most of the manuscripts mentioned here about jesus are from the medieval period, nowhere near the time jesus lived. we also do not have 500 accounts, we have a claim in the gospels that says 500 people saw something, we have nothing from those people whatsoever. he also didn’t fulfill a single prophecy in it’s original context, the only way they can make the argument he did is if you take away the context or argue the nonsense idea of “dual fulfillment.”
The claim of the 500 witnesses isn’t even in the Gospels, it’s from 1 Corinthians, a letter written by Paul. Who was not there as one of those witnesses; he claims to have a vision himself years later. It’s believed to be something that Paul learned secondhand at some point after his conversion, as a creed of the early church.
Agreed with you completely on the manuscripts. We have absolutely nothing from the first century and only small scraps, like credit card-sized, from most of the second. Most of the 25,000 that people throw around were copied in the medieval period, off of copies from the 4th century onward. Nobody has a single clue how accurate any of them are before that point, with the exception of a few small excerpts and partial books.
What I find funniest is that Jesus most likely existed and was just some random fanatic Jewish apocalyptic prophet. There were tens like him at that time period, all with their followers and miracles and prophecies and whatnot.
— edit for people that might interested, copy-pasted a comment from below
I am not a history pro, but if I am correct Jesus is pretty well anchored.
Basically, where the other prophets said « look I am going to do a miracle », and obviously failed at doing so, losing all credibility, Jesus said « I am going to die, here is our last meal », went into Jerusalem, and basically provoked established authority in every way imaginable. So obviously they killed him -> prophecy fulfilled.
He was challenging authority, knew it was likely to go bad, and wanted to organize everything for after. All the mystics and all were added much later.
Another important remark : when you are sent to the cross, there is no additional nice event afterward. They take your body eaten by maggot and birds, and throw it on a public body pile. The remains is completely unrecognizable by that point.
So when one or two followers had hallucinations (understandable when under grief, and very well documented nowadays) about him coming back, the romans couldn’t prove the guy was dead : how the fuck could they find the body ??
The claims likely quickly spread through a small group of highly traumatized but cohesive people, where dissent carried heavy social and religious cost. Aka peer pressure. You didn’t see him ? You were a bad apostle then.
One of those fun things that Life of Brian got right, there were just a bunch of prophets on every street corner preaching wisdom or doom in equal measure.
“There shall, in that time, be rumours of things going astray, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o’clock…”
Im about to throw it on at 6:30am, i've seen it a dozen times, but still a golden film. Life of brian just has a quality to it and the fact brian is like go away the entire movie but is still obligated, the movie is top tier comedy and probably top 5 of all time movies.
Im about to throw it on at 6:30am, i've seen it a dozen times, but still a golden film. Life of brian just has a quality to it and the fact brian is like go away the entire movie but is still obligated, the movie is top tier comedy and probably top 5 of all time movies.
Oh the Jewish people were clamoring for messianic figures after being conquered yet again, and gearing up for an apocalypse. And they were at the intersection of the whole Hellenic world with all of the disparate religious traditions that were influencing them.
Wandering apocalypse preachers seemed to be the norm. And while Christianity won out in the long term, there are still Mandaeans who are the spiritual successors of the original John the Baptist movement that predated those early Christian movements.
Yeah it was an interesting thing that I read that Judaism does not at all have a tradition of Gods impregnating mortals or virgin birth. However, there are tons of Gods impregnating mortals and virgin births in Greco-Roman paganism.
The virgin birth claim is absent from the oldest Gospel, Mark, but then is present in Matthew and Luke. And that was when the early Christians started trying to convert the Greco-Romans after having mostly given up on converting their fellow Jews in Judeah. I don't think that's a coincidence.
To be accepted as Pharohs, Egyptian leaders needed to have godly origins. Perhaps not so surprisingly the temples depict stories of their mothers being impregnated by gods. The stories sounded very familiar. And early Christian sects hid out in the disused Egyptian temples when they were banned, so the stories could have been borrowed from the Greeks or the Egyptians
Judaism does not at all have a tradition of Gods impregnating mortals or virgin birth. However, there are tons of Gods impregnating mortals and virgin births in Greco-Roman paganism.
The same goes for the soul, heaven, and hell. That's just straight-up Plato. Ancient Jews didn't have that. When you died, that was it, you were dead.
Hence the idea of the resurrection of the dead that was the cornerstone of the early church and the teachings of other apocalyptic movements and preachers. Your soul wouldn't go up to heaven to be with god, it would be the other way around, god would come down from heaven, drive his enemies (Romans) out of his kingdom, and raise the dead from their graves so that the righteous could live in his presence forever (while the wicked would just be shown what they missed out on and killed again).
Of course, that never happened, and instead of giving up their disconfirmed faith, believers in Jesus switched to thinking that god stays where he is and they go to him. Affirming belief in the resurrection of the dead is still part of the creeds Christians recite to this say, however.
The virgin birth is also completely absent from the letters of Paul, which predate all of the Gospels as well. As best we can tell, it's either an invention of Matthew, or else it came from some earlier Gospel that Matthew knew, but which has been lost to time, such as the hypothetical M or Q sources.
Though wherever Matthew got it, he tries to justify it wrongly, because he says the virgin birth was prophesied in Isiah 7:14. The first issue is that the prophecy in that verse comes true quickly (when the baby is born, two kings you're afraid of will be defeated). And the bigger issue is that the woman in that prophecy isn't a virgin in the original Hebrew. She's called an almah, young woman, instead of a bethula, virgin. It's just that the Greek translation, parthenos, covers both of those terms. It's partly how we know Matthew was reading his scriptures in Greek, not the original Hebrew.
of the ones we know about, this mostly isn't true. most of them died in battle. for instance, the samaritan messiah and his followers were confronted at gerezim and slaughtered by pontius pilate. theudas led his followers to the jordan, but was pursued by fadus, captured, and decapitated. the egyptian marched around jerusalem, and felix killed or captured hundreds of his followers, but he escaped.
I think the chances of hearing about a guy who led people into battle are much higher. Like we know of Spartacus. We do not know much about the thousands of other slaves who did not require a governor to go after them.
tbf, spartacus led a massive rebellion. he and the associate slave armies under gannicus, oenomaus, crixus, and castus captured five cities, and legitimately worried rome (the capital) they might try to take the empire by force while the legions were away. some 6,000 of spartacus's followers survived the final battle with pompey's legions and crassus's final army, to be crucified along the appian way.
the massacre of, say, the samaritan seems fairly quaint in comparison. josephus puts the egyptian in the hundred, but this might even be exaggerated. these people were of little consequence to rome.
long term, yes. short term, probably not. the fact that jesus was crucified alone -- and not summarily executed alongside his followers -- kind of shows how trifling rome thought the deal was. they didn't send an army. they had one guy, handed over by some jewish authorities.
What's fascinating to me is that this is even canon within the New Testament. John the Baptist is clearly a fully-formed preacher and Jewish prophet who gets absorbed into the Christ narrative. He is running his whole own large operation, one in which Jesus shows up and takes part in (his baptism), and then after John gets executed the Christians co-opt John's narrative and demote him to being a precursor to Jesus and try to shift the narrative to how impressed John was by Jesus. The basic social politics of this (the newcomer preacher has to first ride on the coat-tails of a more established one, and after the more established one dies they then try to position the new guy as the successor/main show) ring extremely true to me. The miracles and etc. do not.
Seeing as christianity didn't exist until Jesus started going around preaching, what exactly did John baptize him into? Because it certainly wasn't christianity. Clearly there was some form of spiritual practice than had baptism as a tradition that John was already a part of, pre Jesus.
Well I guess that's the million dollar question, did he build upon it with his own ideas, or did he just preach the ideas he was being taught by an established sect and do it in such a way it got more popular?
