Is there any evidence that Jesus the Christ actually existed?

No proof whatsoever.

So, Jesus walks into a hotel, hands the clerk 3 nails and asks, "Can you put me up for the night?"

This might help ...

Yes, Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about him extensively. His crucifixion was recorded.

R4 I'd like to see that video!

There is lots of evidence Jesus existed. Check out the Wikipedia article on the historical Jesus.

I know what you are looking for and no there is no proof of what he was. That is why it is called Faith.

I’m not looking for proof of divinity. Just that a guy named Jesus was tried, crucified and had followers.

Josephus and Tacitus wrote about Jesus, but they wrote after his alleged death, right?

Oh, well. I guess it really doesn’t matter to a non-Christian, like me.

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. Absolutely no one thought anything a man named Jesus did was important enough to write a single bit of it down at the time it was happening or for 40 more years. Twelve disciples and not a one of them could write. The story of Jesus was passed by word of mouth for 40 years and if you have ever played the game called Telephone you know how passing things down by word of mouth messes a story up. If he ever actually existed the story is completely untrustworthy.

This is probably the most pointless question ever asked.

[quote]Twelve disciples and not a one of them could write.

But boy, could they suck dick.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Historians working in ancient history accept that he existed based on sound historical methods.

Not even one bone fragment exists.

Favorite Twitter quote: "Word of god"... written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

I sang at his Bar Mitzvah.

Bat. Jesus was trans.

Baaaaaht.

[quote]Historians working in ancient history accept that he existed based on sound historical methods.

R13, not all of them. It's an open question.

I went to a religiously affiliated hight school, and our *science* teacher said there was more evidence to prove the existence of Jesus than Abraham Lincoln. Despite, you know, photographs and evething else. This was in the 80s when Reagan ruled supreme.

None. Zero.

We know a great deal about many persons of that era and even earlier, but the creation of "Jesus" took hundreds of years to write and rewrite.

There’s no evidence that Jesus existed, but you won’t find that information easily on the internet. Christianist-biased sources abound.

You’d think some Romans somewhere could have put in a line or two about this guy who caused such a kerfuffle amongst the Jews

He DID start Trader Joe's

Do any of you think the Romans invented the Jesus character to encourage subservience? I do.

Well, you can go visit the holy land and see the cave he rose out from after he died and I think there's a spot in Bethlehem that claims to be his birth manger...you do know the Catholic Church does not believe Adam & Eve were real people? Just a story the Hebrews made up to explain where we came from. People have always wondered where we came from and why we are here. The Bible just tries to answer those questions dear, it's not fact just comfort.

The place to find the definitive answer to this question is DataLounge.

[quote]Is there any evidence that Jesus the Christ actually existed?

Who. Fuckin. Cares.

Who are the respected historians who believe he existed?

That Wiki article is absolute trash

There is zero evidence that Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha) existed, either, but many liberals are quick to accept his historicity, for some reason.

The fact is, the first evidence for the Buddha we have dates to 200-500 years after he was supposed to have lived.

At least, Jesus was written about by contemporaries.

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

If there was a gay Jesus Christ who would it be? Someone from the past 200 years.

Romans kept very thorough records of such things, curxificions, trials, etc. As far as I know, there are no Roman records that someone like a Jesus Christ every existed.

I was raised fundamentalist Christian. In my early adult years, I really struggled with being gay and rationalizing Christianity along with it. I slowly but surely let it go, piece by piece. I count it as one of the major accomplishments in my life. Bill Maher's Religulous was the last nail in the coffin for me when it talks about the fact that there were "Jesuses" popping up all the time with the exact same story. The story we accept as Jesus - virgin birth, miracles, raising the dead - was told about several people even before the Jesus in the Bible actually hit the sene. I just find it amazing what a hold this particular story still has over humanity today - to the point that today is 11.20.23 because supposedly Jesus was born 2023 years ago.

[quote]curxificions

Fuck. Shit. Cocksucker.

I always say if there was actually a son of an all loving god who came to save humanity he would have turned water into a bar of soap instead of a jug of wine.

I've seen his shroud in Turin. How can you ask such a stupid question?

R37 I know! I don't understand how people can't believe the shroud that Jesus was buried in was able to travel 2,400 miles from Jerusalem to Turin for safe keeping for all of enternity, even though none of his disciples were able to scribble down a few words as the events unfolded for us to refer to.

Paul was a grifter.

Paul was Saul but changed his name.

Jesus not only existed he was able to travel to the US in 33 AD and preach . If you doubt this go to Utah and ask people. Ask Mitt.

There is also something about a magic hat , and maybe magic underwear,, but I never understood that .

Jesus the Christ? Is he a friend of Mickey the Mouse and Bugs the Bunny?

R39 and R40 nailed it. Would Christianity exist without Saul of Tarsus? He was a weirdo.

Even if Jesus didnt exist I still think “love God, love one another” is the best life philosophy

There are Biblical scholars who have admitted there is no solid evidence that Jesus actually existed.

My understanding is that historians generally agree that Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph) existed. However, the whole magic tricks/zombification element was ever so slightly exaggerated.

Bart Ehrman wrote a series of books about the bible, what info was likely inserted much later, how bible stories line up with Roman records, etc. Anyway, if I recall, he does say that there was some mention of Jesus in Roman records, but not as a terribly notable figure at that time. If you have an interest in the subject, I encourage you to read his books.

R46

Read books? How old are you?

^^^^ the problem with society today, they DONT Read books.

R48

We no longer need to read serious books. This is the age of left and right gay and straight all and everyone making up shit they think is true and posting their opinions as fact. We are a fact optional society.

And nowhere is that more obvious than at DL.

The King's scribes placed the stories in the Middle East, where they knew most poor Europeans would never travel and dind out it was all a fable. It may as well have been... Missouri.

Merry Christmas, y’all!

There is no independent evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. Period.

Bart Ehrman, while a scholar worth reading, consistently has kept his thumb on the scale in favor of a historical Jesus (of some kind) out of what seems to be the product of accepting the appeal-to-authority fallacy.

A few comments:

Stories about a "Jesus" long predate the dates favored for the New Testament tales.

The New Testament is a sometimes carefully, often carelessly curated amalgam of texts that tell radically different versions of the Christ myth. Internal contradictions, radically different visions, later interpolations, and the outright destruction of texts that could not be adapted (all the gospel and epistle texts have been heavily interpolated). Early infighting among the sects adopting various forms of the Jesus narrative resulted in the eventual win of what became orthodox Christianity over several hundred years, and the result is what we have now.

While a few Roman references exist, major interpolations in Josephus, as an example, were added by Christians to suggest historicity.

The epistles of Paul, with textual analysis underscoring the diversity and alterations among them, do not support a historical figure's existence but focus on a redemptive figure whose sacrifice occurred not on Earth but in the realm of the lower heavens. Paul shows no knowledge or interest in "proving" Jesus' existence as an actual human being.

The realm of New Testament studies in academia is ruled and controlled by Christians whose careers depend on towing the conventional line of historicity. In the past, scholars who dared to research and report non-orthodox results were (and are) cut loose, fired, and shunned. Christian "researchers" are apologists for the creeds of their faith, which is self-evidently the opposite of free thinking and commitment to facts. This tendency carries over even to atheist researchers, curiously, who often behave the same way.

Alternatives to this corruption of thought may be found in the work of such scholars as Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price. The first and last are worth reading, especially, and Price's "The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts" and Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" are important sources. Much criticism of their methods and conclusions is based on the usual "But WE all say a Historical Jesus existed" (as if that matters on it face) and "they're biased" (which they are not, but the accusers are, being Christian first and researchers second).

Price himself is a radical-rightwing Trumpian, but his scholarship is distinct from his politics. As a former evangelical preacher he slowly came to his conclusions through his work on two doctorates and careful, objective study. This is not a political or religious question. It is a matter of looking with fresh eyes at the assumptions with which we still are assaulted - the demand of religionists to retain their bases of power, funding and "unassailable" world views.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with a Christianity grounded in myth. All historical religions are mythic in nature, and even newcomers such as Mormonism follow the same trajectory. Mormonism's non-historical claims are ridiculous to us because the historical records have not been obliterated. But once a sect freezes into orthodoxy the protection of its assumptions is paramount, not the historical facts.

If the gospels are so clear, why are there scores of arguing, disagreeing sub cults within Christianity, by the way?

In my bussy

The History Channel.

Tsk, tsk, such cynics. It is called faith for a reason but aren't you glad you have the freedom whether to choose to believe or not?

Yes, there is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. From the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.

Not a credible source

R34, Rome has been sacked repeatedly over the centuries. I’d be surprised if its administrative documents have survived. In fact, it’s hard to “prove” that anyone from that era existed. There’s only one contemporary reference Hannibal, for example.

England has also been repeatedly invaded (1688 any one?) but they still push the muth of invulnerability.

I don't think that's true that there is only reference to Hannibal.

If they'd found it Byzantines would have kept it.

And then Venetians would have stolen it when they sacked Constantinople

As for ROme, Visigoths would have kept it too

Archaeologists have been digging for many, many years and continue to come up empty.

You'd think the Essenes would have spoken of him had he been a phenomenon. They didn't.

Yes op haven’t you ever seen Jesus Christ Superstar?

R64, we don't even have a complete record of what they wrote. In many cases, only random scraps of paper have survived. Very few documents survive over long periods of time. The oldest complete Hebrew bible is only about 1,100 years old.

What's weird is when people l ike Jim Caviezel and Hunter Parrish play Jesus and it goes to their head.

Imagine, if you will, that much like Phillip J Fry, you fall into a cryo-pod, and are frozen for a thousand years. Upon awakening, you learn that one of the world's major religions worships the savior Harry Potter, who fought against the Dark Lord, and freed mankind from his terrible tyranny. The calendar has been restarted to make 1998 the year one, to reflect Harry freeing us from the shackles of He Who Must Not Be Named. They honestly believe that Harry Potter was a real person.

Pretty much the same thing with Jeebus Cripes.

The Koran was not written up until decades after Muhammad’s death. Although it is, of course, verbatim the word of God.

“Biblical archaeology” is a contradiction in terms. All they do is militant research to prove the text in their holy books, with but little regard for the actual historical record.

Approaching science fiction, their inane efforts are almost as singleminded as the “Ancient Aliens” spokespeople, who ascribe every ancient accomplishment to interventions from aliens from outer space.

So ridiculous.

The sanest cultural investigator is Graham Hancock, who researches sites for what they present, not for what he wants them to be. But this makes him anathema to everyone.

There’s also no proof Constantine converted to Christianity. He used a Christian symbol .. Romans borrowed from lots of religions ..He allowed Christians to gather in public places. But his triumphal arch celebrating the victory where he used a cross as a good luck charm contains no evidence of Christian iconography. No cross. Nothing. It shows Constantine making animal sacrifices.

[quote]Not a credible source

LMFAO. What would be credible evidence, a birth certificate and Social Security card?

[quote] Not even one bone fragment exists.

Well, I certainly hope not.

[quote] Even if Jesus didnt exist I still think “love God, love one another” is the best life philosophy

Agreed. However, very few of his followers agree with the latter part. If he did exist he would be profoundly saddened by what so-called Christians have done in his name.

Of course he was real!

The original Harrod's department store in Jerusalem had the first Black Friday sale 1,990 years ago. They have engravings showing "OMG Slashed Prices for Black Friday" advertising on the side of chariot trollies on the streets of Jerusalem. Coincidence? I think NOT!

I saw a pic of him once at my grandma's church.

[quote]...you do know the Catholic Church does not believe Adam & Eve were real people?

R56, well now they've got a real problem, don't they? The whole religion is based on the doctrine of Original Sin (Adam disobeying God). Why would they need a Savior if the Sin never happened?

Never met the guy!

Good summary, R52, but the phrase is "toeing the line," not "towing..."

Thank you, R52.

There may have been a Siddhartha Gautama... but that isn't crucial to "the Buddha"

There may have been a Jeshua in the first century.... gut that isn't crucial to "Jesus the Christ"

There may (actually more firm data) Muhammad the tribal prince... but that isn't crucial to "Mohammed God's messenger"

The reality of the spiritual tradition is in our consciousness, which is infinitely mysterious anyway. The Jesus story anyway is built upon the myths of Pan, and the death of Pan. "Myth" is more powerful than "history"... history is written by the victors, is warped and shaped by politics, economics, social needs. Myth is tested by experience.

Original Sin was Hermione Chanel's first hit fragrance in the original Garden of Eden. This pre-dates Adam and Eve's G of E by a t least 10,000 years.

All of those first century Christians were then dying torturous deaths because of who, then?

R84 You do know that many, many first century folks were dying torturous deaths who were NOT Christians?

This useless cunt:

Is there any evidence that Jesus the Christ actually existed? I know what you are looking for and no there is no proof of what he was. That is why it is called Faith.

Is there any evidence that Jesus the Christ actually existed? Tsk, tsk, such cynics. It is called faith for a reason but aren't you glad you have the freedom whether to choose to believe or not?

Believing in something that distorts the facts and grounding a world view on "faith" based on it is not only irrational, lazy, self-serving and perverse, it is Trumpian.

I believe and have faith there is a grease fire for lazy, stupid people such as you.

Please prove me right, you dolt.

What I think is funny is that if Jesus's disciples actually saw him ascend into heaven that means he was travelling slower than the speed of light. Which means that all of these people are waiting for him to comeback when he hasn't even left our galaxy yet.

[quote]Yes, Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about him extensively. His crucifixion was recorded.

This may blow your mind, R4, but most scholars agree those guys didn't write the books. The real authors are unknown.

Well, to the extent that was happening r84, and a lot of it seems to be stories made up centuries later about this or that "martyr," the real question is what were they dying for. "Who" was long dead, if he truly did exist, but a whole big fantasy had obviously been built around him that was only vaguely related to any actual person. Even if you lean toward an historical Jesus, most people recognize that he's buried in so many myths and stories it's pretty much impossible to know who the real person was or what he taught or what he did.

Starting with Paul, who clearly doesn't give a damn about what Jesus actually said or did. He's all about the mythical resurrection and the demonic forces that caused it. If there was a human Jesus who was crucified, Paul really doesn't give a shit. He wants to get to the good stuff, the spiritual warfare and the return of the heavenly Christ who will sort all this nonsense out and reward his post-death believers.

The shroud was in Constantinople until 1204 and then vanished until the Turin Shroud appeared. The Mandylion is now in Notre Dame of Paris,

Of course he existed OP and he died for our sins.

R4 Thanks a lot.... St. John

R88 Well, many authors. Some passages added/edited later. This is pretty firmly established.

R87 Watch a couple of videos about quantum mechanics, sweetheart. We know nothing, really.

R89 Saul/Paul was Greek-educated, and so much of his writing is arcane responses to classic Greek thought. And he builds a religion very far from what is recorded of Jesus's teachings. He also, to me, contradicts himself from one epistle to the other.

One of my professors in a religious studies class threw a bible on the floor and a couple kids freaked out and ran out of the lecture hall. I loved it. He said that book is not God, God is faith. Whatever that means. It was cool and I was shocked lighting didn't strike but that act opened up my eyes.

[quote] And he builds a religion very far from what is recorded of Jesus's teachings.

The problem there is Jesus' teachings aren't recorded until decades after Paul, starting with the anonymous Gospel of "Mark." And it's possible Mark is simply filling in some weird backstory for this Jesus character or, although this is very much in dispute, but possibly using Greek stories and myths and creating some kind of Jewish mystery religion. Like Paul, of course, the author was writing in Greek, the language educated people all used to reach other educated people with their ideas.

There is a Q theory, Q for quell or source in German, which has sayings of Jesus sort of floating around, but the thing is that is all reconstructed from the Gospels. There is no actual Q document, just a theory based on the writings of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (again all anonymous, but it's convenient to call them that). It's possible Matthew used Mark, and then Luke used Matthew and everybody was just building on each other and then adding their own made-up stuff. Both Matthew and Luke seemed to have invented contradictory birth stories, seeing that as a big gap in Mark, with no particular interest in whether they were true.

The original gospel of John was preserved in Ephesus and you could read and study it. There was never any doubt about it. John and his followers were well known as historical figures there. I have no idea what happened to John's original gospel.

No, none. A complete work of fiction.

By the standards of historians, there’s general consensus that there was an historical figure on whom “Jesus” is based. It’s not a subject of particular controversy but of course there’s more ambiguity about the existence of someone 2000 years ago compared to 20 years ago.

Thousands of people saw Jesus when he was alive. His brothers founded the church of Jerusalem and they are recorded as historical figures, too. The gospels were written by men and disagree with each other. There were later editions - especially of Mark.

R85 yes but those who died that were Christians did not have to. They died for the belief in Jesus. The Romans considered the Chrestus trouble and they could simply say they didn't believe. "In Claudius 25 Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius and states (in Catharine Edwards' translation): Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. As it is highly unlikely that a hypothetical Christian interpolator would have called Jesus "Chrestus", placed him in Rome in 49, or called him a "troublemaker", the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine".

But if you don't believe it don't trouble me further, it's a very boring conversation to me with no end in sight, no point in it to me at all. I've seen it so many times. You think what you choose, as I will also.

Yes he did, OP.

However, his sister’s existence has stumped the scholars.

Testimonium Flavianum

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

[quote] Thousands of people saw Jesus when he was alive.

Theoretically true, just as a lot of goobers in big cities may have been seen by thousands of other people over the course of their lifetimes. But we actually do not have one word from any of those thousands written at the time he was alive. One casual reference would be worth a thousand gospels when it comes to the question of historicity. There may be good reasons for that. 99.999% of all Roman records and letters and papyri etc have probably disappeared over the last 2000 years. But still, you have to take the word of early Christian propagandists that Jesus had big crowds following him around and listening to his teachings, whatever they were. And they aren't actually saying that until decades after his death.

And if there's one thing we know about Christian propagandists, they love making shit up, miracles, mass sightings of risen people, huge crowds hearing the exact same words but in their own particular languages, exorcisms and conversations with demons, all sorts of things. Unless you're a fundamentalist, literalist Christian, all those historians that accept an historical Jesus also accept that a lot of the New Testament is complete bullshit. The real arguments are over just how much is bullshit, and how much is real.

I am a Byzantinist, if you know what that is. I think John's gospel is a historical document.

Bob, are you just trolling? Do you honestly believe the Jew Josephus wrote "He was the Christ" and "He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life"? Are you sincerely a fundamentalist who believes all early Christian propaganda must be true, or even later obvious Christian tampering with old documents, or are you just trolling for silly attention?

Not a troll I have a HUGE website on Byzantine history and I am especially interested in the 12th century in Constantinople and the Deesis mosaic in Hagia Sophia. Josephus wrote that, that's what people of the time thought. I don't believe in the Bible as literal truth. As I said as a Byzantinist I believe i the historical figure of John and his gospel. I think other gospels were amended - especially Mark at the end.

Josephus absolutely 100% totally completely did NOT write that. He may have written part of what is there, but some clearly meddling and rather stupid monk added Christian bullshit to whatever Josephus wrote initially. "People of the time," 93 AD, did not all think that. A few weirdos who probably weren't even called Christians at the time believed that. Nobody else.

Well, isn't that the problem - you reject facts -like Josephus- that don't agree with you. Hundreds of people of the time were being killed for being Christians. The church in Jerusalem had thousands of followers and there were hundreds or thousands in Rome in 93AD. And which stupid monk was that?

According to Irenaeus, Polycarp was a companion of Papias, another "hearer of John", and a correspondent of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius addressed a letter to him and mentions him in his letters to the Ephesians and to the Magnesians. Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians gives us some insights to the early usage of the New Testament from the quotes used within his letter. Irenaeus regarded the memory of Polycarp as a link to the apostolic past. In his letter to Florinus, a fellow student of Polycarp who had become a Roman presbyter and later lapsed into heresy, Irenaeus relates how and when he became a Christian;

" I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out; what was the sanctity of his deportment, the majesty of his countenance; and what were his holy exhortations to the people. I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths."

In particular, he heard the account of Polycarp's discussion with John and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a presbyter, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus. He writes that he had had the good fortune, when young, to know Polycarp, who was then far advanced in years. - from wikipedia Polycard was killed in 1555

Well, like pretty much everybody who's taken a serious look at it, I reject the full passage of Josephus. Some historians reject it altogether, but most would say there was something there but it has clearly been tampered with. Nobody but a fanatical Christian thinks a Jew would call Jesus the Christ or say he rose from the dead. And we really don't know how many Christians there were, how many were killed, or any of that. It is all pure speculation and hundreds of thousands in Rome itself just seems like wild speculation. Where are you getting that from?

