• frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    206
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 个月前

    No. But physical proof is not the standard we use for determining someone’s historical existence.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      6 个月前

      Literary proof is, but also doesn’t exist for Jesus Christ.

      There’s a few mentions of just a “Jesus” but its not like no one else was named Jesus, and those don’t really make any mention of him being remarkable in any way.

      There’s just no evidence

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        77
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        AFAIK most historians/scholars agree that Jesus was a real person (even if a lot of the Bible’s claims about what he did are not true). But I’m not a historian. What are you basing your opinion on?

        • nyctre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 个月前

          Exactly this. The person did exist. There’s proof of that. It wasn’t the son of god and didn’t perform miracles, but he was real nonetheless.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 个月前

            Important notion that Jesus never claimed to be the son of god and that entire line of thinking was established some four hundred years after.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

            So we have to differentiate between what is the actual Gospel and life of Jesus and what the more creative parts of the churches invented on top of it over time.

            • nyctre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 个月前

              Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58

              Which is from one of the original 4 gospels. Apparently there’s evidence of it being written as early as 70AD. There’s a couple other quotes I found in a link some other person linked in this thread but this one seems most direct.

              • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 个月前

                I think this is a terminological confusion. The original Gospel as in the life and teaching of Jesus, that got lost as it wasn’t documented in his lifetime.

                The four gospels that made the choice are as you said collections written later. And there were many more Gospels that the early church decided not to put into the bible. On top of that there is the issue how those gospels got translated multiple times and each translation inadvertently adds a layer of interpretation.

                • nyctre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  Ah, okay. But then we can’t really make a claim either way, can we? We don’t really know who he was or who he claimed to be.

                • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  Alright but he quoted a gospel from 70AD, and the idea that in the “true gospel” he wasn’t the son of god or never claimed to be is a concept present in opposing religions like Islam first written down 500 years later, which famously mistranslated Marry with “she flowed like a river” instead of “she was chaste” when the region was constantly caught between Phoenician based alphabets like Greek, Hebrew, multiple Arabics, and much later on Cyrillic.

                  The Roman’s artistic licenses aside, their accounts of history are the most reliable source on all of this.

            • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 个月前

              Sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was (most likely) an actual historical person who is the origin of these stories, i.e. Jesus. He’s probably not really as fantastical as the Bible would have you believe, but he did exist, as opposed to being just an entirely fictional character.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called ‘Jewish Apocalypticism’, basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.

        Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement’s key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.

        This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.

        There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are ‘Mythicists’ of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.

        This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.

        Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          I’ve heard theories that key people probably had hallucinations of Jesus a few days after he was killed, which was the big thing that helped launch him from yet-another-apocalyptic-preacher to (eventually) God himself. I don’t know how well these are accepted, though.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 个月前

            This stems from the fact that, so far, the earliest dated written fragments we have from what is now the New Testament are some of the writings of Paul.

            Paul was not one of the Apostles EDIT: Disciples, and it seems possible that, after persecuting earlier, existing Christians, he could have basically had a stress induced psychotic break and hallucinated the vision of Jesus that he had, then converted.

            Thing is though, Christians would have to … you know exist and already be a real thing first, for that to make sense.

            It does explain why Paul does not mention some very key elements of the narrative of the Gospels: He just had not actually read about or heard of those parts yet.

            This creates some theological problems down the line, and some of those problems were ‘remedied’ by what a good deal of scholars and historians believe to be forgeries… chapters of the Bible that modern Christians attribute to Paul, but do not seem to actually have been written by Paul.

            It is also possible to some of the empty tomb accounts in some of the Gospels as similar kinds of trauma induced hallucinations.

            Mark famously originally just ends with an empty tomb, and nobody said anything about this because they were scared… and then the last bit of verses giving Mark a more satisfying ending have been shown to be added … decades later.

            • Liz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 个月前

              The explanation I heard was that it was likely Mary and Peter hallucinated Jesus only a few days after he died. That’s a very common timeframe for when people hallucinate seeing dead loved ones, and the early descriptions in Bible match the flavor of dead loved-one hallucinations people typically have, with the figure assuring the person everything will be all right and whatnot. Other descriptions (like Jesus appearing to all twelve disciples or crowds of people) seem to have been written later more as persuasive arguments, with doubting Tomas acting as the stand-in for the skeptical listener. This is all from “How Jesus Became God” and I have no idea how mainstream or fringe the author’s views are.

            • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 个月前

              I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.

              • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 个月前

                I thought Paulogia’s minimum witnesses argument is basically that Paul could have hallucinated, and that those who witnessed an empty tomb basically did see an empty tomb, but circumstantial confusion led them to misinterpret what they saw?

                I’ll have to rewatch some of his vids.

                Also, hey, Goju Ryu! I trained in Shito Ryu =D

                • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
                  I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
                  I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.

                  Oh nice! :D

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        I agree with you that Jesus wasn’t God, who doesn’t exist, and that there were no miracles, which are impossible. However, this is not the same thing as saying that there’s no evidence for the existence of Jesus, the Jewish apocalyptic preacher.