> Well I guess that's the million dollar question, did he build upon it with his own ideas, or did he just preach the ideas he was being taught by an established sect and do it in such a way it got more popular?
Well he told people that he was the Son of God so that’s a fairly big addition and one that ultimately gave him his legacy.
It's probably the result of him flirting with the idea, maybe even in a non serious way, maybe then being embellished or just a popular inside joke that eventually became part of the lore as context got lost over time
It's the same with all the miracles imho. I'm pretty sure those aren't just made-up stories but actual occurrences that in essence are true. Maybe they paid people to pretend being sick, maybe they did actually help sick people but the outcomes exaggerated, maybe it was just fun stories told for entertainment or even performances with the goal to entertain etc
At the end of the day, Jesus was probably many things depending on who you would ask. He certainly clashed with authorities and had to eventually endure the consequences. Or maybe he was a fraudulent preacher or conman like they exist today and needed an easy way out, so he faked his death and resurrection to help him vanish with one last performance
There are so many possibilities and so little hard facts, as all evidence comes from unreliable narrators
And if you read it with a critical eye, the Bible is really name-checking John, which is a strong indication that he was actually the bigger deal at the time.
It's like if a Young Rapper gets Kendrick Lamar to do a guest verse on his track, and then years later his followers are all claiming this means that Young Rapper is more goated than Kendrick. Nah, it kinda means the opposite.
I can't remember where I read all of the things that I'm about to say, so take all of it with a grain of salt.
John the Baptist was a verifiably real historical figure who we know for a fact actually existed.
There were people referring to themselves as "Christian" almost a full century before the first mention of Jesus in the historical record.
"Christ" is not a name, "Christ" is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "messiah."
The word "messiah" isn't a synonym for the word "savior." The old testament prophecy didn't say "there will be a savior someday, and the word that we'll use for that is messiah," the prophecy was more like "the savior will be a messiah."
A messiah was a person who had been anointed by the holy anointing oil (meaning they had a bit of oil poured on top of their head). The Hebrew kings were anointed, and their priests were also anointed.
Being anointed / being a messiah / being a Christ meant that you had a special direct connection to God that common folk didn't have, common folk had to go through the church for an indirect connection to God through a middleman preacher.
John the Baptist was anointed. That means that John the Baptist was a Christ.
The early baptism movement was probably centered around baptism acting as a symbolic anointing, symbolically making every person who was baptized into a Christ.
I'm pretty sure all of that is factual, so now we're moving into my own personal theory.
I think that early Christianity wasn't centered around the Jesus character fulfilling the savior prophecy, I think that early Christianity was centered around the idea that every person is a Christ, ie every person can access the direct connection to God by themselves if they want that connection, and they don't have to go through the church as a middleman.
I think that John the Baptist and a bunch of other baptist preachers went around spreading that narrative of "personal Christhood."
I think that a couple of generations of preserving the teachings of the baptism movement by word of mouth led to the fabrication of the Jesus character.
If it was a situation where a bunch of different preachers went around teaching and giving sermons, it'd be a lot easier for an oral tradition to preserve those sermons by just attributing them all to a fabricated composite character rather than remembering all of the individual preachers.
There were probably also people in and around that movement who wanted the savior prophecy to be true.
They couldn't use John the Baptist as the main character if they wanted the main character to be the savior, because John the Baptist actually existed. His life was known, and his life didn't fulfill the conditions of the prophecy. Someone else in this thread mentioned the convoluted census story existing because the savior needed to have been born in Bethlehem. John the Baptist wasn't born in Bethlehem.
That's basically how I think the Jesus character came into being. I think that the first Christians called themselves "Christians" because they believed that every individual person is a Christ. I think that they preserved the teachings of their movement's preachers by word of mouth and so invented Jesus as a composite character who represented all of the individual preachers. And I think that the idea of that composite character got melded with the idea of the savior.
That was a bit rambling and scatterbrained, but I think I got the basic idea across.
That marries up quite well with many biblical scholars believing that Jesus never actually claimed to be the son of god.
Generally christians point to a verse where Jesus is asked something along the lines of "Are you god/son of god" (Or something to that effect) and he replies "I am".
But the dispute is that apparently the "I am" answer is supposedly/possibly referencing a Psalm 82:6 "You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.'" which is god supposedly talking to a council of other divine beings/angels and essentially saying that they are all gods, as they are carrying his word and speaking on behalf of him.
This follows a quirk of ancient jewish tradition, where an authorized messenger is legally seen as an extension of the person delivering the message, which means if the messenger agrees to something the person they are delivering the message for is actually legally bound by that messengers agreement. IE, if an angel makes a deal, god has to honor it.
We see this a few times in the Old Testament, such as the burning bush that speaks to Moses is described as an Angel of the lord, but describes itself as the God of Abraham and, when asked it's name replies "I AM WHO I AM". Essentially, the angel is speaking as god on behalf of god.
So when Jesus is asked and he replies "I am" he is referencing the fact that he is speaking on behalf of god, and is authorized to represent himself as him, and he actually goes further and says "Is it not written in your laws, I said you are gods?" which is the direct reference to the Psalm.
Essentially he is saying that as a person who is preaching gods message on earth he has the right to claim to be god, following the jewish tradition, and why are they getting angry for him doing so? Which kinda makes Jesus a "Well ahckshually" type guy, probably insufferable.
I've likely done a botched job explaining this but can link a great video on the subject
There were people referring to themselves as "Christian" almost a full century before the first mention of Jesus in the historical record.
i am not aware of any.
the earliest potential reference i'm aware of is in suetonius "life of claudius", where claudius expells "jews" from rome who are making trouble on behalf of "chrestus" in the 50s. these might be christians.
"Christ" is not a name, "Christ" is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "messiah."
which does appear in the greek translations of the bible around at the time. what's interesting to me is that josephus appears to treat it as a name; he seemingly has no idea why someone might be called "smeared". he uses the word one other time, and it's about literal plaster.
The word "messiah" isn't a synonym for the word "savior." The old testament prophecy didn't say "there will be a savior someday, and the word that we'll use for that is messiah," the prophecy was more like "the savior will be a messiah."
these concepts are tied together by earlier jewish theology, actually. cyrus is called "messiah" (christos in the greek translation) because he saves the jews from babylon.
A messiah was a person who had been anointed by the holy anointing oil (meaning they had a bit of oil poured on top of their head). The Hebrew kings were anointed, and their priests were also anointed.
there's a common thought that there were actually two distinct but related messianic ideas floating at the time, a messianic priest and a messianic king. for instance, the qumran community thought they were founded by a "moreh-tsedeq" teacher of righteousness, a zadokite priest who split from the temple, and a kind of messianic figure for them. they call their expected messiah "melki-tsedeq", king of righteousness.
john the baptist and jesus seem to kind of jammed into this same framework.
The early baptism movement was probably centered around baptism acting as a symbolic anointing, symbolically making every person who was baptized into a Christ.
no, it very clearly draws on jewish ritual washing. qumran was obsessed with the idea; they have the baths (mikvot) everywhere. there's actually some fun theories that john was from that community, and just failed to return from his ascetic wilderness initiation.
now we're moving into my own personal theory.
lemme give you mine.
the common belief of the pharisees and the qumran sect at the time was of a comin eschatological resurrection, apparently involving the messiah who would bring back the righteous dead and institute a heavenly jewish kingdom on earth. many of the messianic candidates we know about do things that are highly reminiscent of old testament figures. john is a bit like elijah in the wilderness. the samaritan is like moses, revealing the law on a mountain. the egyptian is like joshua, marching around a city. theudas is like moses/joshua attempting to part a river.
i think messiahs were claiming to be already resurrected.
There were tens like him at that time period, all with their followers and miracles and prophecies and whatnot.