Do you really think that very rich abd powerful emperors, kings etc would not have wanted to become closer and friendly with sonebody who could heal sick people and make blind people see? Forget about the afterlife promises, any rich and powerful man would have wanted to be jesus’s friend, not his enemy, it is just human nature. And guess what? Nobody really cared to be his friend? Contrary to what any normal human would do when dealing with someone with supernatural powers and abilities.

What about the zombies after jesus died? Nobody other than these Christians saw them?

According to Deuxmoi, he was recently spotted canoodling with Demi Lovato.

You’d think if he’d existed he’d put the matter to rest by bothering to [italic]show his goddamn face[/italic] once in a while, now.

[quote]But if you don't believe it don't trouble me further, it's a very boring conversation to me with no end in sight, no point in it to me at all.

R99 has stated his/her limits. Goddess bless him/her.

R103 I agree. Most scholars seem to agree it was written by one man on the Isle of Patmos (whether it was John the Beloved is not assured). It is all the most batshit crazy. There's some thoughtful speculation the guy was on psychedelics.

If I am not mistaken, it's earlier than the other three Gospels?

Are you talking about the gospel or the Revelation of John.

It’s so amazing to me that the seat of Christianity was, for centuries, in Turkey. Turkey has such amazing history. Very important to the Romans. Then, the seat of Christianity (more than Rome was). Then, conquered by Muslims and in turn they conquered so many counties including Christian ones. Turks went from being short haired, clean shaven Romans to being long haired, bearded ottomans wrapped in big swirly hats

This is an inane argument.

You'll never adduce sufficient proof for the doubters, while for the believers no proof is necessary.

R116, R115 must be referring to the Book of Revelation. The author specifically says his name is John, although what that means isn’t clear. Revelation is thought to have been written towards the end of the 1st century.

Well, depending on what time you're talking about r117, I suspect you're thinking of "Turkey" before the Turks. They seem to have shown up in large numbers in the 11th century. It is true that what is now Turkey did have most of those early churches that Paul was supposedly writing to, and the big church councils were held there, mostly around Constantinople.

But it wouldn't really be Turkish until many centuries later, and Ottoman even later.

Speaking of Paul, who WAS he writing to, really? His own little handful of converts? Converts of other "apostles," which is to say various Christians wandering around spreading some weird ideas that they said came from some guy in Judea? The so-called "God-fearers" dipping their toes into Judaism but never quite converting? Some odd little fans of mystery religions that were ripe for the plucking?

With the letter to the Romans at least, it can't be his own little group. He's writing to some pre-established group and introducing himself and his ideas to them. Where did they come from? What did they believe? It would be nice to know.

[quote]R118 You'll never adduce sufficient proof for the doubters

Well, God could show up. Surely He’s capable of providing irrefutable proof.

People’s view change over a lifetime as they gain experience. It’s not like most agnostics and atheists “hate” gods or are invested in disproving them - they just haven’t been given anything solid to trust, in that regard.

Some scholars think it - the Revelation - was written in 64 during the reign of Nero and his attacks on Christians

[quote]Well, God could show up. Surely He’s capable of providing irrefutable proof.

a materialist's conception of spirituality

It's the mystery of faith

Jeez, I am getting old. Yes, I meant Revelation (which was crackpot, visionary Greek) and not the Gospel. And so had to be two different Johns. My education told me that the Gospel of St John was the first written, the one most likely written by on person, and so (if your mind runs this way) the one most "accurate" about you-know-who....

Jesus is the George Glass of deities.

Jesus did exist, and depending on what you believe to be most acceptable, he was either a prophet a morality orator or a proselytizer. He did die crucified on a cross. But he wasn't the son of God, nor did he resurrect after 3 days, or come back to earth to visit the disciples after 40 days. This was all exaggerations and hyperbole after the fact by whoever was responsible for "editing" the difference gospel books by the disciples.

It is hard for me to accept that Jesus's disciples were willing to suffer death to promote a fraud. I know I wouldn't. Of course we have our Trump MAGA crazies- would they die for him? Hitler, Stalin their followers did.

[quote]It is hard for me to accept that Jesus's disciples were willing to suffer death to promote a fraud.

I consider this to be one of the weaker apologetic arguments, although growing up as an Evangelical Christian it's one we heard a lot, including the falsehood that all of the apostles were martyred for their faith. Why do you assume they would have known it was a fraud? If Peter and Paul were claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus, why wouldn't the faithful raise their hands and shout Hallelujah in religious fervor just like people do today?

I suppose it is possible that there is no god or heaven and we just die, rot and are forgotten. I would like to believe that there is something more than death and it gives me hope that life has some meaning.. I am 71 so I don't have that much time on earth left to me. Being gay I have no children. I used to paint churches when I was younger and was a full-time artist and Byzantinist. The icon of the Deesis is an important part of my life, I have painted it many times.

What if ol' J was the town crazy person. The homeless guy on the street who amassed a cult following and convinced everyone they were drinking wine.

It's nice to believe the kind tales of Jesus. They mean a lot to many people. The stories don't always add up and the problems they caused people. It would be nice not to rest the cornerstone example of kindness on a possible phantom man from 2k years ago.

there is record of Pontus pilate, no one else

here is my website

[quote] Tsk, tsk, such cynics. It is called faith for a reason but aren't you glad you have the freedom whether to choose to believe or not?

Do we?

Can’t the Catholic Church DNA-test the shroud of Turin? If it has haif-human, half-divine DNA, that would be pretty conclusive proof.

R31. I don’t think many liberals fret much about whether Buddha existed or not. That quite a stretch at a “both sides” argument.

[quote]But boy, could they suck dick.

I think Jesus was probably doing most of the suckin’.

The same sort of evidence that there is for the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs - not the thing itself, but the impact.

R127 well, thank god ‘anonymous’ straightened that all out! People have been screwing around with that for over 2000 years.

Thank you, Mr. Anonymous 🤔

My hope is that when we die, all religious people get a flash vision of how they wasted their life on bullshit

They believe they have the ossuary of Caiaphas

I was always under the impression he existed but that he was heavily fictionalized posthumously for Christian agenda.

I remember watching a documentary that said after he died, there was a battle between Paul the Apostle and Jesus’ brother James the Just and James lost and everything is based on Paul’s ideology.

[quote]R130 I suppose it is possible that there is no god or heaven and we just die, rot and are forgotten. I would like to believe that there is something more than death and it gives me hope that life has some meaning.

Why can’t your life have meaning on its own, without an invisible sky fairy creating such for you?

[quote]R134 aren't you glad you have the freedom whether to choose to believe or not?

Belief and disbelief are not choices, they’re a response.

It’s like how you cannot choose who you love.

[quote]R107: Well, isn't that the problem - you reject facts -like Josephus- that don't agree with you... And which stupid monk was that?

I'm not R106, but I'll answer. There's sound reasons for rejecting the two 'Testimonio Flaviano' in Josephus - not just parts of it, but all of it. They are both interpolations unattested before the 4th century CE. Within critical scholarship, Ken Olson has made a compelling case that the larger of the two passages (18.3.3) was composed in its entirety by Eusebius of Caesarea (see link below).

The secondary passage, the so-called "Jamesian reference," has been answered ably by Richard Carrier in his book, 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠: 𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑊𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐻𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑡 (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), pp. 337-338. In fact, Carrier puts to rest any possibility that either passage is genuine.

[quote]R107: Hundreds of people of the time were being killed for being Christians.

Read Candida Moss, '𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲𝐫𝐝𝐨𝐦,' March 5, 2013 .

[quote]The church in Jerusalem had thousands of followers and there were hundreds or thousands in Rome in 93AD.

How do you know, apart from Christian literature? I trust you have the census records?

Take the claim in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:

[quote]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Is this the testimony of hundreds? No. It's a bit like the nursery rhyme 'As I was going to St. Ives...' It is only the testimony of a single passage.

R58 "There’s only one contemporary reference Hannibal, for example."

He crossed the Alps on elephants in order to invade Rome. It did not go unnoticed.

Has anyone in the thread noted that Jesus and Santa were white men? They are both historical figures and that is a verifiable fact. I just want you to know this.

R31

"There is zero evidence that Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha) existed, either, but many liberals are quick to accept his historicity..."

The Buddha is not a god or deity, and he cautioned his disciples against thinking of him as one. It is non-theistic.

The story of Jesus' physical body on earth is what Christianity is all about, it's the proof. This is irrelevant to Buddhism.

I created a Reddit post based on R10’s comment upthread and posted it to r/TodayILearned.

It received over 2,000 replies, and even made the Reddit front page (which basically means it was a top 25 thread on Reddit when sorted by popularity). Over 4,000 karma points. I was invited to join the highly coveted r/PopularClub private sub. It was my most successful Reddit post ever.

Then the mods at r/TodayILearned removed the post without giving any reason.

R149, tell that to Buddhists. They worship Buddha just like any god.

"I know that my Redeemer liveth"

Earth is a living being.

Our physical being, upon the ceasing of our hearts and brains -death-doesn’t die. Our physical matter becomes a quark within Earth.

That’s eternal life if ever there is one.

And tells me to make the most of these corporeal moments and consciousness.

R151 You're an ignorant fuck.

Christianity leads to this.

So now some shit is suggesting that belief in a historical Buddha (no evidence to support it, but that's another issues) is a liberal thing?

Christians whose faith is based in dishonesty, closed minds, bad logic and the habits of a small mind are fools.

R156 Xtians also believe that "There’s only one contemporary reference to Hannibal,". There's no need for truth when you can't be wrong.

Here's a nice lecture by this gay pastor from one of those unitarian churches in Canada. He's a medievalist with a focus on maps, but does lectures on all sorts of historical and philosophical topics. I listen to them on 1.5x speed because there are so many great ones to get through. He had a small live audience before the pandemic, although those old ladies were interrupting him constantly with questions.

I'm an atheist btw, but I've been getting more and more curious about religions in these past few years, to try and make sense of the state of the world.

Black women heaviest hit by Hiroshima bombing

I'm not sure they are wrong about that r157. Hannibal lived from 247 to 183 BCE, so it's possible only one reference from those years survives. Polybius comes pretty close. He wrote his histories including a lot about Hannibal starting about 150 BCE, and supposedly interviewed survivors of some of Hannibal's campaigns. So maybe it depends on how strict you want to be about contemporary.

