Historicity of Jesus

Yeah man you don't know what its like, they literally argue for positive racism, punching nazis and the worst of all: the wage gap being real

>bias is bad
>being jewish is bad
Your parents are autistic not anarchists. Do not associate idiots with us please, we don't believe old antichristian meme theories anymore.
>of course
Back to plebbit you dicklick.

The subreddit "Academic Biblical" has many good discussions on the historical Jesus.

I believe Jesus was a real man who preached an apocalyptic message and the ultimate eschatological victory of God over sin and death. His radical mercy and inclusion of the outsiders and poor was part of this apocalyptic sense of God's judgement and victory. Many liberal scholars will say "Yeah he was a radical preacher, great social message. Apocalyptic / judgement stuff was surely made up later though." I don't see it this way and I see no reason to see it this way. He was apocalyptic and Messianic as well as a "social / political" figure. God is involved in the world, so politics and social life are not somehow something "other" than religious concerns.

Whether or not Jesus saw himself as Messiah or the Son of God / Son of Man during his life or it was something "realized" after the fact by his disciples (the resurrection pointing them to the fact) is another question altogether.

>Back to plebbit you dicklick.
Jesus relax, why are leftists such cunts? I was literally just stating a fact of what they are, they're anarchists and feminists, and like many feminists/anarchists I know share these anti-christian views

I'm an old-school progressive who believes in plenty leftist policies, so lets just stick to the historical discussion

Literally your life. How old are they?

Like middle forties, they both grew up in pretty conservative households so it just makes sense, they had religious zealots who pushed religion down their throats, so now they push postmodernism down mine

In fairness to them they're still okay with me disagreeing and have never been too forceful, but that's kind of part of the problem kek

I'm not a leftist, you are.
Only fashion anarchists and feminists are anti-Christian.

While no primary sources survive from the life of Jesus that confirm his existence it is much more likely than not that Jesus the man did in fact exist, considering the gospel of mark (written around 70ad) clearly drew upon a well developed oral tradition about the life of Jesus. And the gospels of Matthew and Luke (written separately but contemporaneous in the early 90s) were clearly both using some of the same source material, probably just lists of jesus' sayings, that was since lost.

I think that it's likely that Jesus was a preacher who during Passover in 33ad staged a demonstration in the temple where he destroyed the tables of the money changers, and for this he was arrested and executed. We know that the Sanhedrin and Romans had standing orders on how to deal with troublemakers during Passover (a yearly problem, zealots would always stage more attacks during Passover week, similar to how ISIS stages more attacks during Ramadan) and jesus' execution fits into that. The flipping of the money changers tables is one of the few stories in all four gospels.

Well not really, since there are many surviving primary sources about them written during their lives.

Nobody cares what you think, Marxist reductionist
>lol its was just le class struggle le politics economics LMAO

There are exactly 0 written primary sources from Alexander's lifetime, and afaik no other sources of any kind

Arguing the existence of the most famous person in history written of in the most published book in history is to argue with fools.

>Comparing somebody who accomplished tangible feats to somebody who performed miracles
Persia just destroyed itself and Greeks popped out of nowhere, amirite?

I continue to maintain "Jesus" was a collective of people rather than one man. It's easy to see how it could be done. You roll into town fashioning your appearance in the general description of Jesus and sprout philosophical one liners and say you did crazy stuff and people kiss the ground you walk on.

Proofs?

>Proofs?
Proofs of Jesus?

There are no proofs Jesus existed, user, just probability claims based on secondary sources. I'm not the user you replied to and I am not a mythicist but if we are going to have a discussion about this let us at least have equal burdens of proof.

There is so little known, from actual solid sources, about Jesus' life it is as solid a thesis as any that the stories about him are based on multiple people.

Exactly. Noone can prove or disprove jesus' existence, therefore in an age where people were blind to idolatry, any conman good enough to copy the look and mannerisms could have played the part

Weren't there actual roman sources that mention him by name and method of death.

No contemporary sources no, where did you get this from?

So you just have an opinion you pulled out of your ass, likening Jesus to wild Shakespeare theories.

Got it.

>Nobody in history existed.

Stay smart, Veeky Forums.

kek

Nobody but an absolute idiot denies Jesus existed.

Of course. Books are kryptonite to fedoras.

That is not remotely what I said.

A total of zero people in this thread have posted sources supporting Jesus having existed or not existed

>Everybody in history existed except for Jesus, because I said so.

kek

I said Jesus existed, though and I never said no one else existed.