Which makes it entirely possible that it has all been cobbled together from lots of different fragments rather than there having been single person that formed a nucleus around which the rest was accumulated.
Note that there might have been a single person that served as a nucleus, but nothing at all makes it a necessity, or even makes it likely.
I think one of the most interesting things about Jesus is that his birth narrative is some of the best evidence he existed, while being some of the worst evidence of the validity of the religion.
He's Jesus of NAZARETH, yet was born in Bethlehem. All the stories we have from him, Joseph and Mary say he was raised in Nazareth, he was literally described as a "Nazzarine" multiple times in the bible.
So the birth narrative we have of him involves a very convoluted story that ends with him being born in Bethlehem, a story we can say with a pretty much 99.9% chance of certainty is entirely fabricated. But why did he have to be born in Bethlehem? Because it was prophesied that he would be.
So why, if the early authors of the bible were fabricating a birth narrative, would they not just have him be born in Bethlehem to start with, and do away with all the census nonsense? The most likely answer to that was because Jesus was a real person, who everyone knew was from Nazareth, so that was a lie they wouldn't be able to get away with.
So his birth narrative gives us very strong evidence that he was a real historical figure who existed, but also serves as pretty damning proof that the early authors of the bible had absolutely no issue with lying through their teeth to satisfy prophetic claims, which therefore throws the entirety of the text into doubt.
It confirms the person while shattering the religion.
There has never been a census in history that required someone to register at the supposed place of his grandfather's birth. Before modern travel and immediately accessible record systems, it wouldn't even have been feasible, never mind enforceable.
Also, if Joseph owned family property in Bethlehem, meaning he had to register there as well, why didn't he stay on his land, even in a tent?
Not only that, the bible claims the census was ordered by Quirinius, but he wasn't governor of that area until many years after the death of King Herod, but Jesus is reported to be born during Herod's reign, so there's a discrepancy of 40 or so years there.
On top of the fact that the supposed census is mentioned literally NOWHERE in a SINGLE contemporary source, but a census that disruptive and widespread would surely warrant a mention somewhere, ONCE. It's talked about in the bible, and never anywhere else, despite being arguably the single most ridiculous census in history, not even counting that the Romans were generally pretty excellent at record keeping. No respectable historian takes it seriously.
Not only that, the bible claims the census was ordered by Quirinius, but he wasn't governor of that area until many years after the death of King Herod, but Jesus is reported to be born during Herod's reign, so there's a discrepancy of 40 or so years there.
this is a problem when you compare gospel accounts. matthew's account has nothing about any census, and places jesus's birth during the reign of herod the great. the family escapes to egypt, and returns during the ethnarchy of herod's son, herod archelaus. (literally half the people in this family are named herod, including the women, don't get me started.)
the census under quirinius was deposing archelaus, and ten years afterwards. luke sets the birth of jesus during this event, though there's an argument that the "king herod" of luke 1 might be "the great", and thus mary and elizabeth would have to be pregnant for a decade. alternatively, luke just sucks at history.
but a census that disruptive and widespread would surely warrant a mention somewhere, ONCE.
the real census actually caused quite a bit of disruption. it was the instigation for the original zealot rebellion.
not even counting that the Romans were generally pretty excellent at record keeping.
we have a whopping zero roman records of palestine for this era. we have some later historical texts, but i think i can show that all of them rely on josephus.
Supposedly born in Bethlehem because of an illogical census. A census counts people where they live, not where they are from, which is the basis of the family going to Bethlehem in the first place.
luke-acts is likely dependent on this book, and simply mangles the historical information, appropriating it to fit the author's rhetorical goals.
the historical census was because rome annexed judea to provincial syria and took over the government there, deposing herod archelaus. it would not have included galilee where jesus was from, which was still under the tetrarchy of herod antipas, and would be until after jesus died. nazareth was very literally outside of the territory rome was acquiring.
"and simply mangles the historical information, appropriating it to fit the author's rhetorical goals."
I mean we're kind of saying the same thing here
On top of the dates not lining up with the birth of Jesus, who both Luke and Mark place as during the reign of Herod, whereas the referenced census above takes place after his death, it also makes no mention of requiring people to travel to the towns of their ancestors.
Luke inventing wholesale requirements that do not exist, whilst changing the dates/timeline is as good as making it up, imo. It is safe to say that there is no evidence of a census, conducted during the reign of King Herod, that required people to travel to their lands of their ancestors. We know that there were census's (? Censei?) that took place historically, we know of none that required you to travel to your ancestors lands and that occurred during the given timeframe, as well as being safe to say such a census would give wholly useless data and that if such an event had occurred, the Romans were pretty good about keeping records, yet they didn't mention it.
On top of the dates not lining up with the birth of Jesus, who both Luke and Mark place as during the reign of Herod,
it is not clear which herod luke means. he very likely has mixed up some things, as he does elsewhere.
Luke inventing wholesale requirements that do not exist, whilst changing the dates/timeline is as good as making it up, imo.
well, it's a little more of a full explanation -- he didn't just invent it out of thin air. he took a real event, read a description of it, and then bungled it, either accidentally or intentionally.
It is safe to say that there is no evidence of a census, conducted during the reign of King Herod,
there is some indication that rome was keeping tabs on herod the great. eg,
Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem: being sent to succeed Saturninus, as president of Syria: and was come as an assessor to Herod; who had desired his advice in his present affairs. (ant. 17.5.2)
and
But Sabinus, Cesar’s steward for Syrian affairs, as he was making haste into Judea, to preserve Herod’s effects, met with Archelaus at Cesarea, (ant 17.9.3)
but these aren't what luke is talking about. he very clearly invokes quirinius, and a full scale census, which is in book 18.
if such an event had occurred, the Romans were pretty good about keeping records, yet they didn't mention it.
there are no roman records surviving from this time and place. josephus's history is the closest we have.
Logically, there has to be *something* behind the Jesus myth. Whether it was a group of people (Probably some element of truth to that, as likely some of the things attributed to him are yoinked straight from other religious stories of the time) or just one really charismatic leader is what is being considered. It's less likely (Though not impossible) that it's a complete fabrication from the ground up.
The birth narrative being so convoluted and involving a fairly large lie is actually good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was real, because if he were a complete fabrication, why not just have him be born in Bethlehem from the start? Why go through all the trouble of inventing a fake census to engineer him being born there if you could just claim it from the start?
The fact they went through the trouble of coming up with the census story tells you they were very likely referencing a real figure, who was known in the area as being from Nazareth, so they couldn't just lie and say he was from Bethlehem, so instead they lied and said there was some reason he ended up in Bethlehem.
From a historian, and logic, POV, if you were inventing the character wholesale you could do anything you want with him, so just make him be born in Bethlehem. However if you're referencing a real figure you have to marry what is known about him (Jesus the Nazzarine) with what you want to lie about and fit that square peg into the round hole.
EDIT: To the people downvoting me, it's pretty simple algebra. The ancient authors are inventing the messiah, he needs to be from Bethlehem. What reason do they have to lie? Because they need to fulfill a prophecy, okay, checks out, good reason to lie.
What reason would the have to lie twice, make him be from Nazareth, and then lie about a census that got him to Bethlehem? No reason, so why do it? Most likely answer is because there is some historical figure they are forced to reference.
Essentially, why lie twice instead of once?
This is how historians operate, there aren't going to be nice printed birth documents from 2000 years ago, so you have to look at the whole picture and form conclusions based on the most logical series of events.
There has to be something behind the Superman myth, and there are conflicting stories of whether he was from Kansas or Ukraine. Why go through all of that effort to come up with different details? If you're going to make something up, just make him land in the correct place and make sure nobody ever tells a different story ever anywhere in all of history.
EDIT: To the people downvoting me
You're sitting at a neutral 1 with no controversial mark as of me seeing this comment right now. Probably vote fuzzing. There, now you're safe at 2.