And yes, Christians could say the same thing about Mark, if the conventional dating of his gospel to around 70 CE is true. The question then is, do you believe Mark is telling you a true story here, maybe from a witness, or an invented story:

28 When He arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met Him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29 “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they pleaded with Him to leave their region.

Richard Carrier on Hannibal:

𝐒𝐨 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥, 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧?

This kind of argument has been tried again and again and again. I’ve discussed every one. (See Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus?) It’s always of this form:

P1. We should not doubt [x] existed.

P2. The evidence for Jesus is better than for [x].

P3. The same standards of evidence should apply to both.

C. Therefore, we should not doubt Jesus existed.

The argument is valid. Which is why it’s so attractive. But unfortunately it’s unsound. One or more of the premises is always false. Indeed, literally, always one of these premises 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 be false. Because as soon as you get P2 to be true, P1 is false; and every time you get P1 to be true, P2 is false. Sometimes P1 is indeed false (e.g. Homer, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, might indeed all be doubtable; see my concluding remarks). But usually, people pick a good [x] precisely because it seems so obviously to establish P1 is true. The problem is, any [x] you pick that 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 makes P1 true, often renders 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ P2 and P3 false, and 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 renders P2 false. Which reveals something about what we actually need as historians to be sure of someone’s past existence.

Let’s see why…

𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐚 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐲…

Once again, just like all those other historical figures people have tried this argument with (from Alexander the Great to Spartacus), when it comes to determining the probability of historicity, Hannibal differs from Jesus in two respects: (1) 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑛'𝑡 a worshiped savior deity right out the gate, 𝑛𝑜𝑟 was he highly and rapidly mythologized to the exclusion of all other accounts of him, 𝑛𝑜𝑟 was he constructed in the form of many a similar non-historical hero before him; and (2) we have 𝑤𝑎𝑦 better evidence for Hannibal than for Jesus.

More at link:

Isn’t the whole virgin birth thing a Chinese tale they ripped off?

R92 A contradiction in the Bible? How can that be?

I think the Virgin Birth story is found in other cultures’ folklore.

Yeah, virgin births certainly happen throughout Greek mythology if you count every time a god and a mortal woman have a child. I suspect for many of them, the "virginity" isn't really there. It's a god taking human form, having sex in the normal way, and the woman getting pregnant. But others are odder, like Zeus appearing as a "Golden Shower" [insert your own joke here] or as a swan or something else.

I can't wait to bounce around on fluffy clouds with my mom and dad.

Where was this recorded? Online or on the TV?

R160, that's hilarious. Can you imagine the herdsmen trying to tell people this story?

"What do you mean, all the pigs are gone? That was a huge herd." "We were just standing there, minding the pigs, and these two raving madmen appeared--" "And they killed the pigs?" "No, it's more complicated than that . . ."

R149 This is, of course, a traditional disclaimer about the "no God" argument of theoretical Buddhism (and Buddhism in the West)... but "lay" Buddhists in the East treat the Sutras (and, in general, stories about Lord Buddha) as as close to "divine, supernatural, otherworldly" as western conceptual language will accommodate. All the "lessons" of Sakyamuni Buddha's life, learning, conversations with his followers....are as earth-bound as any of the Gospel's stories.

Buddhism, at its base, is about experiencing Mind, and consciousness. I would argue the core of Christianity is also that... but that requires a discussion much, much more nuanced and careful than is possible in forum like this place.

Buddha Mind. Christ Conscousness.

R153 Therein is some important truth. (To me) quantum mechanics and all the ways is dismantles what we think about "the real world" opens the door to understand these spiritual traditions.

Did Jesus actually exist? Well, did anything?

Here's the thing. As I understand it Jesus was one of many mystics that used to crop up from time to time in Judea. The Romans were always talking about crazy mystics who hung out in the desert talking about a Messiah who'd lead them from oppression by Rome. Some were more popular than others. So I'm guessing Jesus was more popular than some of the others. Now it is claimed that Barabbas was an activist and a militant who was agitating for armed rebellion. His faction that the Deliverer would raise an army and defeat ROme. So they were pissed that Jesus was more like the hippies preaching love and kindness. The High Priests collaborated with the Romans. They used the High Priest to keep the JEws under control most of the time. There was a lot of graft going on and the Temple was surrounded by vendors selling shit and money changers and it was all very commercial, and Jesus got pissed off and ran the money changers and the vendors selling their wares, out of the temple. So the High Priests were pissed at him too. And he was also challenging their authority with his convoluted interpretations of scripture. So they arrange with Pilate to have him arrested. Pilate originally planned to scourge h im, loc him up for a few days then release him. But The High Priests and the supporters of Barabbas agitated for Jesus to be crucified and Barabbas to be released. It was a shit mess. jesus's followers im bued him with all kinds of powers and the legend grew after his death. SO IMO the twelve guys who he hung around with did a great job of marketing.

The Muslims believe Jesus existed and that he was a great prophet. But not God.

Yeah, well, that's just not good enough r172!

R169 This is, of course, a whole lot of smugly ironic quotation marks.

You will define Buddhism by the way that serves you best, just like everyone else does. Christianity makes some people think about dancing with poisonous snakes. That’s their view.

The lesson of Buddhism is about attaining enlightenment in order to escape the cycle of rebirth. The "lesson" of Christianity is about gaining the favor of the "divine, supernatural, otherworldly" creator god in order to live forever.

Jesus 1, Buddha 0

R174 The Dalai Lama: "my religion is kindness"

Modern day Christians: "let me show you why my religion is the only true religion"

Muslims: "yah, well, there is no God but Allah"

[quote]R171: As I understand it Jesus was one of many mystics that used to crop up from time to time in Judea. The Romans were always talking about crazy mystics who hung out in the desert talking about a Messiah who'd lead them from oppression by Rome.

Sounds like 'Ben-Hur' (1959) informs your understanding.

𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐬: Oh, you don't know. There's nothing you can put your finger on. I tell you, there are strange forces at work here. For instance, this "messiah" business--

𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚: I know. There was one predicted when I was a boy.

𝐒𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐬: A king of the Jews, who will lead them into some sort of anti-Roman paradise. Makes your head spin.

There's a wild man in the desert named John...

...who drowns people in water.

And a carpenter's son who does magic tricks. "Miracles" they call them.

𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚: There's always a rabble-rouser stirring up trouble.

OP- Jesus Christ!

Medusa or someone was born from her father’s head.

No thank you!

Mmmmm.

That’s like saying “Does election fraud exist? Well, does anything?”

^^ As to

[quote]r170 Therein is some important truth. (To me) quantum mechanics and all the ways is dismantles what we think about "the real world" opens the door to understand these spiritual traditions. [bold]Did Jesus actually exist? Well, did anything?

And Jesus cried out, "Why didst thou crucify me?"

And Pontius Pilate replied, "Why does anyone do anything? Look, you were there, the cross was there, it was gonna happen!"

LOL! R176, Nope, I Remember that dialogue from Ben Hur, but I got it from reading historical stuff, comparative histories of Religions and cultures, etc. on my own, hadn't even seen Ben Hur on the Telly. . It was a known fact during those times. Everyone was always looking for signs and wonders and oppressed people always looked for a deliverer a savior, a rescuer, a leader.

Wanted to add that these were still times of great superstition, animal sacrifices, etc.

R183, now that you mention it, Christianity was a bit of a breakthrough in that it did not involve animal sacrifices.

I was raped.

#metoo

R184, no instead it was built around the human sacrifice of JC. Which Catholic relive every time they go to mass. Drinking his body and blood.

....or gladiatorial killing

[quote] From the name written on two of the ossuaries the cave appears to be the family burial place of Qafa, in Greek Caiaphas, a name understood to us from the New Testament and writings of Josephus, among whom was the high priest who presided at the trial of Jesus.

Jesus was a brown itinerant preacher who was turned into a god by men who never knew him or believed he was god. Turns out it was an amazing grift.

[quote]R182: I got it from reading historical stuff, comparative histories of Religions and cultures, etc. on my own...

Mmm, Christian sources - apologetical materials, expositions and 'histories' written for edification/consumption by believers.

[quote] It was a known fact during those times.

The Dothraki nod in assent, murmuring, "It is known."

[quote]Everyone was always looking for signs and wonders and oppressed people always looked for a deliverer a savior, a rescuer, a leader.

In both '𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑒𝑤𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑊𝑎𝑟' and '𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐽𝑒𝑤𝑠', Josephus drops the names of a few revolutionaries: Theudas, Judas of Galilee, "The Egyptian", and Simon bar Giora. Near the end of the 2nd century CE, an anonymous proto-catholic author incorporated some of these references into 'The Acts of All the Apostles.'

So, it wasn't Romans discussing any of this; it was Josephus, and Acts using Josephus as a source.

[quote]R188: Caiaphas, a name understood to us from the New Testament and writings of Josephus, among whom was the high priest who presided at the trial of Jesus.

This was another case of New Testament authors using Josephus' account, this time, of Annas and Caiaphas. to add a bit of historical color to their narratives (anonymous authors of 'Matthew,' 'Luke,' 'John,' and 'Acts'; the first gospel, 'Mark', had none of this). The NT narratives are about as historically accurate as Charles Chiniquy's account of the doings and sayings of Abraham Lincoln in '𝐹𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑦 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑒' (1884).

Jesus the Christ? Mickey the Mouse? Tinker the Belle? Vivian the Vance? Daffy the Duck? Joseph the Biden? Dwayne the Johnson? Kevin the Hart?

What are you doing, op!?

Christ means "anointed one," r192. It wasn't his last name. Of course, Jesus wasn't really his name either, it was Yeshua, or Joshua.

Josh the Christ. Think of the whacky Youtube channel he could have. Joshing with the Christ.

Jesus (dead name: Jessica) was the first trans martyr in history! This has been going on for 2000+ years!

Since there's a war going on right now between Muslims and Jews, it would be interesting to hear people's opinions about the historical evidence for (or lack thereof) and authenticity of those religions, but nobody starts threads like that.

I don't really understand why anyone cares to dispute that there was a historical Jesus, a Moses, or a Mohammed.

You can easily be agnostic or atheist while conceding that these people did live.

