Well, /his/... Did Jesus Christ exist?
>Screenshot
?
>>832642
instead of cropping I just zoomed in on the picture and screenshotted it.
The question is: Is He real to you?
We could discuss, debate, or rebuke all day about His history, but would you accept Him anymore differently?
>>832638
Probably, but he was just a Galilean rabbi with some anti-establishment ideas that got him a following and later got him crucified.
>>832674
This, someone existing isn't really a miracle itself or implausible. But did he turn water into wine and feed hundreds of people with just few loaves of bread and fish? Well I doubt that. People like to glorify things and turn people into these magical beings (I mean look at how much stuff revolves around Napoleon or Hitler, and that shit happened only 70 years ago).
Time and word of mouth communication ensures shit gets real bizarre real fast, like broken telephone game.
> mfw atheists demand extraordinary evidence for an ordinary claim
>>832638
yes
>>832638
Carrier's argument doesn't seem to hold water to be honest. It's humorous to use it to tweak Christfag tails though.
>>832706
Could you elaborate? From my extremely ignorant understanding it seems to hold up.
>One true God here, about to make my only appearance on earth in Human form.
>Where should I go?
>This Roman backwater should do.
>Let me get my message straight.
>Don't erase any laws from my book!
>Stone a bitch?, nah, don't be so literal guys, common.
>Turn the other cheek.
>But sell your cloak for a sword.
>Alright, seems like I'm done here.
>Now to die to save you from the Hell I just created.
>Make sure you get word of this to the Chinese, Norse and North Americans in the next, oh, thousand years or so.
>Peace! (except for the eternally damned)
>>832668
>The question is: Is He real to you?
Hang on, let me put my spooky Jesus glasses on... wooooaaah...
>>832638
Yes. He is explicitly mentioned by Tacitus, considered one of the greatest historians of antiquity. That doesn't mean he was necessarily the son of god or whatever.
>>832638
The man the Son of God in Christianity is based on undoubtedly existed. The details get fuzzy, though.
>>832638
Don't ask what Jesus christ can do for you, but what you can do for him
>>832674
This to be honest
Do you mean the literal son of God like the Bible describes him or just a guy named Jesus?
>>832872
b8.
The location of Jesus was perfect. Even when looking at Christianity from different perspectives.
In Matthew 26:
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
These verses are extremely interesting as a random woman had poured expensive perfume over Jesus that could have been sold to the poor. The disciples were nearly angry at the wasteful behavior of the lady. It's really quite intriguing to see Jesus say "this gospel shall be preached in the whole world" as a really insignificant situation had just occurred.
imagine what the disciples were thinking.
They were in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere miles away from Jerusalem and Jesus is saying that this small event will be heard around the world.
Even if you aren't a believer. The Bible, new testament mainly, is an extremely special piece of literature.
>>832688
>Extraordinary evidence
>Multiple contemporary or viably sourced documents showing he existed is extraordinary evidence
Whether Jesus existed can not be asserted as entirely true.
I'm not denying that he may have existed to a lesser extent (Such that no one contemporary could be arsed to write about him) but it can't be said for certain.
>>832962
But the issue with Tacitus is that it contains no source and he's not contemporary, he may not even explicitly be refering to Christus since the I has been shown to replace an E in the source document, and because the paragraph mentioning Christus goes unmentioned until it is eventually rediscovered (an 8th century copy of the original text is found) the entire passage may have been significantly altered or entirely fabricated.
>>832872
>>832638
>Did Jesus Christ exist?
We really don't know. Most researchers just agree he is real, but this is less a consensus based on research or evidence than one reached for the sake of convenience (they know ramifications of saying he didn't exist).
We only have some three pieces of evidence pointing to the existence of a historical Jesus: the testimonies of Josephus (which we knows has been tampered with, with interpolation from a Christian scribe in later centuries), a tiny off-hand reference in the writings of Tacitus (written some 30 years after the death of this supposed Christ), and the very vague Mar Saaba letter, which might not even refer to Christ (or might be another Christian interpolation).
So no, the evidence for a historical Jesus is very weak.
>>832834
I'll split my criticism into four parts based on the three categories of evidence for Jesus' existence and the central thesis.
Firstly, the Gospels, he basically dismisses them as fantasy, he has decent arguments to back this and I, personally, can pretty much agree with him on this. The Gospels are Lord of the Rings tier and I would quite happily dismiss the lot as historical evidence. In the interests of being non-biased though most scholars say it is possible to try and glean some small percentage of truth from them.
Secondly, the Epistles, sorry I going to have to be a bit fuzzy here as I can't remember the detail of all of his arguments, but he basically claims that all of the references to Jesus in them are based on scripture and visions. I didn't find his arguments for this compelling. Again I'm not too bothered by this, personally, as they were written by nutty cultists, but again, in fairness, most scholars think there is some truth that can extracted from them.