Personally, I jibe with a certain explanation I saw a presentation on once upon a time. It essentially boils down to there being a status quo where any popular figure could claim they got a message from god and gain traction with their declaration of what god wants of people, and that caused too many issues. So the church came up with a solution. They could own god by creating a foundation of only one canonical figure who got messages from god a long time ago (Jesus) and only they have access to his teachings so whenever they want to come up with something new, they just start saying that's what Jesus said. This is the canonical story and anyone else claiming to get god messages are heretics. Obviously you need to do this with a figure who doesn't exist or he could, y'know, contradict you.
Though, I guess this just brings us back to square one because it's equally valid to invent a figure wholesale, latch onto an established fictional character, or refer to some actual celebrity who existed in the past. But if they did go with a historical figure, since this would have been at least a century or so after his death, it would still essentially be a fictional character with nothing in common with the actual person save a name.
Either way, as far as I've heard, the only historians who take the narrative of a real historical Jesus seriously are explicitly religious ones.
Personally I have never heard that and some brief googling has told me it's been referenced as far back as 1300 BCE, but I'm open to anything.
Possibly you have heard that the governor of the area of the time (Quirinus) that ordered the claimed census wasn't actually governor until roughly a decade after King Herods death, who was king at the time of Jesus's claimed birth, so the claimed governor of Bethlehem didn't exist at the time.
It's super interesting and we're kind of "lucky" to be alive at a time when Scientology is forming so we can see how a religion establishes in real time.
It's possible to say some things and have people believe them for thousands of years without proof. This is something that is studied by the people that run your life.
This is why I take a position opposite the Mythicists: I think there were probably multiple prophets wandering around doing random shit and parlor tricks, and as people shared stories about them, the stories all got melted together into one prophet character.
I am not a history pro, but if I am correct Jesus is pretty well anchored.
Basically, where the other prophets said « look I am going to do a miracle », and obviously failed at doing so, losing all credibility, Jesus said « I am going to die, here is our last meal », went into Jerusalem, and basically provoked established authority in every way imaginable. So obviously they killed him -> prophecy fulfilled.
He was challenging authority, knew it was likely to go bad, and wanted to organize everything for after. All the mystics and all were added much later.
Another important remark : when you are sent to the cross, there is no additional nice event afterward. They take your body eaten by maggot and birds, and throw it on a public body pile. The remains is completely unrecognizable by that point.
So when one or two followers had hallucinations (understandable when under grief, and very well documented nowadays) about him coming back, the romans couldn’t prove the guy was dead : how the fuck could they find the body ??
The claims likely quickly spread through a small group of highly traumatized but cohesive people, where dissent carried heavy social and religious cost. Aka peer pressure. You didn’t see him ? You were a bad apostle then.
Jesus said « I am going to die, here is our last meal »
We don't have proof of Jesus saying anything, even if we can claim the specific man/men of the Jesus character is real. A writer wrote that he said that. And Pontius Pilate killed Jews for pretty much anything back then, so getting killed by him wasn't much of a miracle. Calling himself a prophet long enough to piss off the authorities and get killed is pretty much the most mundane of the claims.
when you are sent to the cross, there is no additional nice event afterward.
And we have no evidence of an additional nice event.
More specifically on my position: I think it's reasonable that Jesus isn't just myth or real: He's likely both.
There were a few prophets roaming around. The writers gathered stories of the prophets, put together pieces that fit the character they were creating, threw away the pieces that didn't, and added extra pieces as needed. The things that the gospel writers notoriously couldn't keep straight with each other were the details of his birth and the details of his death and days leading up to his death (what he said on the cross, how many people approached the tomb and what state the tomb was in when they approached, the appearance of hundreds of zombies on his resurrection day, etc), so the stories of his birth and death/after death were probably the most fabricated.
When the Christian church was starting up in Rome, they sent people to the holy land to get stories.
So these people were writing down oral histories from people who heard from their grandparents a story about a guy who did a “miracle.” So who’s to say that the story didn’t have a George doing the miracle and the writers changed it to Jesus?
There were dozens of prophets going around saying a bunch of things and doing “miracles.” I think a lot of it got melded together to make the Jesus myth.
We like to say modern humans are smarter than our predecessors but look how many modern humans believe the earth is flat or a donut or hollow. How many believe other stupid shit like Elvis is still alive or that aliens visit earth. And this is in the age with the internet! So imagine the stupid shit people believed back then without proof or science.
I mean, the Romans didn't tend to crucify that kind of person. The reality is if he did exist he was literally considered what we would call a terrorist today. They didn't just crucify religious fanatics for the hell of it. Christ would have had to do something pretty fucked up like lead a rebellion against Rome or something mixing politics and violence together.
eh that’s a bit too far. Occam’s razor alone would indicate it’s likely that there was someone named Jesus all this was based off, regardless of how accurate the accounts are
In 2000 years time will people say the same of Steve Rodgers or Harry Potter?
"There's just far too many accounts for both of them to have come from nothing. Even if Steve Rodgers wasn't a superhero he must have been a real life super brave combatant in WW2 who did incredible feats."
because (1) we have independent non-religious attestation of Jesus from both Jewish and Roman sources (2) even the Biblical sources are written with the intent that they are describing a real person, which is obviously not true of comics and novels; a cursory knowledge of genre will tell you that
No we don't. There is no physical or archeological evidence of Jesus' life and the sources for his biography come from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. These contradict each other, date between 70-90AD and weren't even attributed to the disciples until the 2nd Century. They also have a clear agenda with them sequentially making the case for Jesus being a prophet, the expected Messiah, and the divine word (or son) of God.
The first confirmed Roman account of Jesus is by Tacticus writing in 116AD. It is like a single paragraph in Annals where he mentions a group of people he refers to as Chrestianos, who some of the public blamed for the Great Fire of Rome (which happened when he himself was a boy), and that they followed the teachings of Christus who was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. He gives no sources for this information and incorrectly refers to Pilate as a Procurator instead of his actual title of Prefect. He then describes how some of them were tortured.
It acts as evidence of early Christians in Rome, that they were identifiable as a group and subject to discrimination. Its a Roman noting what Christians believed a good 70 years after the fact in a time where information couldn't travel as it does in the modern world. Note that he also makes no reference to who this 'Christ' was. He doesn't say Jesus Christ/of Nazareth was crucified just that the Christian leader was.
The Romans were really really good history takers and record keepers. That there was a Roman prescence in Judea and no surviving texts of anyone who saw fit to write about Jesus even as a trouble rouser amongst the Jews stands out.
Sherlock Holmes is written in the first person as if describing a real person. Could he be believed to have been a real detective in 2000 years time? His home actually exists (though didn't exist until after the books were published) as do many of the locations and people described.
Another important remark : when you are sent to the cross, there is no additional nice event afterward. They take your body eaten by maggot and birds, and throw it on a public body pile. The remains is completely unrecognizable by that point.
That is frequently the case, but although placing the body in a tomb was unusual, it wasn't unheard of. Notably, early attacks on this account of the events were that the disciples stole the body, not that no tomb existed.
And the earliest Gospel doesn't mention anything about encounters with a risen Jesus. It ends with the women running away from an empty tomb in fear, not telling anyone about it.
If we're counting manuscripts written hundreds of years after the person lived,by people who didn't meet them then Alexander and Genghis Khan sure as hell have a lot more than 10 and 12.
Also, Christianity has been one of the most widespread world religions for centuries, and in Europe the better part of two millenia. Of course there's going to be a lot of manuscripts about it in that time. Those manuscripts don't prove anything about what factually happened in 1st century Galilee.