Insisting that they never existed is a bit hysterical and smells of 'the lady doth protest too much'.

He did too exist. I seen hi at that wedding where them people ran outa wine. I'm always payin' attention to the wine.

[quote]R196: Insisting that they never existed is a bit hysterical and smells of 'the lady doth protest too much'.

Insisting that they 𝑑𝑖𝑑 exist has always been quite a bit 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 hysterical and smells of 'the lady doth protest too much.' Wars have not been fought, people have not been persecuted and killed over the enforcement of the observation that there's no real evidence Jesus existed. That has always come from the other side.

[quote] Jesus the Christ

Is there a Jesus NOT the Christ?

R194

It's 'MESSIAH!'

[quote]R200: It's 'MESSIAH!'

That word only occurs twice in the entire New Testament, at John 1:41 (Μεσσίαν), and 4:25 (Μεσσίας). The two instances are spelled slightly differently from one another, and are offered as exoticisms, being explained to the Greek readership. At the point 'John' was written (last of the four canonical gospels), more concern was being shown to further explicate the Jewish context of Jesus than in previous iterations of the narrative.

OP, a better question is “Why does humanity need religious control to have any sense of morality?”

Jesus’ existence is so far out of field now. Even though my heart is with Jesus, I am realizing that Jesus is made of Silly Putty. He is stretchable in any imaginable way for anyone who feels what is right or wrong. Which is in my humble opinion, hugely sad and so against whatever Jesus might’ve actually taught.

R198, have wars been fought over that "observation," though? I thought that by time of the Enlightenment, when the issue first came up, Christian churches were out of the war business.

In any event, it's hard to see why people in the 1st century would create documents about a completely imaginary person. Grift? It was going to be several centuries before it started to pay off. Besides, the best cons always involve some truth.

R201 Actually my understanding is that Matthew is the "Jewish" Gospel... including even the dreaded begats. Tracing the lineage to David etc. John was the mystical, universal Gospel. Raised by a couple generations of protestant ministers my own journey has been through catholic and orthodox mysticism, the desert brothers, then Hinduism, Sufism, Taoism and now many years of Buddhism all braided with philosophical Idealism and quantum theory - and John 1:1-14 has still always seemed aligned to all those spiritual traditions human kind has named and practiced.

[quote]R203: have wars been fought over that "observation," though?

To advance the cause of Christianity, enforce belief, and spread the claim that Christ existed? Most definitely.

My point at R198 was that no one has ever waged war over the proposition that there's no evidence Jesus existed. It's never been a thing.

[quote]I thought that by time of the Enlightenment, when the issue first came up, Christian churches were out of the war business.

Christianity has never been "out of the war business." Ever. It's currently a central component of the Russian/Ukraine conflict. (See link below)

[quote]In any event, it's hard to see why people in the 1st century would create documents about a completely imaginary person.

No part of the New Testament was written in the 1st century, with the possible exception of the 'Epistle to the Hebrews,' with its allegorical savior. All the rest are from 135 CE onward.

But to the broader point, documents about completely imaginary persons are written all the time, and always have been. Only with Christianity do people suggest this difficulty; with no other subject (for instance, the Greek gods, demigods, and heroes) do people imagine that there is simply no other way any of it could have been written but that its characters must have existed. Or that the motive for telling the stories could only ever have been grift.

[quote]Grift? It was going to be several centuries before it started to pay off.

Christianity started to "pay off" from the very beginning. Whatever one may think of the historicity of any of its narratives (let's say 'Acts,' for instance - or even 'Galatians'), they speak of taking up collections (ostensibly for the saints in Jerusalem, the poor, or the widows). Very quickly it developed that, in order to join the sect of the Christians, one had to sell all that one had and give the proceeds to the Church. It organized on the accumulation of wealth.

I think John was high when he wrote his gospel. Stoned outa his mind. That Apocalypse shit is real weird.

I'm gonna go with the idea that maybe "Jesus" who was called Christ, is a composite. I think the notion that there were religious fanatics, holy men, mystics, etc. is accurate. The whole Peace, love, kindness love one another, etc message was completely different from what a lot of other religions taught. (Look at Buddhism.) The Gods were to be feared. People made sacrifices in order to not be punished. There was a transactional aspect to worshipping certain deities. People believed in a Higher Power and invented stories. Now over time, Powerful men assigned certain attributes and stories and lore and miracles etc.etc. and saints and angels, babies in mangers, and built an entire religion around it all. I think the Roman Emperor Constantine was the first to embrace "Christianity." If you go back, there were a lot of customs and holidays and traditions and folklore, that were stolen from pagan sects, and adopted by Christianity.

I meant Buddhism is similar to early Christianity in teaching good ness.

No proof. There is some "proof" that some Jesus type person might have existed in those days, but nothing concrete. It's possible that there was more than one person whose life stories all got mixed up to create the myth of this Jesus figure. Probably mixed with some already existing myths of different "prophets". Jesus wasn't the first one. There were other prophets that people worshipped before Jesus, it's just that there isn't that much written about them as is about this Jesus person. And their lives and teachings sounded awfully similar to Jesus'

[quote]R204]: Actually my understanding is that Matthew is the "Jewish" Gospel... including even the dreaded begats. Tracing the lineage to David etc.

Modern theologians, deeply invested in the myth of Christianity being originally propagated by Jews, are fond of saying that. Actually, the anonymous authors of 'Matthew' take the most time detailing these aspects of Jesus' credentials because it is the gospel which most firmly avers that the time of the Jews was at an end and that God had rejected them (for example, Matt. 21:43). The Davidic lineage is intended to establish Christ's bonafides as a valid spokesman to be able to say essentially that Judaism was at an end.

Expositors point to Matthew 5:18 about the Laws or Moses being in force in perpetuity as evidence of a Jewish point of view, but overlook exactly what the passage actually says: "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not even one iota, nor one stroke of a letter, shall pass away from the law, 𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛" (the accomplishment of his sacrifice on the cross).

Once that happens, 'Matthew' wraps up a lot in just a couple of sentences: "And behold, the veil of the temple was torn into two from top to bottom. And the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split. And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints having fallen asleep arose. And having gone forth out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared to many" (27:51-53). (The author of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 may well have regarded this passage from the Gospel of Matthew as heretical when he says, "But avoid worldly, empty babblings, for they will lead on to more ungodliness, and their talk will have pasture to grow like gangrene, among whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have gone astray concerning the truth, 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒; and they are overthrowing the faith of some.")

Point being, Matthew's gospel cannot be said to be 'the Jewish gospel' without that essentially entailing telling the Jews, 'okay, people, it's over. God has rejected you. Wrap it up now.' It's a distinctly gentile point of view, perhaps the most gentile of all. It doesn't address Jews directly, but rather Christians, arming them with polemical arguments to use against Jews.

[quote]—don't fuck with Poisoned Dragon though...

You make it sound like I'm an ogre that devours people. I never so much as raise my voice. :)

Thank you R210. THis is why I love DL. We're so smart!

What's the verdict? We're the Jews responsible for getting Jesus crucified?

I hadn't noticed anyone on this thread asking that question, R212.

The New Testament depicts them as being responsible. But if he never existed, then they couldn't have.

Right?

R212 Wasn't Jesus a Jew himself? That's what I don't understand about these christian nutjobs like Mel Gibson who go on a antisemitic rampage about how Jews killed Jesus. That would be like people hating on Americans because an American(s) killed JFK.

[quote]R214: Wasn't Jesus a Jew himself?

In the same sense Kermit was a frog.

Jesus was a 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 of a Jew, a literary character in narratives written by gentiles.

[quote]That's what I don't understand about these christian nutjobs like Mel Gibson who go on a antisemitic rampage about how Jews killed Jesus. That would be like people hating on Americans because an American(s) killed JFK.

He was also believed to be the Son of God, implanted in Mary by God, lacking an actual Jewish father, making him the equivalent of a stepson in Joseph's household. (The idea that both parents were genetic contributors to a child's makeup was unknown when the nativity stories were written. In the view of the ancients, the father was the one who planted the seed.)

Of course gentiles have blamed the Jews for it.

Everything about the NEw Testament is political propaganda. Period.

Polycarp who knew John personally says he wrote the gospel of John. From wikipedia - Both Irenaeus[4] and Tertullian[5] say that Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Apostle, one of Jesus' disciples. In On Illustrious Men, Jerome writes that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle and that John had ordained him as a bishop of Smyrna.[6] Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers, along with Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out; what was the sanctity of his deportment, the majesty of his countenance; and what were his holy exhortations to the people. I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths...

In particular, he heard the account of Polycarp's discussion with John and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a presbyter, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus. He writes that he had had the good fortune, when young, to know Polycarp, who was then far advanced in years...

Polycarp refers to multiple books of the New Testament as scripture, including: Matthew, Acts, 1 John, Philippians, Jude, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Romans and others.

He was born in 69 and was killed in 155 - he died a martyr, bound and burned at the stake.

But was he white?

R206 I made the same mistake earlier in the thread... John of Patmos and THE REVELATION is not St John who wrote the gospel. Revelations was (to my mind and to some other thinkers) is totally a hallucination... either organically generated from mystical experience or (in my view) from mushrooms/mold/Eleusisnian mystery shit.

Or did you mean the Gospel of John? It's pretty mystical too.

R217/BobinAustin55, you posted much the same thing at R108. It's mostly cut-and-paste from the Wikipedia article on Polycarp (the quote "I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out..." is sourced from Fr. Paolo O. Pirlo, SHMI (1997). "𝑆𝑡. 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝". 𝑀𝑦 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠. 𝑆𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 - Quality Catholic Publications. pp. 58–59.

Fact is, we don't have the words of Polycarp; most haven't survived. Nor do we have the words of Irenaeus talking 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 Polycarp the words of Polycarp, save third-hand, ostensibly as quoted by Eusebius, 4th century CE, in 𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦, 𝑉. 𝑋𝑋., translated by Kirsopp Lake (see link below). The wording is rather different from what appears in Fr. Paolo Pirlo. My point is that the 4th century served as a watershed for what passes for Christian history. It's when Eusebius became the official 'historian' for Christianity, and manuscript sources earlier than or independent of his own works disappeared. As such, what's termed the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers' are generally only known through what Eusebius wrote about them, or claimed to have quoted. What has come down to us in written form is mostly only what the Church of that time wanted us to believe.