Thirdly his central thesis. This idea based on looking at other cults and the religious beliefs of Heavens at the time that Jesus was originally a mythical figure that lived in one of the Heavens. His argument seems plausible, even possible, but he has no evidence for it, which makes it speculation.
Fourthly, the non-biblical sources for Jesus. This was what I most interested in hearing about, but he didn't seem to have any decent arguments against them at all, other than dismissing them.
>>832876
fucking kek
>>832872
And now there's over 2 billion Christians worldwide and his teachings are the foundation of western civilization
>>833183
Considering this>>832674
We would not expect a lot of contemporary evidence for him, since he was not that important until after his death. It was the cult that followed that made him important.
Historians are not afraid of the ramification of saying Jesus was fictional, in fact it was, at one time a popular view. It just far less likely that he was made up, just as its unlikely the stories about hims are completely fictional.
We know that people were writing about him throughout the roman empire, before the gospels and contemporaneous to Paul. An invented tradition does a poor job of explaining this.
>>834223
>And now there's over 2 billion Christians worldwide
Really, most of those are only nominally/culturally Christian who maybe go to church on Easters and Christmas or keep a crucifix in the house.
>>834227
>one word constitutes as my entire argument, which is valid btw
Behold the legacy of the Christian 'scholastic' tradition
>>834239
>It just far less likely that he was made up, just as its unlikely the stories about hims are completely fictional.
The historical Jesus - if existent indeed - was so different than the Jesus portrayed in Christianity that I would say 'Jesus never existed' is in practical terms a completely valid statement.
>>832638
Did the most famous person on earth exist?
Is that your question?
Then yes, Jesus of Nazareth, the most famous person on earth, exists.
>>833110
Then say the same for Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Alexander the Greek, etc., etc., etc.
>>832674
I agree
he basically trod on the wrong toes and got murdered in a pretty grisly fashion as a result
>>834257
Yes, Jesus was some unknown travelling rabbi who never did anything unusual, which is why we are still talking about Him 2000 years later.
>>832638
Daily Reminder that history is His Story.
>>834278
tits or gtfo
>>832686
if you take the supernatural stuff out of the jesus story you basically end up with a tale about a religious teacher who got on the wrong side of some powerful contemporary religous/political figures and was subsequently killed because of it
perfectly plausible and somewhat tragic story that has been repeated time and again
>>834267
The difference is that history is comfortable saying that we didn't receive the authentic version of these characters.
It's pretty much agree'd Plato doesn't accurately represent Socrates. Yet we are confident he personally knew the man.
In contrast we don't know who wrote the Gospels yet we are asked to believe they represent the authentic Jesus.
>>832686
On what basis do you doubt those events happened? Your normalcy bias?
>>834293
You may not know; however, your ignorance is hardly universal.
>>834297
because human beings cant do these things
thus if we assume that they happened we also assume thay jesus was not human. what evidence do we have to support that jesus is not human? that he performed miracles? but miracles are impossible unless we assume jesus is not human etc you see where im going with this
>>834309
Can God do those things?
>>834298
as opposed to yours?
>>834313
Can God do?
>>834318
So if a person does things that only God can do, what, if anything, can we say about that person?
>>834315
So, because you're ignorant, everyone else is ignorant?
>>834239
>We would not expect a lot of contemporary evidence for him, since he was not that important until after his death
Not true given the miracles and following that he preformed and attracted during his life time. Earthquakes, days of darkness and mass rising of saints after he rose - yet conviently only appeared to a few of his most devout followers before leaving.
Does the anonymity and the issues of authorship regarding the gospels not point in the direction that perhaps the movement was not as organic as you would have it?
Doesnt the account attributed to Mark seem rather embarrassing given how many basic errors of geography and Jewish custom + law he makes?
>>834324
If a person today claimed to be able to do things only God can do, you would probably assume they were crazy and demand hard evidence they could do what they say.
>>834325
Not the anon you were talking to previously.
But good job showing us all how quick you are to make assumptions. You seem very enlightened.
>>834325
You're an idiot.
The historical evidence for Jesus is already weak, but on top of that, you insist that we all believe he had supernatural abilities and divine nature based on... Gospels that weren't written until at least decades (and in some cases, centuries) after his supposed ministry?
This is a history board - history as a study does not see a mystery and claim supernatural explanations, but rather follows what is known. We know humans cannot come back from the dead, and that they do not have supernatural abilities: go back to the Otherchan's /christian/ board, to your hugbox.
>>834337
If they claimed it, that would be one thing.
If they performed, that would be another.
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.
