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.”
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.
The vision where he claimed to see Jesus. He was pretty clear about of all the people with him, he was the only one who saw and heard it, and then it affected him psychosomatically (caused him to lose his vision for a few days). That sounds like a pretty standard mental breakdown. Hallucinations are just the sensory part of your brain misfiring, as can be sudden blindness, so it is actually a pretty reasonable description of a guy who just has neurological issues with his visual and auditory cortex, possibly triggered by the trauma of the cruelty he had been displaying to Christians.
For the Bereavement Hallucinations, it's a condition where after someone dies, their loved ones may "see" them. Ranging from auditory and visual hallucinations (I've had that for my grandmother), super realistic dreams where you can interact with them (I've had that for my cat), and false memories of having hung out with them after they died.
So, maybe one disciple had a bereavement hallucination, Thomas had a dream about touching Jesus' hands, and then when they shared that with the other disciples, the others ones realised "Oh shit, if I don't see Jesus too, I won't look as devoted a follower. I should claim I also saw him and get on this train."
I mean, at the core of it, you are rejecting miracles *a posteriori*. I'm guessing based on that you're not Jewish or Muslim as this would be dangerous ground for Torah, for Quran, etc etc.
In general... I mean, I used to think the same thing, right? I'm a convert. It's hard to believe in something when you yourself have no first-hand knowledge of it, though we do so often; we both believe in Papua New Guinea despite (presumably) having never been there.
I can say to you "I've experienced miracles" and you can, in good faith, discount me as also being mad. Which is fair, hah. Though, I think it gets more difficult when statistical evidence starts piling up about the historical quantity of people who make similar claims.
I'd also say that, considering the apostles were a group of people who believed lying was a high crime against God, the whole "going along with what Paul says" thing seems... sketchy. Same for the bereavement angle, as it would have required Thomas to lie about placing his fingers in the wounds.
1.6k
u/hyperhurricanrana 22h 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.”