        The earliest documents about Jesus, such as the Pauline Epistles, were written by people who knew people who knew him. In a mostly illiterate society 2,000 years ago, this is about as good as evidence gets. It’s also the exact same kind of evidence as a journalist or researcher writing an account based on interviews with people. This was how, e.g, Herodotus wrote his histories. When Herodotus says ‘A guy rode a dolphin once’ we dismiss that. But we don’t say ‘The people in the Histories didn’t exist, except those for whom there’s physical evidence, which is about three of them, not including the author’. We do much the same with Jesus and the miracles.

        If the Apostles had wanted, for some reason, to make up a guy, that would have been risky. Other people would have just said, ‘That guy didn’t exist’. If they had anyway decided to make up a guy, they’d have invented someone who actually fulfilled the Jewish propehcies of the Messiah, instead of inventing Jesus, who obviously didn’t. This suggests they didn’t invent him, which strengthens the plausibility of the evidence we do have.

        A third way of looking at this is to ask if there are any comparable figures, religious founders from the historic era, who we now think were wholly made up in the way you’re suggesting. But there aren’t. The Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Zoroaster - they all certainly existed. Indeed, I can’t think of any figures form the time period who were actually imaginary.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 个月前

          Personally, I think it’s most likely that he’s composed of many people. It’s a bunch of stories which all got attributed as one person, which isn’t uncommon. Personally, though I’m far from an expert, I think there wasn’t a singular Jesus figure who actually existed, but rather a story of a figure named Jesus that rose from stories about other events.

          Like you said, it’s almost certain that something was happening around that time. In fact, there are many more Messiahs who were mostly forgotten. I just think it’s most likely that people told stories and those stories all merged together into another larger story, which then became the story of Jesus.

          • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 个月前

            It’s certainly possible that sayings of other people were later attributed to him, but to really make this case you’d need to have quotations that were attributed to multiple sources, including him, if you see what I mean. Absent that, it could be true, but there’s no particular reason to believe it.

            There are enough specific biographical details about Jesus of Nazareth to make it likely that there’s a specific, real central figure. For example, the fact that he was from Nazareth was a problem for his early followers (it didn’t match the Messianic prophecies), which is why they invented the odd story of the census, so that they could claim he’d been born in Bethlehem, the hometown of King David, from whom Jesus was supposedly descended. That seems unlikely to have happened if there hadn’t been a real, central historical figure.

            Also, none of the early non-Christian sources claim he wasn’t real or that he was a composite, which they surely would have done if there was any doubt on the matter.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        6 个月前

        There’s just no evidence

        I have a pet peeve about this phrase. A) yes there is. B) that’s not the standard, e.g. it would be incorrect to say there’s no evidence aliens abduct and probe people: there are eyewitness accounts

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          6 个月前

          A) yes there is.

          I don’t believe that, and since it’s impossible to show evidence something doesn’t exist, the people claiming evidence Jesus existed is gonna have to do some linking…

          that’s not the standard

          You mean evidence?

          Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

          What exactly is the standard in your mind for whether a historical figure existed?

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 个月前

            Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

            What exactly is the standard in your mind for whether a historical figure existed?

            Hard evidence has never been the standard for proof that a historical figure existed. Corroborating records are. It’s great if you can find some hard evidence, but if that was the standard then most people in history wouldn’t have any historical proof of their existence. And even when there is a corpse, we still rely on burial records to be certain that the corpse is who we think it is. Or if there are letters, we can’t confirm they were written by the same person we think they were.

            Like a third of the bible as well as several contemporary documents all point to the existence of a guy named something like Joshua (which we now translate as Jesus) who traveled around Palestine preaching and was crucified in around 33AD. There are plenty of historical figures who we mostly agree existed despite having approximately the same amount of proof as for Jesus.

            • Jericho_One@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 个月前

              several contemporary documents all point to the existence of a guy named something like Joshua

              IIRC, there’s really only a single mention of a possible link to someone of this name that was crucified at the supposed time, and that single mention happened at least 50 (maybe 100?) years later, and there’s evidence that this passage was added even later.

              So I didn’t think it’s true that there are “several contemporary documents” like you claimed…

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              6 个月前

              Corroborating records are

              And there’s not enough to prove that Jesus Christ existed…

              There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

              Like a third of the bible

              I don’t think any of it was written till decades after he supposedly died tho…

              Like, there’s lots of information about Bilbo Baggins in Lotr, that doesn’t mean it was written in the third age of Middle Earth homie.

              There are plenty of historical figures who we mostly agree existed despite having approximately the same amount of proof as for Jesus.

              Name one and I’ll disporve it.

              • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                6 个月前

                There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

                You just 100% conceded. /thread

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  There was a Paul that lived in Midwest America

                  Is that proof he had a big blue ox?

                  Like, you know the Romans were pretty big fans of crucifying people for pretty much anything?

                  Like, we have that elusive physical evidence that 6,000 of Sparticus’ followers were crucified…

                  There’s a pretty good chance at least one of those guys was named Jesus too mate, it was a pretty common name

              • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                6 个月前

                There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

                Obviously miracles aren’t real. I wasn’t claiming otherwise. We’re talking about whether or not the person Jesus existed, not if magic is real.

                It sounds like we agree

                I don’t think any of it was written till decades after he supposedly died tho…

                Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

                To borrow your asinine LOTR analogy, it is more like you are claiming Thorinn Oakenshield never existed simply because Bilbo only wrote “There and Back Again” after he got home from memory.