>>834336
>Not true given the miracles and following that he preformed and attracted during his life time. Earthquakes, days of darkness and mass rising of saints after he rose - yet conveniently only appeared to a few of his most devout followers before leaving.
Its called the historical critical method. we don't assume those things happened, especially because the stories get more amazing the further from the events. Miraculous powers were attributed to many historical figures.
>Does the anonymity and the issues of authorship regarding the gospels not point in the direction that perhaps the movement was not as organic as you would have it?
Large elements were probably added after the mans death yes.
Paul never met the man for instance, and was working off visions and accounts from the Christian community.
But the gospels are not the earliest accounts of Christianity . There were several writings before them, contemporaneous to Paul.
>>834339
He said nobody knows who wrote the gospels. It's common knowledge. Because he demonstrated his ignorance, he got called out for it.
He then accused me of being ignorant, without even a claim associated with it.
And then here you come, some sort of internet avenger, again with nothing to say, and nothing to base it on.
>>832638
There is less evidence for the Jesus of the Bible than there is Socrates. Mull that over
>>834356
Jesus is the most rock solid person in antiquity, and He is God.
No amount of saying "nuh uh" changes facts.
If you can't figure out why suddenly everyone felt the need to put things into writing in the 60's AD, you have really displayed an amazing amount of ignorance.
Again.
>>834376
The miracles are recorded well within the lifetime of any eyewitnesses, and never refuted.
>>834370
>If they claimed it, that would be one thing.
>If they performed, that would be another.
So says accounts written decades after the man's death by people who never met him.
What If me and my family claimed my great grandfather raised the dead? I bet you would be skeptical.
>>834376
Paul met Jesus, and spent years learning from Jesus, post-resurrection.
Maybe you're unclear on what we mean by "He's alive!".
>>834388
There is a thousand times more evidence for Jesus than Socrates. Easily.
>>834376
>Paul never met the man for instance, and was working off visions
He was fucking insane. Your entire religion is the same as the paganism you replaced: all false. And you can't even argue back with a convincing tone, but rather retreat with your cognitive dissonance and double-think and simply refuse to give the matter further thought.
>large elements were probably added after the mans death yes.
Do you even realize the problem this presents? The slippery slope dilemma? Where do the lies stop and the facts begin? Are there even any facts left?
>>834396
His disciples wrote them down, actually.
Not in your fantasy world, where you are not subject to God, but in reality, where you are.
>>834394
Miraculous powers are attributed to a lot of historical figures. How do you refute such a claim without examining the person in detail?
>>834407
The bible was finished by 95 AD, again, well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus, hundreds of them, and again, never refuted contemporaneously.
>>834382
>calling someone an Internet avenger
Says the idiot defending a dead kike from Late Antiquity who might not even be real
>>834376
>Its called the historical critical method. we don't assume those things happened, especially because the stories get more amazing the further from the events. Miraculous powers were attributed to many historical figures.
This is a pretty serious issue then given that these kind form the curx of the son of God claim.
>Large elements were probably added after the mans death yes.
How do you tell the difference between this creation and the truth? Would you reject the Gospel of Mark?
>Paul never met the man for instance, and was working off visions and accounts from the Christian community.
Of course, give me some credit here.
>But the gospels are not the earliest accounts of Christianity . There were several writings before them, contemporaneous to Paul.
Which writings are these?
>>834409
By examining the person in detail. By examining His virgin birth; by examining hundreds of prophecies about Who He would be, what He would be, and what He would do, all written centuries prior to His birth.
By studying the writings of His disciples.
By knowing Him.
>>834407
>Your entire religion is the same as the paganism you replaced:
I'm an atheist.
>Do you even realize the problem this presents? The slippery slope dilemma? Where do the lies stop and the facts begin? Are there even any facts left?
Historians deal with incomplete information and contradictory accounts all the time. you find what is likely by sorting through the obvious bullshit
>>834400
Then demonstrate it.
We have the eyewitness accounts of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.
For Jesus we have Gospels writen close to 50 years after his death by anonomoys authors and one guy who saw him in a vision.
>>834398
I could claim to know Jesus and make up new rules, but people would call me insane or a fraud. I think Paul was probably sincere since its pretty easy to get a vision if your looking for one
>>834389
>Jesus is the most rock solid person in antiquity
Good for him
>He is God
He never claimed that. Simply another invention by his cult once his believers began to intermingle with Greco-Romans in Asia Minor. The historical Christ would have found this idea blasphemous and idolatrous. Even the Jewish Messiah is not a god-man.