Are you clinically retarded?

Centuries later in passing, and mainly talking about Christians.

There is a very brief mention in Roman records of a rabbi named Yeshua ben Nazareth who was executed in Judea for crimes against the Roman state.

But thats it, thats all we have, there are no other details about who he was or even what he really did. It is literally just a line in a legal record of "name, home town, profession, crime, punishment.".

I will find sources when I get home if this thread is still up and I dont have to phone post

The entire New Testament.

Thallus (52AD)
Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus (Chronography, 18:1)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Origen Against Celsus, Book 2)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
Josephus (37-101AD)
Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)

“It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)
The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)

>I now changed my mind, and state that people in history, like Jesus, actually existed.

Oh, yeah, nobody wrote about Jesus, no details are available.

Holy shit the amount of ignorance, and willful ignorance, is astonishing in this place.

>Jesus was multiple people mushed into one.

Are you retarded?

Thats not what I am talking about, obviously Jesus is a much more real person than many other historical figures, what I think most people want in this thread is direct primary sources of Jesus life that are not from the Bible or other religious works or from writers that came later and did not have primary sources to rely upon. The question is not "did Jesus exist" and more "who was he really and how much of his story was either added on later or rolled in from other people around at the time".

I said I wasn't a mythicist in the first post I made in this thread, which was the one you replied to with your bizarre greentext. I haven't "changed my mind".

I just don't understand people like you. Do you think randomly misrepresenting whoever you speak to makes your own opinions more solid? Explain yourself please.

>Jesus fucked animals

Fuck off, fedora.

Nobody who was his contemporary wrote about him

How is one person "more real" than another person?

Oh, you demand primary sources.

Like, being face to face with Jesus himself, as He is on a great white throne, and you are shitting your pants.

user, I have good news for you.

That's totally going to happen.

>Now Jesus is just an idea.

Matthew, his disciple.
John Mark, a hanger on.
John, the beloved disciple.
Peter, the disciple.
James, his brother.
Jude, his brother.
Paul, who met him after the resurrection.

Yeah, no contemporaries at all.

What the heck. Let's throw Dr. Luke into the mix, Paul's friend, and follower of Jesus let's say, in the late 30's.

Luke, perhaps the absolute best historian in the world. 100% precisely accurate on every name, date, person, and place. 100%.

Now do you know why I think you're an idiot?

None of those three posts are mine, learn how to reply to the post you respond to rather than your imagination.

So that may actually have been a misphrasing on my part, what I meant was that as you go back further in history the line between man and myth starts to blur and alot of the great kings and heroes and prophets from the past tend to be based on a real person but their story has been embellished or they are given credit for the deeds of others who were around at the same time. Think of people like Ramses or Charlemegne or Cao Cao or Zoroaster or for more recent examples people like George Washington or Napoleon or Vladimir Lenin or Hitler. Yes they lived and were real, but how much of what we know about them is who they really were and how much is myth?

>I think pedophilia should be legalized.

Fuck off, pedo.

They're all mine, idiot.

Christianity is a written tradition, not an oral tradition. Jesus was not conflated into being God; He proved He was God by rising from the dead, an event that literally changed history.

Pedos will get what is coming to them; they will wish they were never born.

I see, you could have clarified that. I do they dispute anything I have said?

You better stop fucking children then.

>I do they dispute anything I have said?

Want to take anther run at that sentence?

Look at that. Your Hitler is showing.

Who knows what you said?

They refute:
1. There are no contemporary sources;
2. There are no sources outside the bible;
3. There are no historical records about Jesus;
4. Jesus is a myth;
5. Jesus is a collection of people

>1. There are no contemporary sources;
None of those are contemporary sources, it is factual that there are no contemporary sources.

>2. There are no sources outside the bible;
>3. There are no historical records about Jesus;

I'm not aware anyone in this thread (especially me) has claimed that.

>4. Jesus is a myth;
I certainly didn't say that.

>5. Jesus is a collection of people
That's an interesting and possible hypothesis given the lack of contemporary sources, although not one I would necessarily support.

I will, once I have finished fucking your mom.

Are you talking about that hoaxed Pilate letter? Because that's the only thing I can think of that remotely resembles what you're describing. I'm interested to hear what your supposed source is, because you're either making it up, talking about a hoax, or have possession of a very important document that no one else has seen.

>He thinks the gospels were written at the time of Jesus
How cute. The earliest we have is more than a century after his death.