                • Thistlewick@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  If your only requirement is that a man once existed by the name of Jesus and was crucified, then the bar is on the floor. Jesus was not a rare name, and the Romans crucified many, many people. It is not out of the realm of possibility that these two common data points would overlap and give us a crucified Jesus.

                  Is there proof that it was THE Jesus though? Do we have corroborating evidence of a man travelling the countryside with his posse, changing the minds and hearts of the masses?

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

                  Not really, and definitely not the 1/3 you were claiming…

                  Like, where are you getting any of this?

                  It sounds like what they teach at one of those “bible colleges”

              • mkwt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                6 个月前

                Like, there’s lots of information about Bilbo Baggins in Lotr, that doesn’t mean it was written in the third age of Middle Earth homie

                The conceit of the LOTR appendices is that Lord of the Rings, as published in English, is really just the Red Book that Bilbo writes at the end. Dr. Tolkien merely found the manuscript somewhere and has graciously translated it from Third Age common language into English for the benefit of us modern people.

          • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 个月前

            Quality of the evidence matters. I’m personally not a historical expert on the topic and in such situations, I’m inclined to believe whatever the people who are experts say - and as far as I gather, most experts are in the “Jesus was a real historical person”-camp.

          • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 个月前

            Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

            Of course not. There are millions of examples of false claims for which there is more than zero evidence. e.g. I can claim I know which stocks will rise tomorrow, and point to various data of times I’ve been right. You can’t correctly say “There is zero evidence Frightful Hobgoblin is prescient about stock movements”.

            There often exists evidence of two mutually incompatible propositions. This is basics.

            If you want to research the historicity of Jesus it’s easily done. If you want to argue on the internet… you know what they say about that.

            • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 个月前

              I will say that while evidence existing isn’t definitive proof, the total lack of evidence would be convincing (in the other direction). That said, evidence does exist in this case, so

              Edit: clarity

                • Well, no. Perhaps I’ve been misunderstood.

                  If no evidence whatsoever for a claim exists, then there is no reason to favor that claim. This is an effectively rare situation, and basically only applies to things someone has made up whole cloth just now.

                  Likewise, the existence of some evidence is not necessarily definitive “proof” of a claim, merely enough of a reason to consider it further (such as considering alternative explanations or how well said evidence matches what we might expect)

                  In this case, there is evidence that somebody named Jesus may have existed, and however ideal that evidence may or may not be, it is about the amount of evidence we would expect to find of any given figure from his time.

    • BlowMe@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      6 个月前

      I’m pretty sure without the fossilised bones we would think dinosaurs weren’t a thing

      • Eczpurt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        90
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        Its easy to put bones together and say that it existed but there’s no way to guarantee “these are certified bones of Jim the stegosaurus, religious figure”

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 个月前

        That’s because there weren’t multiple people around to write down what they saw. You’re confusing paleontology and history. They have very different standards for proof.

        There are tons of historical figures for whom we have no physical evidence. But we have tons of written evidence from people who all experienced those people.

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        History is known by:

        • Archæological evidence

        • Oral interviews with eyewitnesses

        • Texts

        • Archæogenetics

        • Historical linguistics

        • Myth (euhemerism)

        • Maybe some others I’m forgetting

        Dino-history isn’t comparable to tthe literate Roman period.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        That’s prehistory. Everything we know about history comes from written accounts. Historians study written documents and argue whether or not the available evidence makes it more likely that something (or someone) was real or fiction.

        Most historians agree that there was a Jewish man named Jesus (yehoshua), who preached in Judea and the Galilee in the early first century, who gained followers and was crucified by Rome. There are also historians who examine the same evidence and conclude it is more likely that no such person existed, because that’s how academia works.

        See also for comparison: Genghis Khan

      • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 个月前

        The point is that you are asking the wrong question sort of. If we only accepted physical remnants of someone or their life to prove they exist, Jesus wouldn’t be the only one we would have to throw out.

        Not to say I know how to prove stuff historically, it does sort of seem like magic sometimes. If we found out today that carbon dating was off by a magnitude I would not be shocked, so that’s all the faith I have in it due to my bad understanding of it.

      • Kokesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 个月前

        You won’t find fossilized Jesus, he apparently got resurrected and became wine & cookies, so some people started eating him on Sundays. And he doesn’t want us to say fuck, or shit, or do it in the butt. But that’s not really related to the question.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 个月前

        Archaeology in good at giving us clues about the living thing. References to people existing is almost purely based on text people wrote. The proof would be someone writing down “Chrestos, popular among the poor was crucified for his crimes for spreading heresy” as a contemporary. But since the earliest reference we have is a century after his death it’s not necessarily accurate or true.

  • Psiczar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 个月前

    As an atheist I believe Jesus existed, I just don’t think he was the son of god or that he was resurrected.

    It would have been far easier to start a religion around a real man with actual followers than if he was a figment of someone’s imagination.

    • distantsounds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      I like to picture my Jesus as a desert hippie that people liked and told tall tales of in order to give people living in that harsh environment some hope and meaning.

      • Bdtrngl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        I like to think of Jesus with like giant eagles wings and singing lead vocals for lynyrd skynyrd with like an Angel Band, and I’m in the front row, and I’m hammered drunk.