>facts
What facts? Aside from Gospels - which, I repeat for what feels like the ten thousandth time - that were written by people who never met Christ and in the subsequent decades and centuries after, there is hardly any evidence of a historical Jesus, much less a divine superbeing. Let's see, we have one account (i.e. a few sentences) from Josephus (and it has been tampered with by Christian medieval scribes), and what amounts to one more sentence by Tacitus, and an extremely vague possible reference in the Mar Saaba letter.
>>834416
The Orthodox and Catholics here could probably give you a more complete list than I, but the didachi is one source, it shows clear Jewish influences that don't appear in modern Christianity
>>834432
Plato 427-347 B.C.
Oldest known copy: A.D. 900
Passage of time between event and copy: 1,200 yrs
Number of copies in existence: 7
Jesus in the New Testament
1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100)
Earliest copies: 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. A.D. 130 f.)
Time between event and oldest copy: less than 100 years
Number of manuscript copies: 5,600
>>834433
You keep harping on the "decades later", and completely dismiss the entire "inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, Who brought all things to their remembrance."
>>834433
Relying on Bart Ehrman as a "historian" is a joke.
>>834457
an unfalsifiable claim like that is hardly worth discussing
>>834441
Paul demonstrates in his writing that not only does He know Jesus better than the apostles, but that he knows the New Covenant better than they do as well.
Jesus spent zero time with His disciples after the ascension.
So the obvious question is, since Saul of Tarsus was killing Christians, how did he end up knowing more than all of Jesus' disciples combined?
>>834459
He is hardly the only guy promoting similar ideas. Most historians and theologians in the field who are not conservative Christians accept the later dates
>>834449
John 8
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,"
I Am is the name God gave Moses at the burning bush.
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
So, yeah, Jesus many times said He is God, and was killed for it.
>>834467
He "knows the New Covenant better than they do" because he is the source of most of the material on it.
to put that in simple terms, he made most of it up which is why he knows it so well
>>834464
Who said it was unfalsifiable? You? After you performed what work?
>>834471
He's a fedora writing books to fedoras. He's a joke in his field.
>>834477
John was finished nearly a hundred years after Jesus died so we can hardly take Jesus quotes from it at face value
>>834482
that statement doesn't even make any sense. Its unfalsifiable because it cannot be independently verified or fact checked.
>>834484
had this debate before, people brought all sorts of quote refuting it, but even if he was I've never even read one of his books so its not the substance of my argument
>>834479
That's your shitty theory. Here's what the bible says.
Galatians 1
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter...
Hey, guess what's in Arabia? Why, yes, that's right! Mt. Sinai!
>>834487
60.
60 is not a hundred. Stop being so sloppy. And as John was the beloved disciple, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are literally a fool not to take his word on the subject. Literally a fool.
>>834496
Oh well if the man says he didn't make it up that its true!
>>834495
Says who, you? Again, have you tried? What work have you performed on the Holy Spirit in order to see if He is real or not?
>>834356
>implying an ancient source being written decades after the supposed event is inaccurate in an era before the printing press
B-b-but this is a history board!! Do you even know how to study primary sources you pleb? If you're working with any sources written prior to the printing press - where the volume of sources explodes - you have to be comfortable with accounts written decades away from the event being described. Ancient history is like looking at a room through a key hole. Even periods that are well documented you'll never get the whole story, because by our modern standards of evidence, very few written works hold up.
Most scholars accept the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. He was probably a notable Galilean itinerant preacher who was killed by the Romans in Palestine. The Gospels aren't perfect historical accounts by any means - but scholars can and have skimmed historical information from them.
Why can't you fedora tipping idiots accept the scholarly consensus?
>>834503
Everything properly in the Word of God is true.
Do try to get that through your thick skull.
>I know where Paul went, and when, not him!
>>834509
Because it's not that they do not believe there is a God; it's that they do not want to believe that there is a God. They're spiritually blocked from accessing the truth.
>>834477
Can you understand the difference between the actual historical Jesus and the fictionalized Jesus Christ that the Christians developed? You're fucking dense.
Mark, which was the Gospel written closest to the time of Jesus, does not make as much of the issue of Jesus 'being' God. See his last words on the cross ('Father, my father, why have you forsaken me?'), and compare them to subsequent Gospels, where the words become others that reflect changes in Christian conceptions of their central figure from a prophet and holy man to a literal God ("It is finished", "Into my hands I commend your spirit", etc.)
i.e. Jesus never claimed to be God. That is a fiction that later evolved and became part of Christian theology, mostly because of its merging with Hellenes and philosophy in Asia Minor
>>834505
This is a history board. We don't confirm or deny historical events based on personal spiritual experiences.
>>834227
You don't have to believe Jesus never existed to be an atheist, you just have to be a dumb atheist.
C'mon, dude. We're better than these religious numbnuts.
