. However he does not make sense as just a man who cannot work miracles.
Again I will say it if you don't believe Jesus Christ is the son of God (and especially if you are a materialist) he simply can't be real because of how public of a figure he was in Palestine. He has to be made up by a conspiracy or shroom smoking mystics in that case.
Its not like Mohomud the prophet of Islam whose miraculous attributions can be chalked up to this or that lie or delusion.
>We don't know who wrote the gospels. They were anonymously written.
No they weren't, the authors names it right there. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and everyone else. Isn't it common sense that "the gospel of Matthew" was written by Matthew the disciples? It's his account of what happened. Before anyone even gets into the details and bothering to find evidence to prove that Matthew wrote it isn't it common sense? Why oh why would we even need to find extra-biblical evidence that Matthew wrote "the gospel of Matthew"? It's because God hating atheists insist that we do. They will throw doubt into even the most common sense stuff because they're in denial about god. They won't just say "god is real and I don't want a relationship with him" because that's a scary thing to say so instead they just deny they exist and stick their head in the sand and cover their ears and go "la la la I can't hear you". So while there is concrete evidence that the authors are the people the books are named for my question is, isn't it common sense?
>Why oh why would we even need to find extra-biblical evidence that Matthew wrote "the gospel of Matthew"?
Gee, I dunno, anon. I guess we should just uncritically accept the Gnostic gospels because they have titles attributing them to disciples.
You are absolutely right, also check'd
When people like you use the word "critical thinking" what you really mean is "doubt". You will "think critically" about even the most solid evidence, you will "doubt" even the most solid evidence.
We (well, those who aren't disingenuous and/or intellectually dishonest) know he existed after reviewing historical sources using the historical method.
Even if you post it another 10,000 times, it's still wrong.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Jesus existed but his Story was Exaggerated and Divinized he was the Leader of a Religion or Philosophy maybe he wanted to make a Rebellion against the israelites