    • 800XL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 个月前

      IIRC, the religion didn’t get anywhere is Palestine after Jesus supposedly died and it wasn’t until decades later that it picked up in and around Greece thanks to Paul, but no one was around that saw any of the events attributed to Jesus - it was all heresay.

      I mean the bible is how many pages and how much of it actually takes place during Jesus’s life? And what is the timespan of the small part that does? Like a year? And the 4 gospels that talk about it are all rehashings of the same stories (more or less) and even contradict each other at times.

      That’s a story with a lot of gaps and plot holes to base a belief system around - and that doesn’t even include all the baggage and hate that comes along with it.

      People nowadays lose their mind and make death threats to the creators of stories that don’t fix or create new plot holes in canon. And we’re supposed to smile, nod, and happily accept one of the worst constructed stories ever just because some old white men that live the opposite way they tell us to live say so?

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      It’s weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.

      There’s even a link to a well cited article examining the skepticism of the historicity of Jesus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

      I don’t feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.

      • Dandroid@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        In my experience, when it comes to debating the validity of religion, people tend to get far more emotional than other topics. People who are normally level-headed and quite logical tend to completely lose their ability to think rationally. And I mean both the people who argue for religion and against it.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 个月前

        Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there’s no controversy, but there’s definitely an orthodox opinion.

      • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        It’s almost like Christian Scholars (people that have dedicated their entire lives to this idea) have access to write for Wikipedia too…

        The citations are from the same people we see over and over again on this topic (specifically on Wikipedia).

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 个月前

          I shouldn’t bother responding to this, but I have to point out that this weird assumption that scholars of Christianity are all Christian partisans seems pretty similar to people who say that climatologists are all biased in favor of a global warming hoax.

          You don’t think anyone goes into studying a field to challenge the orthodoxy? That’s the fastest way to get famous. Even if the rest of your field hates you, you can make an incredibly lucrative career out of being “the outsider”. I literally linked to a collection of experts who agree with you.

          If you don’t believe the experts, I guess it’s fine. But it’s weird when people use expertise on a subject as proof of bias to discredit expertise. It’s just such a silly thing to do.

          • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 个月前

            I think it’s a weird to assume the wiki-link that you posted is in support of the “Christ Myth Theory” (as they call it).

            Read the contents of the wiki link you sent and check all of the citations, you’ll see that the Christian Scholars that contributed to writing the article aim to dismiss the theory by citing their own books.

      • pop@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        6 个月前

        I don’t feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.

        but then

        It’s weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.

        Well cited article aren’t proof of existenceof a man. Is spiderman real if enough people cite the comics? A group of influential people could gather and make their own circle of these myths and present it as a fact. And it isn’t fucking new.

        https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-dark-world-of-citation-cartels

        Religions and all their influence could force a lot of heavily studied subject to be skewed for their benefit. Hell, there were studies that were treated as standard making sugar and alcohol heavily beneficial for human beings. And we’re talking about a person.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 个月前

          I didn’t say which side I come down on. I just said that there is lots of information with plenty of high quality citations.

          I’m really happy that everyone is a winner.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      6 个月前

      The evidence isn’t even that strong, there i just aren’t that many people willing to risk becoming a pariah to dispute them.

      If you are a Christian, there is no doubt Jesus existed. Any oblique reference to a rabbi who was persecuted hundreds years ago is considered evidence that Jesus existed. But no contemporaneous documentation exists.

      If you’re not a Christian, debunking all of those vague references that might be proof of a Jewish leader named Jesus just isn’t particularly important, won’t persuade anyone who believes Jesus was(is) God, and will paint a target on your back for terrorists.

      • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 个月前

        Wait… you mean to tell me there’s not a collective of atheist Wikipedia writers that have dedicated their lives to the absence of religion and citing themselves on refuting evidence on Wikipedia?!?

        Wouldn’t it be weird of every Wikipedia article on the historical validity of Jesus was written by Christian scholars that have dedicated their lives to their religion? It would be wild if they were just citing themselves in these Wiki articles in order to sell some books, wouldn’t it?

    • uienia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 个月前

      No, there arent a lot of texts from the 1st century AD about him. The majority by far stems from the second century or later.

    • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 个月前

      There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.

      The article you provided (if you read it) should actually serve to cast more doubt on the idea; it does not “answer the question to the affirmative.”

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.

        That implies each source says: “A man called Jesus was crucified”. The article you provided (if you read it) should have told you otherwise.

        • Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, year 93-94: “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.”

        • Tacitus’s Annals, year 117: Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus

        • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 个月前

          I didn’t provide any article. I read the one you linked.

          In this most recent response, you are annotating sources from 93, and 117. Those years are notably (at minimum) 60 years after the supposed resurrection; and as such are not first hand accounts.

          They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name. There was very likely someone named Jesus that was crucified, because many people were crucified. There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.

          • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 个月前

            They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name.

            The second one doesn’t use that name. Read the sources.

            There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.

            Well of course, but that’s common sense. Dead people stay dead as a rule.

              • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 个月前

                There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.

                The question in question was “Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?”

                • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  Jesus Christ is very specific. Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day… that is fake.