>>834505
What work have you performed in the name of your Holy Ghost? None, besides shitposting on 4chan.
>>834511
No, no its not. and neither your rantings here and that special feeling you get from "the holy spirit" prove it
>>834519
This. Based Anon.
We need to purge religion threads from this board. They were acceptable at first, but they turn into... this.
>>834513
Can you go back to your containment board to discuss your fictional narratives? This is a history board. Can you understand that? History.
Christians on this very thread say the accounts in the Bible are inherently 'real' because they are divinely inspired.
So, why do they think other texts aren't 'real'? What quality do they possess that does not make them 'real', despite claims of divine inspiration?
>>834529
To be honest anon, the entire reason this board was created was to remove /rel/ from /pol/.
No one was ever that interested in having a history board and the level of historical discussion is even lower than the religious discussion.
>>834516
That you think Jesus is not God makes you the fool, not me.
Mark, Peter's account, was Jesus as the Suffering Servant, the Ox, written to the Romans. No origin, no ending, because nobody cares where a servant comes from, or where he goes.
You took the intent, and the style, and forced it to say something it does not say. John Mark, on Peter's behalf, NEVER denies that Jesus is God, and in fact states it many times.
If somebody over the centuries added something that was true to the end of Mark, I hardly see that as an event to discredit Mark, and I wonder if any sane person would do so.
Jesus claimed to be God, and is God. When Jesus said "I Am", He is taking the name of God. When He says I am the Son of God, He is saying He is God. When He said "Before Abraham was, I Am", He is claiming to be God. When He said "Your sins are forgiven you", He is claiming to be God. When He says "I and the Father are One", He is claiming to be God. When He says "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", He is claiming to be God.
When He rose from the dead, He proved that He is God.
>>834519
Was Joan de Arc schizophrenic?
(Gee, that depends on your spiritual views.)
>>834524
Oooh, many miracles and wonders, including the resurrection of the dead from this very board. And others.
>>834528
Zero successful attacks, and thousands of failed attacks, prove it. It tells the end from the beginning, which only God can do. It's about 30% prophecy, and literally proves itself to be the Word of God.
>>834556
Were talking about the dating and accuracy of books,
>>834551
Arguing with a Christian is useless, as they will repeat condescending but ultimately baseless statements like "it is you who is wrong, not me."
Well, PROOFS?
>>834569
>and literally proves itself to be the Word of God.
No it doesn't. The more you look at it the more inconsistent and errant it appears. And we're not even talking about the Old Testament.
>>834547
There is no mention of religion in the sticky.
The only reason why the religious discussion is allowed is because theology is part of the humanities.
>>834582
Theology is pure bullshit.
>>834587
>historical discussion
>"omg Jesus is real because the Holy Spirit revealed it me and Paul in a dream-vision"
Right, 'history'.
>>>/trash/
>>834596
Ok that guy only showed up half way through.
>>834585
>i don't understand it
>it must be bullshit!
What a lazy historian. Christianity is rooted in theology, to understand the religion you have to understand its ideas.
>>834571
So a book saying she was schizo is more reliable than a book saying she was hearing from God.
See how biased you are?
>>834572
Arguing with fedoras is useless, as they will repeat condescending but ultimately baseless statements like "it is you who is wrong, not me."
Well, PROOFS?
>>834580
It's completely consistent, over 1500 years, the 66 books written by 40 men, also demonstrating its supernatural fingerprint.
>>834613
But the entire reason I realize it is bullshit is because I do understand it.
Convoluted crap like transubstantiation and other dogmas that reach a level that sound like furious backtracking and backpedaling and you realize these are all trying to cover their asses from what is more reasonable and realistic.
You just keep believing in your convoluted teachings.
>>834620
>>834616
I never even said that, nor did I call Paul crazy.
but no, visions are not accepted by historians as evidence of how events in the past unfolded. That is a bias, though its a well grounded one considering how common claims of visions are and how often they are wrong
>>834626
You understand very little indeed, if you can't tell Christianity from Catholicism.
Very little, to nothing.
Do you even know what year "transubstantiation" was invented?
>>834631
History Rule #38,281: No visions were ever had, but were all false.
Your rationalist, humanist, naturalist worldview ain't gonna serve you well in life, boy.
>>834620
Fedoras don't actually 'do' anything, though. It's Christcucks who inevitably go on the offensive as to why we haven't 'accepted' their mythical narratives and legends as fact, and why we haven't structured every aspect of our lives around it.
>>834622
You're fucking insane. The Gospels are not consistent
For one:
>every Gospel has a different take on Christ's last words
wew lad
>>834640
>History Rule #38,281: No visions were ever had, but were all false.
Historians make no such claim as a rule. Its just that we are trying to establish events based on yes: materialistic evidence. for the same reason a court would not accept psychic testimony to convict a man, we do not accept it to prove an event.