Link to wiki on Polycarp

R221, good! You finally source your remarks on Polycarp at the Wiki article. It's got footnotes. On your Polycarp quote, see the [13]? Click it, and it will take you to the reference at the bottom of the article. But if you want to find where Fr. Paolo O. Pirlo, SHMI got it from, you'll have to further research outside of the Wiki article. Did you read the article I linked for you at R220?

Here's a link to Polycarp's supposed sole surviving work, at Pseudepigrapha dot com.

Thank you for the link - I enjoyed reading it again.

[quote]R193 Christ means "anointed one," [R192]. It wasn't his last name. Of course, Jesus wasn't really his name either, it was Yeshua, or Joshua.

Or Asshole.

Polycarp Is a most unfortunate name.

How deeply did his parents hate him?

What difference does it make if a man name Jesus the Christ actually existed?

There is ZERO evidence that GOD exists.

For me the answer is definitively wrapped up in these facts: God is male, Jesus is male and the disciples are all male. In the tale women are represented as mothers or whores.

Now do you really think that the story of Christ is real?

That said forgiveness (of sin) is one of the most powerful concepts and paths to a peaceful life no matter who you are. But this concept predates the story of Christ by thousands of years.

I'm an atheist but I do believe Jesus likely existed. I believe he was just a philosopher and all the dying and rising gods we know from historical writings are all just myths. He was a man. He lived. He died. I think his message of love one another is a good thing but he certainly wasn't the first to say it.

Christianity has stolen so much from other religions that preceded it, that it's almost laughable that people still believe this myth.

But then again, what you believe is based on where you were born and the beliefs of your parents that you are brainwashed with at a very early age.

I'm so glad I escaped that prison of belief.

[quote]R193: Christ means "anointed one," [R192]. It wasn't his last name. Of course, Jesus wasn't really his name either, it was Yeshua, or Joshua.

Actually, the New Testament, written in Greek, gives it as Ἰησοῦς (Iesous). However the gospels may offer Aramaic words as exoticisms, explaining what they mean to the gentile readership, it never does this with his name, as 'Yeshua' or 'Joshua.' Although depicted as a Jew, because reasons, he's never addressed by a Jewish name. Being a literary character, he never existed as an actual Jewish person named 'Yeshua.' It's kind of absurd to watch evangelicals swooning in ecstasy over 'Yeshua ha Mashiach', 'Jesus the Messiah,' regarding it as his 'original Hebrew name.' "Hey! I just spoke in tongues!"

All three names, though, Iesous, Yeshua, and Joshua, mean 'savior.' So, in a sense, it might not be even read as a proper name, but more a title - 'Iesous Christos', 'Anointed Savior' - the function he serves in the narrative.

How do they even know his birthday was December 25th?

They don't, r230. They stole that date from other religions.

[quote]R230: How do they even know his birthday was December 25th?

You're kidding, right? 😆

December 25th is the birthday of Sol Invictus, 'the Unconquered Sun.' You know - Constantine's patron god?

Here's a list of gods born on Dec 25th.

[quote]Very quickly it developed that, in order to join the sect of the Christians, one had to sell all that one had and give the proceeds to the Church. It organized on the accumulation of wealth.

Absolutely correct, PD. One of my favorite teaching stories is that of Ananais and Sapphira in Acts 5, who sold some land and claimed to Peter that they'd given all of the proceeds to the church. God struck them both dead. Take that, greedy humans.

I call bullshit on the list of gods born on December 25th. No sources. Sounds urban legend-ish.

@ 198:

The fact that wars have been fought in over religion is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the question. Please cite one war that was fought over the question of the HISTORICAL EXISTENCE of a person name Jesus of Nazareth.

And there is historical evidence; you simply choose to discard it.

[quote]R235: I call bullshit on the list of gods born on December 25th. No sources. Sounds urban legend-ish.

Well, the Nairaland list is one of those that proliferated online in the wake of Peter Joseph's 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' (2007) and Bill Maher's 'Religulous' (2008). A lot of it is inaccurate.

Anything by Acharya S. (D.M. Murdock) is much more reliable, if any remains online.

[quote]R199: Is there a Jesus NOT the Christ?

Oh yes - lots. Here's a bunch of Jesuses - not the Christ - mentioned in Josephus:

The place was lousy with Jesuses! (Or is it Jesi?)

[quote]@ 198: The fact that wars have been fought in over religion is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the question.

In responding to your R196, my point in bringing up wars and death was to underscore what the side of the believers has been willing to perpetrate against unbelievers over the centuries. You may dislike the observation, but in all honesty you cannot brush it away as a "red herring" with "nothing to do with the question." That is not your call.

[quote]Please cite one war that was fought over the question of the HISTORICAL EXISTENCE of a person name Jesus of Nazareth.

A couple of things, R196/R236:

You're seriously misunderstanding R198. I did not say that wars were fought over the question of the existence of Jesus; quite the opposite. Go back and read it again, more slowly. There is also further clarification at R205.

People who believed killed those who did not believe, or who did not believe their particular version of Christianity. It was the basis for the Church's unending wars against those they characterized as heretics.

Second, you need to learn to use markup for posts, using a capital R followed by the post number, enclosed inside square brackets. "@ 198" will not do.

[quote]And there is historical evidence; you simply choose to discard it.

You're perfectly welcome to post that evidence.

@ 239

Josephus. But you know that already.

You were responding to my post about why it's inane to argue over the historical existence of a man. So that fact that you can't name a single war fought over the historical question of a man's existence is absolutely germane.

You're simply wrong.

Now what kinda name is that for a muthafucker? Polycarp. Are you shitting me? Carps are them fish we useta catch. Weren't fit to eat tho'. And Poly is a fuckin girl's name. I'm told my great granddaddy went to jail for makin moonshine and it made people all crazy and sick. But he musta got the recipe from somewhere an I think that's what happened here.

I don't know about wars, but Lordy, Lordy, we loved rampaging in the streets about the exact nature of Jesus, His divinity, whether God was ever some little toddler wandering around Nazareth, or what the hell it all means. One word, Theotokos, God-bearer, referring to the Virgin Mary, or NOT referring to her that way, could make us lose our everloving shit! Seriously, we overthrew emperors based on this fuckery!

Tell us he was just some figment? You do NOT want to see the reaction!

Killing all the Aztecs and whatnot for not believing in Jesus does seems like a "did he exist?" kinda question

NO, R243.

Show me some proof that the Aztecs disputed that there ever was a historical man called Jesus of Nazareth.

Does he eat hearts? I mean, what do we serve?

R242, that is erudite and funny

By the time Cortez came to Mexico Jesus and the Catholic Church were totally in charge and religion was used to subjugate and oppress people everywhere while they enriched themselves. The Institution of The Church was swollen with corruption and had burst.

[quote] @ 239

You're still doing it, R240.

[quote]Josephus. But you know that already.

Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ, or Christians. See R145.

[quote]So that fact that you can't name a single war fought over the historical question of a man's existence is absolutely germane. You're simply wrong.

You can't even understand what I said, or you're taking the piss misrepresenting me. 𝑃𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒'𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔.

Christianity, on the other hand, cannot keep its hands to itself. It leaves nothing in peace, unassailed, unmolested, unspoiled.

PD, you're intelligent but you're cracked.

I say it with love.

[quote]R249: you're cracked.

Ad hominem not a valid response to anything I've posted. Find a real response, and/or some evidence that Jesus existed, because Josephus isn't it.

[quote]'Girl, bye.'

If that's your surrender, I accept.

R230 The Early Church supplanted the pagan celebrations of the Saturnalia with the whole Christmas/ birth of Christ thing. The Saturnalia was Big Fun. Drunken orgies, parties, gifting, food, totally wild and festive. Christmas, not so much.;

I took a trip to Italy about 25 years ago, and I was stunned at the cultish, barbaric manifestations of Christianity that were revered and celebrated. Our tour bus stopped in Padua where we saw the tongue of St. Anthony. In Sienna St. Catherine's head was in a box. On display. There were relics and bodies and body parts and people would pray to the relics and go down on their knees and make the sign of the cross. The rituals were very unnerving to witness. And I am a Christian. Scary shit.

^^ Well, some of that is why there was a Reformation. Catholicism has almost as many deities as Hinduism.

R252, the entire symbol for Christianity is the method of his execution (the cross). The Catholic church also adds a nice corpse of Jesus to this symbol. The Church is a fucked up death cult and always has been.

R234 .... yep, a story oft told in the socialist Christian workers circles I know and love. You can't be a Christian and not be a socialist.

Rising and dying gods.

Give me everything you own, all your wealth or God will strike you dead. Yeah. Coercion. And they were really pissed off when Henry VIII closed the monasteries and took all the wealth they had accumulated and returned it to the state. LOL! Back then Popes had temporal powers as well as spiritual ones. Which is why Pope Julius, I think had his own army. He was the Pope who commissioned Michelangelo for the Sistine chapel I think. He also want Michelangelo to carve him a magnificent tomb. But I don't think it happened. He always stiffed the artists and never paid them.

R252 I looked it up. This shit sounds perfectly sane and not weird, or morbid at all!

"At the ripe old age of seven, Catherine had her first of many visions, with Jesus on a throne, surrounded by saints. As a teenager, she took a vow of perpetual virginity and gave herself over to prayer and worship. To thwart her family’s attempts to marry her off, Catherine cut her hair off, scalded herself, and became a nun. Shortly after she joined the nunnery she had a vision of Jesus placing a ring on her finger in marriage. This ring, for the record, was no ordinary wedding band; instead of gold it was made from the baby Jesus’ holy foreskin, a popular relic at the time. For the rest of her life, Catherine said she could see the ring on her finger.

At the age of 28 Catherine was said to have received the stigmata, when five red rays shot out of the crucifix she was praying to and pierced her hands, feet, and heart. She refused to eat or drink, save for the Blessed Sacrament. Her miracles were not limited to the stigmata and visions: Catherine was seen levitating during prayer, and a priest once said that he saw the Holy Communion fly from his hand straight into Catherine’s mouth like a miraculous Frisbee."

[quote]R255: yep, a story oft told in the socialist Christian workers circles I know and love. You can't be a Christian and not be a socialist.

I bet your socialist Christian circles weren't saying that it was the Church that killed Ananias and Sapphira.