  • Shard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 个月前

    Physical proof? No. But if that’s the criterion for proof that someone existed, then that mean 90% of historical figures can’t be proven to have existed. We don’t have the remains of Alexander the Great or any artefacts we can be sure are his. We have no remnants of Plato, none of his original writings remain.

    Did a person name Jesus live sometime during the first century AD? Scholars are fairly certain of that. We do have textual evidence other than the bible that points to his existence.

    It is highly unlikely that he was anything like the person written about in the bible. He was likely one of many radical apocalyptic prophets of the time.

    We don’t have too many details about his life but because of something called the criterion of embarrassment we have good reason to believe he was baptized by a man named John the Baptist and was later crucified. (i.e. most burgeoning religions seeking legitimacy don’t typically invent stories that are embarrassing to their deity)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

    • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      then that mean 90% of historical figures can’t be proven to have existed

      Well for most of those we tend to use independent verification for their existence. And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero Credible examples of independent verification.

        • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 个月前

          Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion, which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[3]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels are thought to already have been in circulation.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tacitus

          According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

          Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[15][30] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic.

          Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value

          A. The first line of the Tacitus passage says Chrestians, not Christians.

          Suetonius says Chrestus was personally starting trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius.

          Suetonius is writing years after Tacitus yet doesn’t mention that Chrestus died.

          So Chrestus can’t be Jesus because it’s the wrong decade, wrong continent and missing a death.

          B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

          P.S. Even if the second line was somehow authentic, the information would have come from Christians. This would be the equivalent of deriving Abraham’s biography by talking to Muslims.

          This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

          In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens, if this is all you got, you are holding an empty bag.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 个月前

            Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

            Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

            According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

            So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

            B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

            I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

            This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

            Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        If you mean Jesus as described word for word in the bible? Yes you are right. Such a mythical figure never existed.

        A man name Jesus from the first century AD? Who preached in the Levant? Who was baptized by a man named John and was later crucified? There is good enough evidence of such a person existing. This isn’t even a debated question among new testament scholars anymore.

        I see you are familiar with Bart Ehrman, Even he doesn’t dispute that a historical Jesus existed.

        https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww

        Here’s an even deeper dive from Bart Ehrman.

        https://youtu.be/4CD5DwrgWJ4

    • darthskull@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 个月前

      We do have textual evidence other than the bible that points to his existence.

      Idk why you would need textual evidence besides the Bible to be certain the guy existed. It’s not like these are magical books that sprung from the earth. They have historical reasons for existing and the most likely reason includes the existence of the dude.

  • Joshi@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 个月前

    I’m by no means an expert but I was briefly obsessed with comparative religion over a decade ago and I don’t think anyone has given a great answer, I believe my answer is correct but I don’t have time for research beyond checking a couple of details.

    As a few people have mentioned there is little physical evidence for even the most notable individuals from that time period and it’s not reasonable to expect any for Jesus.

    In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus. Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus mentions him twice, once briefly telling the story of his crucifixion and resurrection. The second is a mention in passing when discussing the brother of Jesus delivering criminals to be stoned.

    I think it is reasonable to conclude that a Jewish spiritual leader with a name something like Jesus Christ probably existed and that not long after his death miracles are being attributed to him.

    It is also worth noting the historical context of the recent emergence of Rabbinical Judaism and the overabundance of other leaders who were claimed to be Messiahs, many of whom we also know about primarily(actually I think only) from Josephus.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 个月前

      The part mentioning Jesus’s crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.

      The idea that the historical figure was known as either ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there’s no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.

      In many ways, it’s the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.

      One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus

      Misinformation.

      There’s Tacitus’s Annals (year 117), Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (93-94), Mara bar Serapion’s letter to his son.

      Seutonius (Lives of the Twelve Cæsars) and Pliny wrote about the conflict between the Romans and the followers of Christ (or Chrestus) around that era.

      • uienia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        You are the one who is doing the misinforming. All of the sources you mention, except Josephus, were written up to more than a century after his supposed existence. With Josephus being written around half a century after his existence.

        And as mentioned, the specific quotes from Josephus are of a dubious nature.

      • Joshi@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here but both Suetonius and Pliny are talking about Christians in the 2nd century, Tacitus speaks about Christ only in the context of Nero blaming Christians for the great fire. These are literary evidence for the existence of Christians in the second century but are not direct literary evidence of the existence of Christ as an individual which was the question I was addressing.

        I’d be delighted to be shown to be wrong but I believe my original post stands.

  • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 个月前

    The thing is that compared to other historical people we kid of have similar evidence. Like we have records of Socrates existing and we have records of some Joshua existing.

    The difference is that nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death, which is a extraordinary claim, we just say he was a very smart guy, we se very smart guys on a daily basis, nothing special with that so we can just believe it and even if we are wrong it has no real life implications.

    For the Joshua guy, that’s quite a different story. The claims about him are extraordinary and need extraordinary evidence. But we only have normal evidence. If the claims about him were true it would contradict almost everything we think we know about the universe, how it behaves, etc.

    So again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      The difference is that nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death,

      To use a more modern example, pretty much everyone agrees that Grigori Rasputin was a real person who played a crucial role in the court of the last Czar of Russia.

      But there are some positively wild and unexplainable stories that have a decent amount of corroborating evidence that they happened. The story about him healing the prince via a phone call sounds like actual magic. However we all know magic isn’t real, there is definitely some kind of logical explanation. But that explanation is lost to time.