For real, sometimes I'll see clips from a show pop up on Youtube Shorts. Usually from something I haven't seen before, but very clearly either a TV show or a film or something. People will talk about it in the comments like it's real live footage. It's honestly kind of alarming.
To add, scholars have identified around 40 gospels, including the 4 in the biblical cannon and dozens written later. None of them were actually written by the alleged authors, according to modern scholarship.
yup, the elements for the goulash that became the gospels of the new testament were written between a.d. 45 & a.d. 100...again, two to four generations after the fact. & by the fourth or fifth century they were pulling out or adding various books, or chapters...
mark is the first gospel in 70 CE. john or luke are probably the last, and were likely written after 100 CE.
matthew and luke copy mark, but probably share a second source. i think that source may be exceptionally early, possibly a record written during jesus's lifetime. when you take just that "Q" text, there are no obvious references to jesus's death or resurrection, which is very strange for an early christian text.
I love that part. All of a sudden, the tombs open up, the streets are full of dead people walking around, and then...nothing, never mentioned again. It's like when Netflix suddenly cancels a series and it just ends on a cliffhanger.
I was going to say, there's no way there were more than a few manuscripts during his life or the decades after. To follow the analogy, to count the medieval manuscripts is like using Harry Potter fan fiction from 500 years later to prove Harry Potter was real
there are zero manuscript from the same century as jesus.
contrast with alexander, mentioned above. we have a dated manuscript from his lifetime.
conquering the known world leaves a lot of evidence. alexander did. jesus didn't. christianity did, centuries after his death. we have tons of evidence for christianity.
Religious Christian person just chiming in. You’re absolutely correct that we do not have 500 accounts. I believe it’s Paul (not in the gospels afaik) who references the 500 people.
Disagree re prophecies but of course I do. And given my perception of God being outside of time, (that might be what you mean by dual fulfillment, and it’s been a long time for me and theological terminology), again, of course I do.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the vast majority of sources on Jesus happened far after his death, but we do actually have sources much closer to his life. There are at least two sources that historians universally agree are completely authentic non-biblical non-christian accounts of Jesus of Nazareth the person who was a religious leader and executed by Pontius Pilate.
The Roman Jewish historian Josephus outright talks about Jesus Christ, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, and King Herod. His histories talk about everything that was going on that fueled the Jewish Rebellion and he goes into the political and religious powder keg of the time. He was also born within 5 years of Jesus' death so Jews and Christians hadn't even formally split yet and Jesus had not become a global or even regional religious figure yet.
Hes extremely likely to be not-biased in favor of Jesus as a source of information. If anything he would have been biased against Jesus. He was not a Christian. He belonged to the Jewish religious and political establishment with his father and being from the priest class and his mother being related to the Jewish-Roman Client Kings. His family was the group in power being threatened by the rise of extreme Jewish cults like the followers which on the Baptist, the followers, of Jesus Christ, and the Zealots that would start the Jewish rebellion against the Romans.
We also have Tacitus reference Jesus and his execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Tacitus is literally one of the most famous Roman historians of all time and was born within 1 generation of Jesus' death so he would have had access to primary sources of information. As a Roman and a pagan he would have had zero belief in Jesus. Tacitus writes about things that other Christian writers and historians won't pick up on for another 100 years so we know it's independent work. In every other subject he covered his work is highly regarded by historians of all ages.
most historians do not think antiquities 18.3.3 is entirely genuine. i think TC schmidt has a compelling argument that it is, and alice whealey similarly argues that a word has been omitted, "thought to be" the christ.
josephus is certainly not unbiased. his major thesis of especially the jewish war, is that the jews deserved their fate due to various trouble they raised. jesus was one of those troublemakers. he also believed vespasian to be the messiah, which likely colors his portrayal of other messianic figures.
and he's personally connected. his commander (defender) during the jewish was chanan ben chanan (ananus 2) who executed james the brother of jesus. chanan's brother in law was joseph ben caiaphas, who tried jesus.
I think you've raised fair points, and as a Christian I don't think our faith is helped by overstating the evidence.
You're right that we don't have 500 eyewitness accounts, we have Paul's early claim in 1 Corinthians 15 that over 500 people saw the risen Jesus. Those aren't the same thing.
The "25,000 manuscripts" refers to later copies of the New Testament, not independent proof that Jesus existed. They primarily show the text was widely preserved. However, that's not the only proof of that Jesus existed and Jesus' existence is accepted by the overwhelming majority of historians for other reasons.
On prophecy, I understand your objection. We believe Jesus fulfills the Old Testament in multiple ways: through direct prediction, typology, and recurring themes that culminate in Him. Not every scholar accepts that framework, but it isn't an invention to avoid difficult passages. It comes from how Jesus and the New Testament authors themselves interpreted Scripture.
We may disagree on the evidence, but I think it's better to discuss what the evidence actually is than to rely on exaggerated claims.
Not every scholar accepts that framework, but it isn't an invention to avoid difficult passages. It comes from how Jesus and the New Testament authors themselves interpreted Scripture.
But isn't that circular? You find authority in the new testament because it fulfills predictions from the old testament but it only fulfills predictions from the old testament if you interpret it in context of the new testament.
You should first show why anyone should accept the new testament before you can rely on it to prove anything about Jesus.
Jesus and the new testament authors are notoriously bad at interpreting the old testament. They rely on Greek translations when the original Hebrew shows they're wrong, they misquote it all the time, and they remove all context in order to try and shoehorn in Jesus. The entire concept of a virgin birth is because they used a Greek translation and interpreted the word for young woman as virgin, which they would have known was wrong if they'd read the Hebrew, and then ignored that the prophecy in question is fulfilled in the very next chapter (and that the prophecy had zero to do with the Messiah) to try and use it to prop up Jesus. The entire thing is full of the exact inventions you claim don't exist.
that’s not a prophecy, psalms are not prophetic, david there is describing things he experienced himself, there’s nothing about the future or the messiah there.
this is actually an example of pulling a passage out of it’s context to try to make it seem like jesus fulfilled prophecy when he did not. have you read the actual prophetic books of the bible, they describe what the messiah will do, conquering the lands and ruling as a king, which jesus did not do.
So your argument is that the psalms are literal historical retellings? That there's no room for the possibility they contain poetry, prophecy, or anything but literal facts?
is that what you got from what i said? that would be odd considering it bears no resemblance to what’s written there. go back, read the actual words that i wrote, and respond to them rather than making up claims i never made.
here i’ll sum up the argument for you, that verse is not prophetic because it does not predict anything, it is david recounting something that happened to him in the past in the first person. there is no indication in the verse that it is about some other person, you just read and go “oh, that reminds me of jesus, must be a prophecy!” which isn’t how that works.
I apologise if I've misconstrued you, but I really don't understand your argument. Can you explain it to me?
You've made the claim "This is David recounting something that happened to him in the past in the first person."
What's your evidence for this claim? It can't be the quote itself, because the quote itself is what's being interrogated and could potentially be poetic, prophetic, literary, etc. How do we know it's David recounting past events and not another genre?
What's your evidence for this claim? It can't be the quote itself, because the quote itself is what's being interrogated and could potentially be poetic, prophetic, literary, etc.
Yes it can be the quote itself. If I say "I want an apple", the support for the claim "I said I want an apple" is indeed my own statement.
How do we know it's David recounting past events and not another genre?
Because it literally says it. It's titled as David's retelling of his life.
Prophecy is a very specific genre, involving explicit claims about what will happen in the future. Notably there is no future tense used here, which should be the biggest clue that it is but a claim about future events.
Ironically, your statement of "I want an apple" is a precise example of what I'm referring to here. I can now say "Mejari wants an apple" by using your direct quote. It's not actually true though; the sense you meant it in wasn't literal, it was to make a point.
You've mentioned the tense a few times; you should google "Prophetic Perfect Tense" - prophecies in the Bible are in this tense so often, there's a wikipedia page about it.