New Testament Christians killed followers they could not otherwise persuade, or believed to be guilty of certain types of offenses (heresy, lying to a bishop, witchcraft). An example of outright killing is related in Acts 5:1-11, where a couple is said to have lied to Peter, and died. Acts is largely fictional, and the story of Ananias and Sapphira (the matter about which they lied was withholding assets) was intended to be a New Testament analogue to the story of Achan in Joshua 7 (also about withholding treasure), but if anyone actually died over an issue like this (and it is likely they did; gospel pericopes, episodes, and parables were utilized somewhat like case law, forming 'legal precedent'), it was not the Lord who killed them, but the Church (just as Achan's sentence was depicted as carried out by Israelites). To suppose otherwise is unwarranted credulity. (Reality check: If something like this happened today, and a couple accused of defrauding the Church were brought out dead, the explanation that "goddidit" would not wash. *Somebody* would be getting arrested and charged, and rightly so, because *somebody* would have done it.)

R259 Bless you Poisoned Komodo. We believe "sources" when they align with our beliefs. But point out the inventions and fallaciousness of those same sources if they suggest something we oppose (Imma guessing you not socialist).

You say Church, I say Community, let's call the whole thing off.

I imagine that's just a story in Acts, and technically any early Christians could not simply kill people, even members, with impunity. Could they in reality? Could small, secretive cults get away with crimes? Well, maybe.

Supposedly the Church of Scientology has gotten away with murder, and maybe it's true. If enough people keep their mouths shut and nobody cooperates, or better yet sticks to the same story, I imagine a lot of murder investigations come to a standstill.

[quote]R260: We believe "sources" when they align with our beliefs. But point out the inventions and fallaciousness of those same sources if they suggest something we oppose (Imma guessing you not socialist).

I am, very much so. Voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primaries. That has nothing to do with this. Your socialist Christian workers' circles simply did not understand. What the Church depicted in Acts was practicing was not socialism, but the aggregation of wealth and power.

[quote]R261: I imagine that's just a story in Acts...

Of course it is. It's a story intended to terrify adherents into obedience and handing over all their possessions. It was quite successful. And as a scare story, it would have no teeth if such deaths did not sometimes happen.

[quote]and technically any early Christians could not simply kill people, even members, with impunity. Could they in reality? Could small, secretive cults get away with crimes? Well, maybe.

The Roman authorities were not regulating them. And the Church had already given itself permission to kill people within its sphere of influence. 1 Corinthians 5:5 commands Christians to subject recalcitrant sinners and accused heretics and witches to the torments of hell (which could be as broad as their imaginations permitted¹), right up to the destruction of their flesh, in order to save their souls for the afterlife. "Deliver this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord." (The word used for "deliver" is the same one used for the planned arrest/binding of Jesus to be handed over to the rulers in Luke 20:20 and 22:6; it nowhere suggests letting someone go their merry way and be shunned.) This text and its witness counterpart² were the proof-texts of the various paramilitaries of the bishops and eventually of the Inquisition, which tortured and put to death millions across the centuries.

John Gill, in his 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒, admits to the torture, "that his body might be shook, buffeted, afflicted, and tortured in a terrible manner; that by this means he might be brought to a sense of his sin, to repentance for it, and make an humble acknowledgment of it..." Gill, a 17th century English Baptist, while noting that this was not a form of excommunication (he didn't believe in excommunication), is nonetheless reluctant to cede to the Church the power to do this, but rather characterizes it as a special case, "what the apostle had resolved to do; and which was an act of his own, and peculiar to him as an apostle... it is what no man, or set of men, have power to do now, since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit." What Gill overlooks is that the epistles were used as manuals for how the Church conducted its duties; what the apostles were depicted as doing were models for how things were to be done.

Since the 18th century Enlightenment, most congregations have lost sight of these passages of scripture and what they originally meant.

¹ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑝𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 is a fair example of what their imaginations could get up to. See link below.

² 'Witness counterparts': The Principle of Witnesses (Deut.17:6, 19:15; Matt.18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1) was held necessary for anything to become a doctrinally approved practice. Practices that had only a single witness often had a second mention interpolated into either the same book, or another New Testament text held authoritative by a given Christian community. Examples would be the Matthean community's doublet of the "fornication clause" for divorce (Matthew 19:8, interpolated also at 5:32), the injunction that women keep silent (1 Timothy 2:11-15 is the likely first instance of it, interpolated also back into 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35), and the mandate to torture recalcitrant sinners (likely first instance 1 Timothy 1:20, duplicated at 1 Corinthians 5:4-5). The 'hapax legomenae' of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are yet another example of multiplying witnesses.

Continued...

But surely that must be a misinterpretation, right? It's not what Jesus taught, is it? Matthew 18:17 is fraught with 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑖³ menace: "And if he fails to listen to them, 𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ. And if he fails to listen to even to the Church, let him be to you as the foreigner and the tax collector" - that is, anathema, or damned. (The casual hostility towards foreigners is breathtaking; little wonder the Christian world was historically murderous towards any who were different. And after the first millennium, this attitude ultimately found expression in the Corpus Juris Canonici, where persecution of homosexuals was finally mandated.) "In his anger, his master turned him over to the torturers, until he should repay all that he owed" (Matthew 18:34) reflects how normative torture was for the society which produced the gospel narrative. So we see the torture mandate of the epistles reflected in the ostensible words of Jesus.

𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐕𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

"Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙 them to come in, so that my house will be full'" (Luke 14:23).

(Personal autonomy was not a thing.)

And… Jesus spoke to them, saying, "All authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to Me. Therefore having gone, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 them to observe 𝑎𝑙𝑙 things, whatever I commanded you" (Matt.28:18-20a).

(Today's Christians tend to read that from within the pluralistic milieu in which we all live, in a free forum of ideas, to which we may subscribe or not as we choose. But that wasn't the world in which this passage was composed, nor was it as passive as the English phrasing tends to make it; "discipling" and "teaching" were far more adamant than they are taken today. Essentially, it's a mandate for forced conversion, and that's exactly how the Church carried it out, frequently at the point of a sword, for nearly two millennia, since the beginning - they were still committing cultural genocide and torturing/breaking/killing those who wouldn't acquiesce on into the middle of the 20th century. As late as the 1960s, Australian evangelical policy makers were still manhandling aborigines, suppressing their culture, separating them from their families, and forcing them to assimilate to white Christian culture.)

"At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, of those who are in Heaven and on Earth and in the Underworld, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Philippians 2:10-11).

(When the Church encountered unbent knees, they bent them.)

"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me’” (Luke 19:27).

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6)

There's scriptural reasons why the Church flailed, flayed, bludgeoned, and burnt its way throughout history. These have been some of the proof texts.

~

³Parabalani - 'Church police'; thugs who served as ecclesiastical enforcers or handlers, enforcing the will of the bishops, up until around the 7th century. Matthew 18:17 advocates siccing them on those with whom one has an intractable difference.

I went to catholic schools and two years at a Catholic college totalling 14 years. I had to study Church History too. and I don't ever recall reading anything like R262. But I also know that the versions of church history we got were incomplete and definitely omitted a lot of stuff I found out later in secular institutions. As an Institution the Church has been corrupt for a long time. And the clergy from top to bottom always used coercion and threats to make sure people fell in line. We never her about kindness we heard about obedience.

R228 But for all your disbelief I see little difference between you and this Pharisee,

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

R265, that parable is nothing like what R228 said. Comparing belief to a prison from which one has escaped is not the same as disparaging prisoners or proclaiming one's own righteousness.

[quote]R99: The Romans considered the Chrestus trouble and they could simply say they didn't believe. "In Claudius 25 Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius and states (in Catharine Edwards' translation): Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. As it is highly unlikely that a hypothetical Christian interpolator would have called Jesus "Chrestus", placed him in Rome in 49, or called him a "troublemaker", the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine".

"Suetonius (69-140AD)": There are two principle citations. 'Divus Claudius' 25.5, mentions Chrestus (not Christus) as alive in Rome during the reign of Claudius, leading the Jews in an uproar; it's not about Christ at all. 'Life of Nero' 16.2, "Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief...", an anachronistic interpolation, awkwardly inserted into the text by the Christian scribes responsible for its transmission.

This source discusses interpolations in Tacitus and in Suetonius; you have to scroll down a bit to reach Suetonius.

[quote]We believe "sources" when they align with our beliefs.

Confirmation bias.

It's a thing.

Secular historians are almost unanimous that the reference in Seutonius’ account is to Jesus. But what’s even more fascinating is that most historians believe that Claudius mistakenly believed that this “Chrestus” guy was actually living in the city of Rome instigating these disturbances.

The loud acts of the early Christians had actually convinced the emperor that the person at the center of the movement was still ALIVE and orchestrating the movement.

The fact that you thought my reference to R228 was about 'Comparing belief to a prison from which one has escaped is not the same as disparaging prisoners or proclaiming one's own righteousness' shows me you totally missed the point there.

[quote]Your socialist Christian workers' circles simply did not understand.

You don't, of course, know that. Kenosis: letting go of the self that wobbles us. Bless you kid.

[quote]R269: You don't, of course, know that.

Yes, I do, simply from how you described them: they didn't realize that the Church was aggregating wealth and killing believers who wouldn't hand over all their assets. Instead they took the account of the early Church as reflective of their own socialist values. And your description implies that they approved of the killing of Ananias and Sapphira for the crime of not handing over everything ('God killed 'em, but they had it coming'). They were not simply mistaken, but malicious.

[quote]Kenosis: letting go of the self that wobbles us. Bless you kid.

If your particular stripe of woo includes syncretizing parts of religions which appeal to you (like Buddhism), incorporating quantum mechanics as a fix for anything for which there's no explanation, and condescending to people with whom you disagree, implying that they require adjustment per your religion, then it's serving you poorly.

[quote]R268: Secular historians are almost unanimous that the reference in Seutonius’ account is to Jesus.

'Faith-based historians are almost unanimous that the reference in Suetonius' account is to Jesus.'

^ FIFY.

'Secular' historians generally don't wade into believers' apologetics issues.

'Chrestus' wasn't 'Christ.' See the link below.

[quote]The fact that you thought my reference to [R228] was about 'Comparing belief to a prison from which one has escaped is not the same as disparaging prisoners or proclaiming one's own righteousness' shows me you totally missed the point there.