      So where do historians land on Rasputin? Well, there was definitely a guy called Rasputin. Some of the stories about him are true. Some are probably false or exaggerated. There isn’t even a consensus on what colour the dude’s eyes were. But that doesn’t mean we dispute his existence.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death

      Socrates literally claimed that he was a channel for a revelatory holy spirit and that because the spirit would not lead him astray that he was ensured to escape death and have a good afterlife because otherwise it wouldn’t have encouraged him to tell off the proceedings at his trial.

      Also, there definitely isn’t any evidence of Joshua in the LBA, or evidence for anything in that book, and a lot of evidence against it.

    • uienia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      We have a lot more contemporay primary sources for the existence of Socrates than we have of Jesus (of which the number of contemporary primary sources is 0).

  • alekwithak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 个月前

    The new testament stories were written well over a hundred years after. That would be like someone today writing an account of the civil war based solely on stories.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 个月前

    As far as I know, we simply don’t have directly contemporary, first-hand evidence of him. Even the most ‘contemporary’ accounts of him that still exist were written at least 50 years after he would have died, and those are quite cursory. Perhaps primary sources were lost–or intentionally destroyed when they didn’t align with beliefs–or perhaps they never existed. There’s not even much evidence for Pontius Pilate (I think one source mentioning that he was recalled to Rome and executed for incompetence?), and there should be, given that he was a Roman official.

    People that study the history of the bible–as in, the historical bible, not the bible as a religious text–tend to believe that a historical Jesus existed, even if they don’t believe that he was divine.

    IMO, the most likely explanation is that Jesus was yet another in a long-line of false messiahs, and was summarily executed by Rome for trying to start yet another rebellion. Since cult members tend to be unable to reconcile reality with their beliefs, they could have reframed their beliefs to say that he was a spiritual messiah, rather than a physical messiah.

    • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      There are lots of people now today who claim to be god, claim to be jesus, claim to have magic powers. so it would appear this is just normal human behavior and has been for a very long time. But the main reason people continue to believe these ancient holy books and all the stories in them is literally because they are protected from inquiry. So Jeff down the street claims to be jesus? We can go test him and try to falsify his claims. But some guy 2000 years ago, ya its not possible to check that one out. And That is why they persist, its by design.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 个月前

        Let me see if I can explain what I mean.

        A historical Jesus might have had a small cult following, enough that the Romans couldn’t ignore him. He would have been talking about Jewish liberation from the Roman rulers, and how he was called by god. And then boom, he gets executed. His followers probably believed that he was actually the son of god, sent to liberate them. But now he’s dead. How do they reconcile the belief with the reality? So they retcon everything; he was a spiritual messiah, and he’ll eventually return and free the Jews, once the people are spiritually prepared.

        You can see traces of this in the way that the four gospels don’t agree with each other, but they all include bits of prophecies from earlier scripture about the messiah. They were written with the intent of making Jesus appear to fit in to older prophecies about who the messiah would be, since he ended up not being the liberator that they had been expecting.

        You can see similar behaviors in cults now. It’s clearly visible with Q; Trump was supposed to be their messiah, but he hasn’t managed to make any of their prophetic beliefs come true. So they’ve invented reasons why Trump’s holy will has been thwarted, and changed their history, rather than accepting that he was a false messiah.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 个月前

        Then why is it that the message was so powerful that the Roman empire abolished its idol worship and chose Christianity? Especially as Jesus a.s. was supposed to be a rebel against the empire?

        Do you think people 2000 years ago were all stupid?

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 个月前

          The message of Christianity is excellent for subjugating populations, giving them purpose & hope, keeping people busy & out of trouble. I think that all sounds very appealing to rulers.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 个月前

            And the roman empire was not able to do that already? From my understanding mythologically/spiritually the Roman empire was perfectly settled with what it had before in terms of political power. Incidentally the roman empire declined and fell apart in the centuries after accepting Christianity.

            And before the Roman empire there were the Egyptians. They seemed to fare much better in terms of power with their idol worship than later when they embraced Abrahamic religions, yet they did.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          Do you think people 2000 years ago were all stupid?

          No stupider than people now. Christianity remains very popular.

        • Mjpasta710@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          Happened overnight too. /S

          This isn’t an accurate account of history.

          If you’ve studied any of the Roman empire in antiquity you’re actively acting in bad faith.

          If not, why are you making things up? Why are you actively lying?

          Constantine is reported as making it the state religion 300+ years after the alleged existence of yeshua.

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 个月前

    There’s a bunch of old texts about a Jewish “prophet” called Jesus, who was gathering some followers. As far as I understand, there’s no really reason not to believe the person existed.

    Then again, all the Jesus lore, there’s no reason to believe his miracles were real as those made no sense and there’s no real proof besides those same texts written after Jesse’s death

    • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 个月前

      This. There is evidence that a preacher called Jesus existed, was crucified, and was well-regarded enough to start a following that persisted even after his death.

      There isn’t, however, strong historical evidence for any of the magical parts of it.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 个月前

        I don’t think anyone is talking about the miracles when they refer to the historical Jesus.

        • almar_quigley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 个月前

          Every Christian takes an historical proof of Jesus as affirmation of the stories within the New Testament.

          • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 个月前

            Let’s not do the ‘every Christian’ thing. It’s worth remembering the US has a very ‘unique’ type of Christian.

        • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          Primary sources? No, but there are independent secondary sources by people with no skin in the game.

          Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus (circa 93–94 CE).

          Annals by Tacitus (circa 116 CE)

          The earliest Christian writings are also more about the teachings of a disruptive Jewish preacher who was then crucified, than they are about magic.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        I remember that one miracle closely resembles CPR. He put his hands on a body and brought it back to life.

  • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 个月前

    There is no proof outside of the Bible and some other writings. Even those mentions seem to have occurred well after Jesus supposedly lived.

    In terms of non-literary proof, there isn’t anything credible.

    There’s more evidence that King David existed.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 个月前

      Chances are he was more like a cult leader it wasn’t until a decade or two after his death that things really got into full swing, so chances are the actual Jesus would be quite surprised by everything “he” did.

      But there were a lot of Jewish mystics cropping up at the time so it’s not impossible or even implausible for some one vaguely matching the description to have existed.

      • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 个月前

        Exactly. An example from outside the Bible might be Achilles. There was probably a great warrior with that name in the Mycenaean Greek world. Later storytellers probably just added more to make it sound better or the material was from other warriors who were like Achilles.

        Some of Jesus’ teachings definitely come from the milieu of the Roman era in Judea and Palestina.

        Personally my favorite head canon is that Jesus was, or his parents were, Egyptian born Jews or Coptic converts to Judaism. It’s a reverse Obamas birth certificate. There is so much time spent establishing the lineage and explaining the flight to Egypt.

      • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 个月前

        Good thing back in the day there were probably very few cult leaders…

        Does anyone wonder about how the story of Jesus being plagiarized from the Egyptian myth of Horus affects the narrative about the Jesus that supposedly lived and died a century earlier? You know the one that happened to have incredibly important political value for the established leaders of the time?

        No? Me either. Praise Horus!

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      6 个月前

      You realize that a significant portion of the bible is the collected letters and works that were at the time (that it was assembled) considered credible, right?

      There’s a period of around 80 years that’s pretty hard to account for, but unlike the four gospels where there’s little corroborating evidence that tracks back into that 80 year period, the epistolary works are pretty likely to be authentic. They also reference a bunch of other letters that didn’t survive, something that tends to make them more likely authentic than not. And they involve people who were eyewitnesses of a man named Jesus (or Joshua or Yeshua if you prefer) and his younger (step) brothers.

      The rest of the statements about him were solidified by 80 years or so after his death, but all the accounts don’t quite line up — which is actually a good argument for them being based on actual events.

      So while there may be plenty of room for debate as to how much of the biblical teachings actually originated with a man named Jesus, his actual existence seems more evident than, say, Shakespeare.

      • JesterIzDead@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 个月前

        The mental gymnastics is palpable. That things don’t line up is evidence they’re true? And because people believed it at the time it must be credible? Did a guy really live in the belly of a whale for three days simply because some simpletons believed it?

        • arefx@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 个月前

          Of course not because it’s a load of hogwash. Go play telephone with a class of 6th graders for 5 minutes and then tell me these stories are accurate. Also the events in most of them are clearly impossible situations.

        • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 个月前

          That’s how epistemological analysis works… if the general structure is the same but everyone pulls different meaning out of an event, something probably happened. If everything lines up exactly, someone probably faked the letters. If there’s totally conflicting stories, the record has been tampered with too much to say anything. If there’s no record, there’s nothing to say one way or another.

          • JesterIzDead@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 个月前

            I suppose the burden of proof would have to be that low to believe something so ridiculous

      • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 个月前

        Assembled a thousand years after the fact by a group with a vested interest in solidifying the narrative to fit their own.

        Hell, the Tanakh didn’t really get put together until well after Christianity appeared and it was a reaction to Christians appropriating Jewish literary culture to establish their own.

        It’d be similar to people a thousand years from believing that Christian Gray is literally descended from Edward and Bella.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    6 个月前

    I have said this many times-

    It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if there was a “real” Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus that is worshiped is an impossibility. A fiction. His life is full of details that defy basic biological and physical laws. On top of that, nothing he supposedly said was written down at the time, so we have no idea if what is recorded to have been his sayings in the Bible are things he actually said.

    I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who’s father’s name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld. So was there a real Ernst Stavro Bloefeld? Yes. Was he a supervillain fighting the world’s greatest secret agent? No.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 个月前

      I don’t think this answer is really in the spirit of “no stupid questions”.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 个月前

        Ok, if you want me to sum up in a way that addresses it: Because the Jesus OP is very likely thinking of is fictional, there is no real physical proof of his existence.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      It doesn’t matter.

      I’d say the “Real Historical Jesus” matters at least as much as a Real Historical Julius Caeser or a Real Historical Abraham Lincoln.

      I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who’s father’s name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld.

      That’s different in so far as Fleming was simply borrowing a name for a totally independent character. But Fleming was, himself, a Naval Commander and intelligence officer who leveraged his own biography to inform James Bond’s personal traits. What’s more, he borrowed heavily from the reports and anecdotes of other intelligence officials both during and after WW2 to inform the behaviors and attitudes of his side characters in his original novels.