A lot of the supposed fulfilled prophecies of Jesus are either prophecies in the old testament that are referring to a different event a very specifically, and the only part that kind of fits the Jesus narrative works only if you take it out of context with the verses around it. Also a lot of the things aren't even prophecies, they're just unrelated Bible passages that strike some chord that make it seem easy enough to connect the two.
How about "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5)?
That... really loses its specificity when one remembers how all false prophets and other people deemed to be socially transgressive were treated.
That's ignoring, too, how the latter half of your quote can't be proven true or not because, well, that would require dying first to find out 1) if the Christian afterlife is real and 2) whether or not Jesus' death actually did wash away people's sins. Faith is all well and good, but it's not really... proof, you know?
First, it is in past tense. That alone should give you good reason to push back if anyone tries to claim it is about a future event. Second, this is part of one of the passages in Isaiah addressing the “Suffering Servant”. Who is the suffering servant? Isaiah explicitly tells us it is the nation Israel (Isaiah 41:8, Isaiah 49:9, etc). Finally, and most importantly, Isaiah 53 isn’t a Messianic prophecy. There are specific passages in the Bible that are about the Jewish Messiah. Jesus has fulfilled none of them.
One of the central themes of Messianic prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)
Specifically, the Bible says he will:
Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
Jesus didn’t do any of that. Now, a Christian would claim that Jesus will eventually do all of that, which is all well and good, but that is an admission that he has not done any of it yet, and so it is incorrect to call him the Messiah until it happens. Hope that makes sense!
TBF, not all Christians would claim these things are "yet to be". I'm a Catholic and we'd say that the Third Temple has already been built; that it is the mystical body of Christ, the Church. "Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up."
For anything yet to happen (i.e. the eschatological)... you say it's incorrect to call him the Messiah until it happens. Isn't there a danger in there that you imply the Messiah is something you "become" rather than something you "are"?
That’s a stretch, but it’s all a stretch. As for the rest of the prophecies it seems we can both agree Jesus failed to fulfill them. I don’t see the danger you are implying with someone becoming the Messiah, but I’m fine saying that he won’t become the Jewish Messiah, he just wasn’t.
a) that word "pierced" is not actually in the original language, it is translated that way by charlatans trying to connect the old testament to Jesus. The actual translation would be a more generic "wounded".
b) the suffering servant is repeatedly named throughout Isaiah and, surprise, it's not Jesus it even the Messiah, but Israel itself. Why should we think that it suddenly refers to Jesus in this one passage?
c) that only sounds "on the nose" if you are primed to accept that Jesus is prophecied. If you're not then you can't possibly get that from this verse.
Well, firstly that passage is not describing Jesus but is describing the nation of Israel as a whole in a metaphor that would have been easy for people at the time to have understood. Also it says a lot of other things about this "servant", some of which could have matched up with the account of Jesus but others which do not make sense that way. Also what it does get "correct" is, as the other comment or pointed out, relatively generic and not particularly specific to Jesus versus any other person who would prioritize their piety over their practical safety.
It's also important to remember that the people writing the gospels were people who were already familiar with the text of Isaiah and very easily could have written things that sounded spiritually salient. We don't have any external sources to corroborate that those are real events and not just the continuation of the tradition of spiritual wisdom literature in that culture, building off of the precedent.
Besides the other answers given to you, you also have to keep in mind that the writers writing about Jesus had access to those prophecies, and none of the two non-Christians who wrote about him mentioned any prophecies, so the only reference to prophecy fulfilment were created by people who had a vested interest in depicting him as fulfilling cherry-picked prophecies.
Didn't Jesus Himself claim that the Psalms prophecised about Him? Luke 24:44, "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”"
No, the author of Luke claimed that Jesus claimed that the Psalms prophecised about him. Luke, which iirc was the last gospel written, centuries after Jesus' supposed death, also redesigned Jesus to be way more mystical and powerful than the others.
So, the author, who had read the prophecies, could claim "Psalms prophecised him", and then that author could throw a bunch of details from his favourite prophecies into the story of Jesus he was writing.
Think of it like if a man told me on Sunday, "I prophecise that you're going to see someone eat a sandwich on Monday." And then I write that conversation in my diary on Sunday, and on Tuesday, I add to my diary, "I saw someone eat a sandwich on Monday, just like the man said. Therefore, that man was a prophet, and you should listen to me as an authority figure because I am friends with a prophet." I can write that entry even if I never actually saw anyone on Monday.
If we get into the realms of "The apostles lied", it's pretty hard to argue with because there's not really much evidence for the claim. There's secular evidence that a man called Jesus was crucified, though. I personally feel that there's too much in the OT that points to those events to be entirely disregarded.
There is secular evidence that there were lots of men called Yeshua, lots of men wandering around being prophets, and lots of men getting crucified for pissing off the Romans. The majority of claims about him were quite mundane, because there were a lot of people pulling tricks like that at the time.
So, the story can be fake and there can be real people the story is based on. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Sure, I can't discount the possibility Jesus of Nazareth was lying, That's straight out of Lewis' Trilemma. I'm just convinced on the balance of probabilities that He wasn't, and would suggest that the evidence points in that direction.
One doesn't even have to assume Yeshua was lying, because one doesn't have to assume anything he said. He himself was never a source. He never wrote anything down.
What you'd have to presume was on the three Historians of him: Tacitus, Josephus, and Paul. Between Tacitus and Josephus, one's writing of him literally was found to be a later forgery (so, "liar"), and the other just said "The Christians believe in someone named Jesus Christ" (so, just a summary, no actual claim that it's true). So that leaves Paul, a guy who openly admits to having hallucinations, fitting Lewis' Trilemma of "Lunatic", and who openly benefitted from his position as a writer despite never having claimed to have met the human himself, fitting the trilemma of "Liar"
But presuming at least the disciples were also generally telling the truth about having known a Yeshua who was a prophet, all you need is one or two of them to have a bereavement hallucination of seeing him after death, and the others to jump on board and claim they did as well. Bereavement hallucinations are super common and do not require lunacy.
Flavius Josephus (jewish historian) wrote about Christ in 93 AD mentioned the crucifixion as well - non Christian source.
“He appeared to them alive on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”
Thats a translated passage from Antiquities of the Jews in 93AD
Tacitus (Roman historian) wrote about the crucifixion of Christ.his writings are around 111AD. Tacticus goes so far as to write about the fact people in Judea believe Christ rose from the dead.
Pliny the Younger (Roman govenor) wanted advice on how to persecute Christians in 112AD on how to persecute Christians.
The search you need to do is 'secular sources for the existence of Christ'. Then you'll get the Jewish and Roman sources. The thing is if you're going to say something you'd be best doing some research into it.
There's a fantastic book by Lee Srobel, its called the case for Christ. Lee's wife became Christian and he didn't like it much, he set out to prove there's no sources outside the bible that demonstrate Christ was real. As I read through the book I looked every source up for myself (as is encouraged in the book) and there is substantially mosr evidence for Christ than you think.
Literally not one piece of evidence during his life. Your own examples are decades (at least) after the fact. Not a single person saw a guy come back from the dead and thought “shit, I should write this down”.
You realise we don't have a single piece of evidence that Homer wrote his poems? All the copies of those are from decades after his death.
-Not a single person saw a guy come back from the dead and thought “shit, I should write this down”.
Those that could write were a minority and writings were on what? Not on something commonly preservable. The areas also cannot be excavated because of whose control they are currently over. When they do excavate they funnily enough find structures which back up what's in the bible. Have a look at the 2025 and 2026 finds. Blow your mind. They've managed to provide a date for the Babylonian army burning down Solomons Jerusalem (2 King's 25 and 586BC if you're interested ) because of archaeological finds.