So yes we are rationalist, and while we are not all naturalistic as a profession the criteria are
>>834640
So tell me why Paul's 'visions' (a.k.a. schizophrenic episodes) are somehow more 'real' than the 'visions' claimed by other religious figures that aren't Christians, or that are considered heretical/different from your very specific sect of Christianity?
Is there an inherent quality, aside from "it doesn't adhere to my sense of aesthetics or what I was taught?" that makes a 'vision' less or more real than others, so as to say Paul's were real divinely inspired, but that, say, the Baha'u'llah's or Mohammed's weren't?
>>834642
They're not myths.
Jesus said 7 things on the cross. Not all witnesses reported all 7. 7 is the number in the bible for completion, for perfection.
Because they weren't colluding. They were writing to different audiences in different places to demonstrate different things.
Not one single account said "these are all the things Jesus said on the cross, and He said none other."
See, you have no idea what the Law of Non-Contradiction actually means. If I write "Jesus said #1, 2, and 6 on the cross", it does not mean that Jesus did not say #3, 4 and 5 on the cross.
>>834645
That guy is /His/'s resident fundamentalist who thinks Catholicism is a continuation of Babylonian death cults.
You can pretty much discount everything he says
>>834645
Since Christianity predates Catholicism by almost 300 years, you tell me.
>>834582
>There is no mention of religion in the sticky.
You appear to have problems reading, friend, which doesn't exactly lead me to conclusion that you are some keen historian, it leads me to the conclusion you can't read and therefore know very little about history at all.
I suggest you read the sticky again. Point at the words and say them out loud if you find them a bit confusing.
>>834655
So prove the event where Joan de Arc heard from God.
>>834659
>They were writing to different audiences in different places to demonstrate different things.
We still have slippery slope problem. At what point - because of their pandering - do the lies stop, and the facts begin?
>>834662
>implying "catholicism" isn't a complicated concept
>>834658
When people are schizo, they rarely if ever become blind, change their lives 180 degrees, and have people nearby react to localized thunder.
>>834660
>You can pretty much discount everything he says
Wow.
Tell me 1 thing I am wrong on. Just 1 thing.
>>834673
There are no lies. People have gone to the trouble of harmonizing the gospels; it's at your fingertips if you're interested.
>>834668
I cannot prove or disprove that, I can only compare what she said with known facts and point out if she was wrong..
>>834678
If by "complicated" you mean the meaning of the word changed from "universal" to "exclusively Roman Catholic", then yes, it's complicated.
>>834690
So go ahead and point out that she was wrong, because you know what she went through better than she did.
>>834660
The sheer ignorance and bias in this post has left me speechless.
Do you only function in hugboxes?
>>834682
Every time I do you just insist you are right because the bible says so (or what ever other book the holy spirit tells you is true), so there is really no point
>>834693
I'm not talking about Joan and don't know much on the subject, we're talking about Paul, and I never claimed he was crazy or even wrong. I am just saying his testimony based on visions is not evidence under the historical method, which is used by all professional historians
>>834703
Every time you're wrong. Every. Single. Time.
>>834708
I know you think you are being reasonable by leaving things to the consensus of "professional historians".
Do you notice anything in particular about "professional historians" that might not make putting matters divine into their hands reasonable?
>>834676
You don't seem to be very good at apologies either. You were completely wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
Not minor, silly little mistake wrong, but hideously, barely able to read and write, stupidly wrong.
You failed to read the first sentence of the sticky before you made your first post on this board and you want to turn that into an attack on other posters.
It sucks to be you.
>>834711
He's right. You're an idiot. I don't even know why you are on a history board where the majority of users (excluding the Christcucks here to proselytize) have a semblance of intelligence.
I'd suggest /b/ for you.
>>834452
Your point? Quantity =/=quality having a bunch of anonymous whith works of questionable dates doesnt make it automatically more credible
>Another thread turning into Christian hugboxing because Christians don't understand how Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, etc. ancient texts with religious events aren't taken literally to mean magical events happened everywhere in the ancient world, because, you guessed it, supernatural shit can't be demonstrated in any setting
Can't the Christian threads just move to /x/? Is serious religion really, REALLY one of the humanities?
>>834717
We're talking about events, not whether God is real, or whether Jesus is divine. They don't answer questions like that.
If their research makes either of those seem less likely to you, that is your problem.
>>834509
>Why can't you fedora tipping idiots accept the scholarly consensus?
Because people on here conflate a historical Jesus with the Jesus of the gospels
>>834698
I don't think you'll find many places where the Catholic-Babylonian death cult theory will fly which are not hug boxes
>>834736
More and better and more current don't mean better.
wew lad
>>834740
Jesus rose from the dead.