      It actually is pretty interesting to talk about “The Real James Bond” from a historical standpoint, because British intelligence services were pivotal in maintaining the imperial and international financial controls necessary to run a globe-spanning empire.

      In the same vein, you might be curious to read about “The Real Julius Caeser” after working through the Shakespearean play or “The Real Abraham Lincoln” after getting through the stories where he’s a Vampire Hunter. These biographies inform all sorts of cultural and economic norms of the era. And reading about historical individuals can be both entertaining and illuminating, particularly when you begin to consider how your own world ended up as it is today.

      “Why is Christianity a globe-spanning religious movement going back 2000 years?” is a question worth interrogating. And you can’t really interrogate that question without asking who this Jesus guy was or how he got so popular.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 个月前

        There’s nothing to read about when it comes to any real Joshua, son of Joseph the Carpenter of Nazareth because nothing has been written about such a person.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 个月前

            Written while Jesus was still alive? If so, please present said writings. If not, that doesn’t really change my point.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 个月前

                Are we talking about whether or not a historical person the Jesus of the Bible is based on existed or are we talking about whether or not there were any contemporary accounts? Because those are two very different things.

                As I suggested in the beginning, whether or not a “real” Jesus existed is not really relevant, because if we did, we know nothing about him except what was written a long time after he would have died, which we can’t trust. Which is the same reason not to trust Plato’s dialogues even if Socrates existed. Plato wrote them long after Socrates died.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 个月前

                  if we did, we know nothing about him except what was written a long time after he would have died

                  Hardly the first instance of a historical figure with unreliable historical accounts. You could make the same criticism of Egyptian pharaohs. They were deified in their eras, too. Their monuments were not completed until many of them were long dead. I guess we should just ignore them and pretend they had no impact on the course of history.

    • Shanedino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 个月前

      Listened through a history of rome podcast and learned an interesting thing where win was basically like a concentrate so you would mix it with water to drink. Aka. water -> wine.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        Using reasoning like this to remove the supernatural from the Bible rather defeats the entire point, doesn’t it? If Jesus just made Gatorade like anyone else would, that’s a rather unremarkable thing to describe. Hardly worth committing to writing.

        • Shanedino@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 个月前
          1. I am sure there are countless mundane tasks that are pretty unremarkable.

          2. Does the Bible really have a point? I guess other than brainwashing masses?

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 个月前

            That’s what I’m saying. There’s no record of him wiping his ass or playing cards. If it’s in the book it must be intended to present something exceptional. Explain his actions as something mundane and there isn’t really any reason to write it down.

            But equally, the fantastic supernatural elements make the whole thing into a fairy tale to be completely disregarded as a dubious source of folk wisdom at best by any thinking person.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          I hope not, because port is my wine of choice and I would be like, “fuck you, Jesus. I wanted to drink that!”

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      His life is full of details that defy basic biological and physical laws.

      Which is perfectly sensible given that he was given the power to perform wonders by god to establish that he is indeed a messenger of god. The entire point of wonders is them defying the otherwise imposed limits of the physical world. Because the only one who can grant this power is the source of the physical limits themselves and that is god.

      This is logically consistent under the axiom that god exists. Which is what the scriptures are all about.

      You can set the axiom that god does not exist. But as there is no proof of that, it is equally axiomatic. So given that your logic works on an unproven assumption you should not use it to criticize a different logic based on another assumption.

  • utopiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 个月前

    That’s not the real question though. The real question is rather are there any “real physical proof” that Jesus had literally anything special that is in itself being the “son of God” or anything related to religion.

    Anybody (sadly) can be crucified, especially during a period where it is trendy. Anybody can walk through part of the desert. Anybody can organize a meal, give a speech, etc.

    Even if it’s done exceptionally well, that does not make it special in the sense of being the proof of anything religious. We all have friends with unique talents, and social media helped us discovered that there are so many more of those around the entire world, but nobody in their right mind would claim that because Eminem can sing words intelligibly faster than the vast majority of people he is the son of “God”.

    I also read a book about a decade ago (unfortunately didn’t write down notes about it so can’t find the name back) on the history of religion, from polytheism to monotheism, and it was quite interesting. If I remember correctly one way to interpret it was through the lens of religions maintaining themselves over time and space, which could include growing to a sufficient size in terms of devout adepts. The point being that veracity was not part of the equation.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      Well, that’s the question if you want to believe in Christianity.

      It’s nearly universally accepted that he is a historical figure, though there is little to no evidence of that. The OP is asking why is that the case with so little evidence. They (presumably) aren’t asking for a religious reason, just as an interest in history. If you are Christian and asking this question you are well past the point of no return for your faith

    • uienia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 个月前

      No, OPs question was perfectly fine, because it is necessary to stress the fact that we have not a single contemporary primary source that Jesus existed. So adding extra parameters is pretty pointless, since we cannot convincingly answer whether he actually existed, much less whether he was a religious figure. Scholars have reached a conjectural consensus that a Jesus in some form likely existed, but it is a consendus based on congecture and circumstantial evidence in the form of later secondary sources.

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 个月前

    Nope. But that’s also not as big a deal as a lot of folks make it.

    Also, he’s far from the only important(?) historical(?) figure we can’t prove ever existed.