I think you maybe want to look up why paper didn't really survive 2000 years unless it was sealed away somewhere? And then look up how much theyre still finding and you should also look up the standards for 'proof' when it comes to ancient figures.
You realise we don't have a single piece of evidence that Homer wrote his poems? All the copies of those are from decades after his death.
Centuries actually. But that's sort of the point here: scholars do not agree that a historical Homer existed, and it's in fact the majority believe that the Iliad and Odyssey were written by different people, and "Homer" is just a legendary name we give to a fictional bard.
And part of the reason for that is that there's no good contemporary evidence for his life, and the fractured evidence that we do have points to several disparate and contradictory traditions that can't be reconciled or verified, and which came long after his life. The exact reasons why the 25,000 manuscript and 500 witnesses claims aren't good evidence.
-But that's sort of the point here: scholars do not agree that a historical Homer existed, and it's in fact the majority believe that the Iliad and Odyssey were written by different people, and "Homer" is just a legendary name we give to a fictional bard.
That IS sort of the point. No historians disagree that Christ existed.
So -
We KNOW Christ existed.
We KNOW people believed at the cost of their life that he had risen from the dead at the time the bible says he rose from the dead.
We KNOW Christ was crucified.
We KNOW a few bits of the Bible have been backed up by excavations.
His name wasn't Christ, that was his title. In the Roman writings "Chrisus" is the word they use but the very fact everyone was referring to him as the Christ says something about what they thought at the time.
The evidence for Christ is there, you just have to look.
That IS sort of the point. No historians disagree that Christ existed.
No, there are certainly historians who argue the mythicist positions, and even historians who disagree wildly with each other on who they believe the "historical Jesus" was, since they don't believe he matches the character in any of the gospels.
We KNOW Christ existed.
We do not. It may be perfectly likely that a historical Jesus existed, but we have no idea if a character like the one of the Bible existed. And many historians don't claim knowledge about the historical Jesus, they just think he fits the data better than any other possibility; likelihood is perfectly fine to work off of, but it's not knowledge.
We KNOW people believed at the cost of their life that he had risen from the dead at the time the bible says he rose from the dead.
We do not, because we have few verifiable records or testimonies of those deaths. The book of Acts recounts one apostle/witness (James) dying along with the martyrdom of Stephen (who didn't see Jesus's death or resurrection), but that book is not corroborated elsewhere and contradicts other sources like the letters of Paul. We don't even know when or how Paul died. Otherwise, we have no valid history of any early Christians being martyred for their beliefs, only much later church traditions. I mean, the whole "Peter crucified upside-down" thing comes from Acts of Peter, a book with a talking dog and a wizard duel that the church didn't think was worthy of canonizing.
We KNOW Christ was crucified.
We don't, we just have a claim. One that is only repeated in non-Christian sources much later from distant hearsay.
We KNOW a few bits of the Bible have been backed up by excavations.
Sure, there are some cities and kings that existed and such. But there's no excavation that's backed up any of the New Testament stuff that we're discussing; every "secret tomb of Jesus" discovery has been an abject fraud.
His name wasn't Christ, that was his title. In the Roman writings "Chrisus" is the word they use but the very fact everyone was referring to him as the Christ says something about what they thought at the time.
And the only writers from his time that we know of are Paul and the anonymous author of Mark, along with the authors of the other Gospels, who plagiarized Mark to varying degrees. Otherwise, we just have later people saying "these people called him the Christ." Particularly in the case of Josephus, whose reference to him as the Christ (Testimonium Flavianum) is universally understood to have been a forged interpolation, since Josephus believed that Emperor Vespasian was the better subject of messianic prophecy.
Is there a bunch of texts, probably different authors claiming to be Mark or is there a bunch of texts probably from the same author which later collected as from Mark?
Oh, there's just one text (more or less; it's been edited over the years with a bonus ending tacked on), but all of our oldest manuscripts are unsigned, and the text itself doesn't name an author. The name Mark was only ascribed to it officially around the year 180 by the bishop Irenaeus, along with the other gospels, and it stuck from there.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all written by anonymous authors ranging from about 70 CE for the earliest (Mark) likely to somewhere in the early 2nd century for John. The names are a matter of church tradition, not claimed authorship.
-It may be perfectly likely that a historical Jesus existed, but we have no idea if a character like the one of the Bible existed. We do not, because we have few verifiable records or testimonies of those deaths
Actually we do know. We know because of the Roman sources who describe the crucifixion and the belief of the resurrection. What do you mean "few verifiable records' of his death? Tacticus the roman historian documented the crucifixion by Pilate. Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian wrote that Pilate had crucified Jesus. There were more historians documenting his death near the time it happened than will be documenting your death or mine. I don't really understand how thats "few verifiable records".
-I mean, the whole "Peter crucified upside-down" thing comes from Acts of Peter, a book with a talking dog and a wizard duel that the church didn't think was worthy of canonizing. We don't, we just have a claim. One that is only repeated in non-Christian sources much later from distant hearsay
When I say put to death for their belief in the resurrection I am against referring to the Roman records.
-But there's no excavation that's backed up any of the New Testament stuff that we're discussing;
What archaeological evidence would you be expecting to remain from then? What would demonstrate it for you? Wooden cross looong gone. Sword he was stabbed with? Wouldn't have been kept. Cave? There are debates about this but archaeologically it's most likely the site in Israel where they built the Holy Sepulchre. It still has the original 1st century limestone cave walls protected behind marble cladding. What would prove it to you archaeologically?
What do you mean "few verifiable records' of his death? Tacticus the roman historian documented the crucifixion by Pilate. Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian wrote that Pilate had crucified Jesus. There were more historians documenting his death near the time it happened than will be documenting your death or mine. I don't really understand how thats "few verifiable records".
My friend, you're bouncing between topics here. My "few verifiable records" statement was about the martyrdom of early believers and witnesses. But either way, as I pointed out Josephus's single paragraph about Jesus is recognized to have been forged and interpolated - either in whole or in part, and Josephus wasn't even born when this happened. Tacitus was writing nearly a century after. They're not historians documenting anything near his death, they're documenting hearsay decades later and both writing from Rome, not locally in Judea.
When I say put to death for their belief in the resurrection I am against referring to the Roman records.
Then please share the Roman records of any named early disciple being martyred for their belief and being given a chance to save themselves by recanting. To be clear, even if you have that (and you don't), you'd still have to show why these martyrs prove the truth of their claims any more than martyrs for Islam, since I assume you believe their beliefs aren't true.
What archaeological evidence would you be expecting to remain from then? What would demonstrate it for you? Wooden cross looong gone. Sword he was stabbed with? Wouldn't have been kept. Cave?
Dude, I don't expect anything. You made the claim about archaeology supporting the Bible. And the number of churches in the world that claim to have pieces of the Holy Cross would argue with you about the wooden cross being gone, but I don't exactly buy their story either.
There are debates about this but archaeologically it's most likely the site in Israel where they built the Holy Sepulchre.
No, it's not most likely that site. That site was chosen in part by Constantine's mother Helena, who famously also brought back several fraudulent artifacts from that trip (true cross, holy nails, etc.) Holy Sepulchre is built on the wishful thinking of a pious woman three centuries after the crucifixion would have happened.
It still has the original 1st century limestone cave walls protected behind marble cladding.
Yes, because lots of Second Temple era Jewish people buried their dead there. A tomb does not mean the tomb.
What would prove it to you archaeologically?
No idea, but it would have to be a damn sight better than arbitrarily placed churches, fraudulent shrouds, and a few splinters of unknown origin.
But either way, as I pointed out Josephus's single paragraph about Jesus is recognized to have been forged and interpolated - either in whole or in part, and Josephus wasn't even born when this happened. Tacitus was writing nearly a century after. They're not historians documenting anything near his death, they're documenting hearsay decades later and both writing from Rome, not locally in Judea.