This is well documented in historical documents. And it proves He is God.
>>834739
There are good arguments on theology mired in all the theist/athiest shitposting. And everything here is mired in shitposting to begin with.
If it really bothers you, ignore it, and make contributions to discussions you find worthwhile.
>>834752
It's not a theory, but an observation.
Honestly, the only people on the internet I would never ask a historical question would be you people on /his/terical.
>>834739
>Is serious religion really, REALLY one of the humanities?
For all of human history, yes.
We believe he was built and that he was a very well programmed robot. But he wasn't our Messiah.
>>832638
Yes.
He was very likely a disciple of John the Baptist, most evangelists hate hearing that.
>>834815
John wouldn't claim that; why do you?
>>834767
>More and better and more current don't mean better.
what makes them better sources though outside of their number?
>>834841
More contemporary, and 99.5% identical.
>>834828
John was killed by the Romans. Shortly after Jesus shows up on the scene. And it's no surprise that 2 of Jesus's disciples were also followers of John the Baptist. It's all connected.
Most Christians have an ahistorical understanding of Christ and 1st century Palestine. This is because they have been corrupted by Pauline theology.
The historical evidence points toward Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist.
And the 1st century evangelist (especially the Q documents) crafted this out of the history to make Jesus above John.
Read less apologetics, and read more history.
>pic related.
>>834853
>More contemporary, and 99.5% identical.
Have you got a source on the 99.5% stat? how does something being published more mean that its more likely to be truthful as opposed to popular?
The works demonstrating Socrates existence were always texts with a minority appeal in a far smaller and less literate society but significantly all the texts authors have different works which we can compare to test for them having a simmilar source, something which can only really done with Paul.
>>834828
Have you ever read anything regarding the historical Jesus? Or have you only read Christian apologetics?
>>834873
>Calling Bart Ehrman history
>2016
>>835669
He's respected in his own field. Most of the ideas he puts forth are widely accepted or at the very least deemed plausible by actual academics.
Yeah, he did.
There's maybe 3 historians on the planet that say otherwise and they're hanging out with the guys who believe the earth is flat.
>>834873
>corrupted by Pauline theology
Dropped
I believe there was a philosopher whose tales were over-exaggerated.
>>832638
In 2000 years, there are going to be debates on whether moot existed or not.
My Redeemer Lives.
>>836171
I find it amusing how some people worship a fairly stupid, low rent tabloid columnist.
That mans job description is literally writing garbage aimed at the bottom 50% of the population in terms of IQ.
>>836193
I find it amusing how some people worship a fairly stupid, low rent author.
That fat, alcoholics job description was literally writing garbage aimed at the bottom 50% of the neckbeard population.
>>836216
I'm not particularly a fan of Christopher Hitchens Monsieur Tu Quoque fallacy.
>>836384
> Hey guys; I am completely free of bias unlike you
>>833445
The Epistles are Gnostic as fuck, when he says people are 'asleep in Christ'. Also, you can't read them with your Gospels/Acts glasses on. Paul says he only got his gospel from revelation of Jesus Christ, you can't just dismiss that offhand.
>>833445
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus
You've never read his book. He has reasons to think that Josephus was a forgery and a scribal interpolation. He says Tacitus was parroting what he had heard from Christians when Pliny the Younger was interrogating them.
>>832674
That's about it
>>832674
Still does not explain the messianic movement which sprang up immediately after his death.
>>836594
It wasnt just his anti establishment ideas that got him killed.
Son of Man.
>>834398
Some could argue it wasn't post resurrection but it was a Heavenly Jesus he was talking about. Acts was written after Paul, we can't look at Paul with Acts glasses on, Acts is unreliable.
>>836645
I'm not arguing that.
I'm arguing against reductionist revisionim.
>>836510
Please don't quote 'rational'wiki at me. It is anything but rational. It is the generally accepted scholarly consensus that Josephus' mention of Jesus has been partially altered by Christians not that the whole thing is forged.
Claiming Tacitus was parroting Christians has no basis and is pure speculation without evidence.
>>834223
Well the Greeks also had a lot to do with Western Society.
>>836689
>It is the generally accepted scholarly consensus that Josephus' mention of Jesus has been partially altered by Christians not that the whole thing is forged.
It was also a consensus back then that it was forged, wonder what changed their minds. Maybe the fact that 75% of Biblical scholars are Christian.
>>836689
Also, there's two mentions of Jesus in Josephus' works. Rationalwiki covers why both could be forgeries.
>>836711
>It was also a consensus back then that it was forged, wonder what changed their minds. Maybe the fact that 75% of Biblical scholars are Christian.