No, I understood your point at R265 just fine. You were comparing R228 with the self-righteous Pharisee from the parable (using the bible to criticize others, which takes a considerable amount of self-righteousness itself, is among the unpleasant things Christians frequently do), and at R266 I explained why the comparison wasn't valid, and 𝑦𝑜𝑢 missed the point.

I’m an atheist. Of COURSE Jesus existed.

You’re not going to see contemporary records of him during his lifetime because he was a common man who didn’t cause a lot of trouble. I mean, not like Spartacus or Watt Tyler for instance.

But he was written about by many people who knew him after his death. Let’s admit many of the stories are quite quotidian. No one would ever make shit like that up. It’s too ordinary.

The idea that people would make up a messiah who lived a fairly ordinary life and was then … executed? Do us a favor.

The hilarity of the internet. I post quotes from things I find from wikis et. al. that reinforce that "I know better"... so be it.

More stony woo for your gullet: science is old white men who look for evidence of what they already think they know.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[quote]R267: Confirmation bias. It's a thing.

Confirmation bias exists, but I was not exhibiting it. R260 assumed incorrectly that I was against socialism and that was why I didn't agree with their view on the passage in Acts.

[quote]R273: The hilarity of the internet. I post quotes from things I find from wikis et. al. that reinforce that "I know better"... so be it. More stony woo for your gullet: science is old white men who look for evidence of what they already think they know.

^^ Responds to criticism of his 'quantum mechanics' woo by attacking both Wikipedia sources and the idea of science itself. Seeks to racialize the discussion by drawing attention to his own ethnicity through use of 'blackspeak' at R260 ("Imma guessing you not socialist") and taking a dig at "old white men"; thinking evidently that this will advantage him somehow in the argument.

I don't get offended online, or do outrage. You're wasting your time.

[quote]R272/Bootsy-Gumdrop: I’m an atheist.

Um, yeah. That's pretty well-known here on the DL. Do you feel that it somehow qualifies your opinion as being more trustworthy on this subject?

Your rare personal appearances on these kinds of threads have startled other DL posters, who never suspected you had an interest. I have always thought you were a deeper participant, just usually not under your own identity.

[quote]Of COURSE Jesus existed.

Based upon what evidence?

[quote]But he was written about by many people who knew him after his death.

Was he? How do we know these anonymous writers knew him? Because they said so?

New Testament narratives began being written around the middle of the 2nd century CE. 𝑁𝑜𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 from the time the narratives place Jesus would have still been alive after over a century. Scholarship - even mainstream religious scholarship - agrees that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts; only the most extreme fundamentalists still argue that they are. Why would an atheist like yourself argue from this point of view?

[quote]Let’s admit many of the stories are quite quotidian. No one would ever make shit like that up. It’s too ordinary.

On the long-extinct IMDb message boards, there was a user who used to argue the same point, that Jesus was "too ordinary" to be of note - too ordinary to even need to be supported by evidence. FilmFlaneur was his username. Are you he?

For which of these 'quotidian' details would you like to offer evidence?

[quote]The idea that people would make up a messiah who lived a fairly ordinary life and was then … executed? Do us a favor.

There's that word again - "ordinary."

You're arguing on a very basic level, like someone completely new to the issue, who's never read anything about the state of the argument, and is uninterested in addressing it. But that seems counter-intuitive, given your apparent past interest in these threads. Your approach seems purely rhetorical.

Atheists who proclaim Jesus’ historical existence are as annoying as centrists.

Bless you all.

[quote]Atheists who proclaim Jesus’ historical existence are as annoying as centrists.

This simply demonstrates the rigidity of your dogmatism.

[quote]R278: This simply demonstrates the rigidity of your dogmatism.

No, it's just that 'atheists who proclaim Jesus’ historical existence' are usually the least likely to offer any evidence for the claim. Or they reach for the lowest bar and repeat long-debunked evangelical offerings like 'Josephus,' or 'Tacitus.'

If evangelical claims are their go-to, perhaps their atheism should be called into question.

I knew instantly as a child as soon as I heard this story it was some made up BS.

It's like asking if Ra lives in the sun, Zeus lives in a cloud, Mohammed levitated to heaven. If the Scientology guy was for real. If Reiki is really real.

Sure, to believers of anything, beliefs are powerful and real. If a tree falls in the woods but only one person imagined it, who gives a fuck?

None of it's real yet by belief. Then it's real for you. You know why? We're consciousness inside human beings and we're creating it up. Some might say God gave us the power to create as we do. So we create the creation myth Joseph Campbell blah blah blah.

What I really want to know is what aliens believe. Human creation tales are so uninspired. What do aliens think about life? Surely they've figured out some sort of collective universal consciousness portal to God in some black hole Stargate doorway or something and are doing higher consciousness expanding missions or some shit!

Hell no do I think any of the universe answers are in any human crafted book about Jesus the Christ, or things about stigmatas or anything as ridiculous as the Catholic Church. They don't even mention dinosaurs or aliens so you know right away it's bunk. Well intentioned, but really weird. Especially revelations. Sounds like the writing of a lunatic.

I'm sure glad that "dying for everyones sins" didn't catch on.

For R268, more on "Chrestus" in Suetonius:

If any of this shit was real, God would have given a woman an important role once in a while (except getting fucked by him like Mary was)

This goes for all other religions, too.

Mary Magdalene is an important figure in the Bible. She finds Jesus's tomb empty.

Scholars think she was wealthy and probably helped to finance Jesus's ministry.

Although she is not labeled a disciple, I consider her one.

The declared atheists in this thread are more narrow minded than the judges at the Salem witch trials.

[quote]Christian scholars think she was wealthy and probably helped to finance Jesus's ministry.

^^FIFY, R284.

[quote]Mary Magdalene is an important figure in the Bible. She finds Jesus's tomb empty.

In 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤 (2000), scholar Dennis R. MacDonald "points out that students in antiquity learned to write through a process of 𝑚𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 or imitation and that this practice continued into adult life. The most sophisticated form of literary 𝑚𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 being rivalry or 𝑎𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜, literary works were often exploited in subtle ways by authors who wished to “speak better” than the sources they imitated... The works most often imitated in antiquity, the Homeric poems naturally became major targets of literary 𝑎𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜. Following G. Genette, MacDonald describes an antecedent, imitated literary text as a “hypotext.” A text imitating a hypotext is defined as a “hypertext.” A hypertext becomes transvaluative when it is the object of 𝑎𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜, “when it not only articulates values different from those of its targeted hypotext but also substitutes its values for those in its antecedent”. In the scheme envisioned here, the Gospel of Mark, emulating the Homeric epics, may be understood as a “transvaluative hypertext” of the 𝐼𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑑 and 𝑂𝑑𝑦𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑦. Mark’s 𝑎𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 arises from a desire to provide a Christian corrective to the pagan values exemplified in the epics." (From a review by Robert Rabel, University of Kentucky)

The reason that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome appear in the Markan narrative is not because they were 'important figures', but because they were literary analogues to Andromache, Hecuba, and Helen at Priam's funeral (𝐼𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑑 24).

Richard Carrier reviews the book below:

[quote]R285: The declared atheists in this thread are more narrow minded than the judges at the Salem witch trials.

A poor comparison, since 'the judges at the Salem witch trials' were bible-believing Christians, not atheists. And no one here is being judged and hung. Quit with the histrionics.

'A person who has no doubts, who is sure of everything, is the closest thing there is to an imbecile.'

-- JM Caballero

R288, believers in Christianity are the ones evincing certainty.

And R285 is the one whose mind is closed to the information offered here.

It's sad that you cannot offer anything except ad hominems against unbelievers, rather than valid arguments and evidence.

It sure was open-minded of the Salem jurists to believe adolescent girl fantasies.

R286, that's really reaching there.

[quote]The declared atheists in this thread are more narrow minded than the judges at the Salem witch trials.

That may be true for some, but for many atheists like myself that deconstructed from sincere belief, we know about actually changing our minds based on the evidence (having done it, you see, at great personal cost). What religious belief have you ever changed your mind about?

[quote]R291: that's really reaching there.

MacDonald offers a cogent explanation for how the Gospel of Mark came to be written. You should read it, instead of giving it the brush-off.

R293, does he address “Mark’s” struggles with Greek? He’s said to be a bad writer. “Luke” is very polished, and, when adopting material from Mark, corrected his errors with grammar and syntax.

[quote]R294: does he address “Mark’s” struggles with Greek? He’s said to be a bad writer.

Neil Godfrey says,

[quote]Dennis MacDonald suggests that Mark was writing an “anti-epic”, and deliberately cultivated an “anti-polished/poetic” style of “natural speech” to match his anti-epic theme.

r285 just because atheists don't believe without evidence doesn't make them closed minded. I mean if it could be proven there was a god, atheists would then believe. The same cannot be said of believers though because all the lack of evidence of a god is there and yet, ya'all still cling to the myth you've been brainwashed to believe.

There is no need to 'believe' when there is proof.

No one talks about 'believing' that 2+2 = 4, or that water boils @ 212 degree Fahrenheit at 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Some of you skipped Philosophy 101, and it shows.

He's fine! He sends his love!

I do believe in a higher power. And I do pray from time to time. I even go to church once in a while. There can be real comfort in people coming together as a community in a spiritual environment, and wishing one another well. But the institutions of organized religion are so corrupted, and the perspectives are so subjective, I just do not want to get involved. I'm fine. I am spiritual and I do try to be kind and good, and moral. But all the rules and the rituals and the fear that is instilled and the burden of obligation disgusts me. It seems to me Organized Religion is just another form of coercion. As for Jesus, IMO yes there could have been one of those mystics or holy men who preached something very different from what t he popular concept of the gods was. Something regarded as subversive at the time. Whatever.

[quote]R297: There is no need to 'believe' when there is proof.

'Proof' is for mathematics. There is no evidence of God, or of Jesus.

[quote]No one talks about 'believing' that 2+2 = 4, or that water boils @ 212 degree Fahrenheit at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Some of you skipped Philosophy 101, and it shows.

You've been spending all of your time drinking up the claims of pseudoscience online.

No actual 'Philosophy 101' course claims there's evidence of God.

R283 Absolutely.

Despite that, some still attempting to rationalize it. A pastor once asserted the authenticity of the resurrection is proved citing women as the first witnesses. Saying it completely proves it's true because women in that era lacked the authority to be documented as primary witnesses and the men wouldn't have risked false testimony on women or some bullshit like that.