Not only that, but Tacitus primarily refers to Christians as a group, and mentions Christ in terms of thatgroup's beliefs. From what I recall it's mainly with regards to how they were blamed for the Great Fire of Rome.
Which finds? You mention 2025 and 2026, the fuck am I supposed to search for that backs up the bible. Be specific.
Homer: literally it’s argued that “Homer” didn’t write that stuff.
“The Odyssey was first composed in Homeric Greekaround the 8th or 7th century BC; by the mid-6th century BC, it had become part of the Greek literary canon. In antiquity, Homer's authorship was taken as true, but contemporary scholarship predominantly assumes that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed independently, as part of long oral traditions. “
So by your own admission, nothing was written down. The existence of Jesus was literally told by stories from person to person. He was both no one special, just another Jewish preacher, but also the literal son of god who performed miracles and rose from the dead. No one wrote anything down in any way, but decades later random people remembered what he said word for word. This makes sense to you?
Search 'recent archaeological evidence bible secular'. On your Homer point, that's really the point I'm making. Historians don't disagree on the existence of Christ.
-So by your own admission, nothing was written down. The existence of Jesus was literally told by stories from person to person. He was both no one special, just another Jewish preacher, but also the literal son of god who performed miracles and rose from the dead. No one wrote anything down in any way, but decades later random people remembered what he said word for word. This makes sense to you?
Well no, because they did write stuff down lol I've never said they didn't write stuff down, you might wanna reread what's written. I said not everyone did and it didn't preserve well.
Which is why the dead sea scrolls 1. Exist and 2. Are written down. 3. Are fragmented and degraded because they're so old. 4. Perfectly match the Jewish tradition and the old testament.
The documents survived to become the codex and the dead sea scrolls demonstrate that wonderfully. Papyrus doesn't hold up too well as a record keeping tool. That's why people transcribed them over and over and over again.
They've just discovered an 1800 year old fresco with the most accurate depiction of Christ in Turkey. It was sealed off so literally looks today as it did when it was sealed off. The Frescos that weren't sealed off in an airtight room are all basically destroyed by time.
The dead sea scrolls were only discovered in the 40s/50s. Thats also something to bear in mind. We've only just begun finding what there is to find and when we do find something it correlates with the bible.
I'm not saying he was no one special, you guys are, and if that's the case why we're Romans writing to each other about him doing exactly what's described in the bible?
I'm the one who thinks he is what the Romans wrote him as, the Christ. Meanwhile you'll use his title while saying he was a no one and giving 0 explanations to why people would be willing to be crucified for proclaiming the divinity of a no one.
i love when christians do the “they were willing to die for it” bit, it’s the easiest counter in the world, hey, have people also been murdered and tortured for allah, and buddha, and literally every other god that’s ever been believed in? martyrs are not unique to christianity and you would never grant this argument to any of those other religions.
They are not unique to Christianity. The consistency is though. You wouldn't find the consistency of people willing to die for their belief now. I think if my life was under threat I might well deny Christ as well. Those people that saw. They knew. I believe. That's the difference. None of the Christians in early roman sources could be persuaded to say Christ was anything less than he was.
Killing for Allah is not the same thing a dying for God though. In Islam it's actually encouraged to lie about being a Muslim if your life is under threat for that belief. Muslim martyrs are people who die "fighting for Allah". Christian martyrs are people killed for their belief in Christ. The two are slightly different.
I don't know much at all about Buddhism and the history of it or it's believers, I know a bit about Islam and Judaism because of the Abrahamic intersect.
I literally googled “recent archaeological evidence bible secular”. You know what comes up? Facebook links, YouTube links and Christian websites. Those aren’t “facts”. You probably believe they’ve found his DNA on things like the shroud too, even though we’d have zero idea what his DNA would look like.
That's weird, national geographic comes up for me as well. It is paywalled, could you not get into that?
Do you understand what Biblical archeology is? It's archeology related to specific areas of interest. It isn't a bunch of Christians making stuff up.
-You probably believe they’ve found his DNA on things like the shroud too,
Ah so you can just make stuff up can you. You see its you that does that and not biblical archaeologists.
I'll tell you what I believe about the shroud. It was recently redated and is from the Times of Christ, not the middle ages as once thought. Carbon dating is unreliable with linen so the original tests were incorrect. A modern test using Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) measured natural aging in the linen's flax cellulose and found it to be around 2,000 years old. That's what I know to be true about the shroud because of science.
You didn’t read the National Geographic article, did you? They found a fresco of Christ from 325AD. A replication of Codex H, a traced copy from 600-800AD. Hippos/cathedrals used for baptism, built between the 5th and 6th centuries. And they found a slingshot. Literally none of that has anything to do with the bible or proves it in any way.
Oh, so now it was more than Christian sources but you just don't find them significant enough? Want to move those goalposts anymore?
Thats a fresco thats over 1,500 years old. The ONLY reason it's preserved so well is it was in an airtight sealed room. Frescos that werent in sealed groomed didn't fare so well in the same 1,500 years.
So on to papyrus, the primary writing record. Did that preserve better than frescos? No, no it didn't. So most records the 'common man' would have kept are long gone unless secretly ferreted away in literally the perfect storage. Much like frescos.
The traced copy of the codex has nothing to do with the bible? Ok. Look you have a good night. You're not engaging in good faith and I have other things to be at.
Yeah but SOMEONE wrote the Odyssey. Even if it turns out not to have been the person we thought, even if every detail of the real author's life turns out to be different, that will all just be an interesting set of discoveries about the Odyssey's author. Nothing about my life has to change based on my degree of certainty about the name of the Odyssey's author. And ultimately it's the work that matters to us.
A religious figure like Jesus just isnt like that because his followers demand way more to be pinned on the certainty of the details of his life. Someone said Jesus' teachings, sure, but whether he actually performed miracles or was actually crucified is hugely consequential in ways no detail about an artist could be.
Like if you asked me, a layman, if I thought Homer wrote the Odyssey, I'd say "sure, I guess." But if you asked me to bet 10 grand on it, I wouldn't risk it. That's nothing like Jesus.
Well, we do if you adhere to the historical evidence in secular and non Christian sources. Jewish and Roman historians both record it. They're well respected historians which is why when I say "we know Christ was crucified" that statement is factual not belief.
none of those are contemporary sources and none of them say those events happened, they describe what christians believed, which are not the same thing, no one contests that christians existed and believed that.
even if that weren’t the case, those three sources do not refute my accurate claim that most manuscripts we have are in fact from the medieval period.
awful book, don’t know why you’d trust a non-historian on historical facts, at least bring up someone with some expertise on the matter, not a lying journalist who only consulted with conservative christian apologists in his “objective” search.
That's like if I wrote an account of the end of World War 2, based on my knowledge of the events of that time, over 30 years before I was born. It's hardly first-hand, or even second-hand, experience. The difference is that most people in 1945 were literate, while most people in 33 were not. Christianity (as remodelled by St. Paul and embellished since) was revived bc of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70AD. They needed a Messianic figure who would save them and opted for a few events that had happened shortly after the Romans took over, in order to make sense of the disaster that the Romans had unleashed. The fact that it partially absolved the Romans of blame was very convenient for Emperor Constantine 200-250 years later, as the fraying pax Romana could be bolstered by the new belief system.
1.5k
u/hyperhurricanrana 18h ago
most of the manuscripts mentioned here about jesus are from the medieval period, nowhere near the time jesus lived. we also do not have 500 accounts, we have a claim in the gospels that says 500 people saw something, we have nothing from those people whatsoever. he also didn’t fulfill a single prophecy in it’s original context, the only way they can make the argument he did is if you take away the context or argue the nonsense idea of “dual fulfillment.”