Probably a much high percentage than that. It doesn't make them wrong. What do you mean by 'back then' and where are you getting this claim from? Rationalwiki and Carrier? You should be a bit more sceptical.
Why would it matter if he existed or not? His effects are certainly real
>>836733
'Could' is not 'is'. That sort of reasoning is what religious people do. And I can't stress enough that you should not be using rationalwiki for anything, ever.
>>836738
Its important for our historical knowledge and understanding of events in that period of history.
>>836711
Are you talking about the same scholars that Christians on this board keep denouncing as secularists?
>>836813
There's only one that they pitifully whine about like that who I am aware of and that is Ehrman.
>>836594
messianic movements were so hot then, though.
>>836843
Jesus obviously left a more lasting impression.
>>836428
I'm secular, so yes.
>>836846
Not necessarily so. Paul seems far more important in the history of Christianity.
>>836859
Was he preaching to the converted?
>>836878
I don't get your point. You will have to elaborate a bit more about what you are asking.
>>836878
Many Christian communities claim him as their founder
>>836886
Do you believe that Paul lied about the nature, words and actions of Christ or extrapolated what he could from the accounts of his followers and built on that?
>>836919
No idea matey. Probably a mixture of his own hallucinations and the tall tales of other early Christians and I have no idea how that is relevant to what I said.
>>836929
Sorry, i had this conversation with someone before and he implied that Paul had made up evrything about Christ.
I do not deny the influence of Paul.
But i do think that Christ had left
>>836938
... already left an impression on his followers that went beyond the standard claims of divinity.
>>836938
I think it is quite possible that without Paul Christianity would just be another forgotten messianic cult.
Probably. Doubt he was magic but he coulda been a real good dude back in the day. Or a terrible one. Famous either way.
>>836974
I disagree.
It seems that the Christian movement was well underway when he came along.
Paul was crucial in its shaping though.
>>836974
Paul Christianity was basically gentile, or Roman (Greek) Christianity. Paul was in constant conflict with the Mother Assemble with James and the other apostles. It's clear Paul never knew Jesus like the Mother Assembly did. He was summoned 3 times for his blasphemies. This all apparent in James' epistle and Paul's letters. Tacitus also makes mention of these divisions between the two early Christian groups.
In the end. Pauline Theology won out because it was a gentile movement, and the Romans were the winners. Especially after the destruction in 66 where both James and Paul were put to death.
Paul's message was able to resonate with a wider audience unfamiliar to Mosaic Laws (this is what James and Paul clashed about).
So Paul may have contributed to a contorted theological version, but he surely didn't know Jesus like James (Jesus' Brother) who was such a noble man, Romans, and Jews often referred to James as, "James the Just".
I see Paul as a peacher who contorted the orginal image and messages of Christ, because he 1) didn't know Christ personally: unless you believe in the theology stuff of him meeting Jesus on a road, then we are talking about something entirely different, and 2) he wanted to reach a gentile audience in Greek, something he could not have done under the Mother Assemblies teachings.
You Christian RPers are such a joke.
>>832638
Jesus of Nazareth probably existed. He was probably born there, not Bethlehem. He was probably an anti-establishment Rabbi with many unhelpful and contradictory teachings
>>833098
>new testament mainly
Job > everything else though.
>>834223
That's the Faustian spirit born of Roman/Germanic synthesis, which then co-opted Christian symbology.
>>834324
I think what he's saying is that it would be impossible to tell the acts of God from a normal occurrence in nature.
>>832638
It really depends what you mean by 'Jesus'. It's commonly accepted that 'Jesus' existed. But that's a person who wasn't actually named Jesus, wasn't born in the place or at the time described in the bible, didn't perform any miracles, wasn't the son of God, etc. There is evidence that he was really crucified. But not that he came back to life, obviously.
So it raises the question, what's the difference between 'Jesus really existed, but not as described in the bible' and 'Jesus didn't exist, but the character was based on a real person'? How many details can you strip away and still have the same person?
Basil Fawlty from Fawlty Towers was based on a real hotel owner named Donald Sinclair. The existence of Donald Sinclair is very well documented; he definitely existed. But how many people would actually agree that Basil Fawlty was a real person?
>>836982
I disagree, but because I think without Paul that Christianity would have died shortly after the first Jewish-Roman War.
>>836736
>While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery...
I think rationalwiki makes a good argument as to whether they could be forgeries, much better than thinking Jesus was mentioned due to wishful thinking.
>>832638
>Well, /his/... Did Jesus Christ exist?
Also we need sauce on that, too.
>>832638
I generally suspect that St. Paul invented the fictional character Jesus Christ who appears in the New Testament, based on multiple real individuals who lived around that time but had nothing supernatural about them.