>None of those are contemporary sources, it is factual that there are no contemporary sources.

Literally the men who lived with Jesus for 3 and a half years.

Literally.

eww

Late 30's, early 40's.

The "late" hypothesis has already been eradicated; the idea that they must have been written in the early 60's.

Nobody but gnostic fools attempting to crowbar in their own seismographic claim the gospels were written "more than a century after his death."

No clue how pseudopigraphia changed to seismographic.

kek

Why were they written anonymously in a different language a few decades later then?

Willfully ignorant fools, do you not know that your time is coming, and soon, when you must account for your life before your Creator?

They weren't. The men who wrote the books knew they weren't the important part of the story.

(They all wrote Greek but for Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew; Greek was the lingua franca of the day.)

Denying reality.

Denying God.

Fishermen who's native language was Aramaic wrote fluent Greek?

You are on cloud cuckoo land on LSD.

We have no text of the new testament dating to that time. Nice try.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jesus was either a real person or heavily inspired by a real person. The fact that his life isn't well-documented isn't really strange at all, given that he wasn't actually very important during his own lifetime.

>trying to disprove christianity whithout knowing about josephus

christians just sprang up out of nowhere, amirite?

>Preponderance of evidence
Literally no. There would not be enough evidence of his existence to hold up in a civil court.

>Josephus
Lots of arguments that his work was tampered with.

>Comparing a culture, cities, language, and governments to a religion
So Mithras is real? And Zeus?

>The men in their 30's in 32 AD lived to 180 AD to write the gospels.

>Without ever mentioning the destruction of the Temple, the annihilation of Israel, or the diaspora.

My God the stupid burns. It burns!

Way to misinterpret. OP should come prepared having a light knowledge at minimum of Josephus trying to disprove the largest modern religion. OP and you are probably in high school

I may be thinking of some sort of hoax as I have never heard it contradicted but it also seemed a little suspicious, but I distinctly remember reading two other works that referenced them. You may be right though.

>Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew
That's just some shit Papias made up. Nothing supports that this actually happened, and the gospel we have now that's attributed to Matthew was definitely written in Greek.

They didn't write them. That's the whole point

>Argument

Josephus' mentions of Jesus are contested by scholars in their authenticity.

>Highschool
False, and not an argument.

>Josephus' mentions of Jesus are contested by scholars in their authenticity.
There's pretty much a consensus that the main passage mentioning Jesus was added to (to make it sound like Josephus was acknowledging was the messiah), but there's also a consensus that the original work did mention Jesus. In a way, it wouldn't even make sense if the passage was entirely a forgery; the only reason Josephsus's works survived is because Christians saved them, and they did that because he mentioned Jesus.

And that creates a shaky argument. We don't have proof that it originally contained Jesus, and the fact it refers to him as Christ when it appears Josephus didn't view him as a messiah doesn't help.

My argument is outside of the issue whether or not Josephus was correct. The argument you cant get through your head is that ALL Im saying is its BLATANTLY obvious if you want want to try and disprove christianity you should know about Josephus.

OP - "Ngl I hadn't looked into it much but knew it is generally accepted historical fact..."

'I haven't looked into it much' OP wants to assert something is historical fact, that is someone you shouldn't waste your time with. Im going to assume you're OP because your getting so upset and constantly misinterpreting what Im saying is arguing Josephus is historical fact.

>And that creates a shaky argument.
Take that up with all of the scholars who think there was originally a mention of Jesus in there. I'm not arguing either way, I was just correcting your assertion that the authenticity of those passages is contested. I'm sure some do make that argument, but it's definitely not the consensus.

Not Op, and not upset. I've read Josephus that's why I'm giving an opinion on it as an argument. And to be fair you didn't provide much of a statement. It could easily be implied you meant that Josephus proves Jesus. If all you are saying is that you should read Josephus before arguing the historicity of jesus, I agree.

They think there was a mention, but there isn't proof. The majority do believe there was an original mention, but there is a reasonable amount of disagreement that is isn't fringe to argue the authenticity.

Anything about religion is going to be a bitch. If you argue against it you're painted as some fedora fag rather than somebody trying to be reasonably skeptical.

patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/

Pretty shitty image. No actual sources, just quotes by a selection of historians.

Google the quotes to find their sources if it's important to you.

Curious question here but given that Jesus was born and or lived in Roman territory in the Middle East like 40ish years after Julius Caesar's death: did the Christ god, king of kings, know of the greatest man that had yet lived?