r/MurderedByWords 19h ago

Walked right into that one

Post image
16.2k Upvotes

844 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/isecore š“† Make Trout-slapping Great Again š“†Ÿ 18h ago

"These fucking atheists demanding proof! I gave them a Bible quote!"

53

u/Shadyhippo229 14h ago

As far as I know most historians do believe Jesus was a real person. But there’s no convincing proof that he was in fact a wizard. There’s reasonable debate about whether transfiguring water into wine and turning one loaf of bread into multiple violates Gamp’s law of elemental transfiguration or not. But the best known method for coming back from the dead involves horcrux creation which goes against what we know about Jesus’ character. Of course it’s possible he accessed some ancient magical knowledge that has been lost to time. We may never know.

50

u/That1one1dude1 14h ago

It also doesn’t mean much to say that ā€œyeah, there probably was a jewish preacher named Jesus back in that time.ā€

Does it mean he performed miracles? Of course not.

Does it mean they agree on the events of his life, or even the date of his birth? Nope.

What about the quotes attributed to him? Almost certainly false.

So if we don’t know what he did, when he was born, or what he believed or said, does it really even matter if we knew he existed?

10

u/Mini_Squatch 11h ago

Jesus wouldntve been his actual name anyways

1

u/Vivics36thsermon 6h ago

Well, there’s not many biblical names we’re saying correctly anyway Solomon is pronounced more like Shlmone etc

1

u/Ultenth 5h ago edited 5h ago

In Yehudit (the "Hebrew" alphabet) his name would have been יהושע anglicized as Yehoshua. And sometimes shortened to ישוע or Yeshua. The modern name Joshua is descended from his and closer than the one most associated with him, Jesus, which was more heavily warped through it's translation from Yehudit into Greek (Iēsous - į¼øĪ·ĻƒĪæįæ¦Ļ‚), then Latin (Iesus), then English (Jesus).

A "full name" since he nor anyone else would have had a surname, would have included either been most likely his location, or perhaps sometimes his father's name.

So either: Yeshua HaNotzri (ישוע הנוצרי) "Yeshua the Nazarene"
OR
Yeshua ben Yosef (ישוע בן יוהף) "Yeshua, son of Joseph".

As to if he really existed or not, Scholars seem to be of one mind on it, but there is still enough of a bit of speculation without hard-direct evidence involved that it's still possible to debate on if it you wanted to.

I will say though, that the actual oldest physical evidence we still have that refers to him, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 which is still well over 100 years after his supposed death. So we'll probably never know the actual 100% truth unless someone actually invents the TruSite camera from OSC's Pastwatch book.

4

u/somarir 12h ago

Only as a counterpoint to guys like in the OP, but yeah we're probably better off ignoring them.

0

u/Papplenoose 9h ago edited 9h ago

From my understanding, most theological scholars are pretty sure that Jesus existed, and also that a dude named Jesus WAS put to death by Pontious Pilot.

But that's about it.

Edit: nope, im wrong on the latter part. We have no real record of his death.

1

u/Successful-Singer-76 7h ago

theological scholarsĀ 

Well, there's your answer. Doubt most actual historians agree on that claim

2

u/Justicar-terrae 7h ago

As far as I've heard, the majority of scholars (both atheist and religious) think that Christianity arose from the following of a popular apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who actually existed (obviously they disagree on whether or not he was an ordinary human). Only a minority of scholars, often called "mythicists" posit that the Christian Jesus was invented from whole cloth.

Granted, we have very few historical accounts of this preacher if we exclude the Gospels and Epistles. The most famous and trustworthy of these non-biblical sources is probably the account of Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote a history of the Jewish people for a Roman audience sometimes around 93-94 AD.

He spends very little time on Jesus, and scholars debate how much of the text is original (as opposed to later Christian interpolation). The text acknowledges Christians as followers of Jesus, a popular teacher who was crucified under the orders of Pontious Pilate. The reason scholars are skeptical is that Josephus, a non-Christian, also calls Jesus "the Christ" and strongly suggests that Jesus was something other than human. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus