This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
No, because if that dude actually existed, he would’ve been known by a small population only. But that German dude killed 1912 years later was globally famous.
My understanding is that the Romans killed Jesus because they just wanted to avoid Jewish people rioting against Roman occupation. The Jewish priests framed Jesus so this would happen because he was speaking against specifically their religious power (He was not anti-rome).
I subscribe to the belief that some of Jesus’ disciples faked his resurrection and started a cult.
It seems likely that he was an actual person. It is not verified, nor is it verifiable. This is the kind of shit Bible apologists like to whip out as if it confirms their beliefs. Almost to a person, people who refer to the Historicity of Jesus Wikipedia page use terms like “verified fact” in the same breath. If you’re not intending to be a Bible apologist, you should probably take a different tack.
Nobody (especially the apologist) gives a shit whether some rando Nazarine created a religious movement. They were a dime a dozen. What the people who bring this up actually care about is that said Nazarine is the Son of God and the Christian Messiah. Just because he existed, doesn’t mean he is anything of the sort, or that God even exists. There is literally no other useful knowledge to be had in pointing out that Jesus was probably a real person, so if you’re hell bent on making sure everybody knows he was so totally super-duper real guys, then everybody figures you must have an agenda.
I’m sorry you’re so upset about people correcting misinformation.
PS: There’s one useful thing about telling people that Jesus existed: We don’t have to suffer smug atheists being like “haha Jesus is fake I’m so smart.”
Calling Jesus “verified fact” is the only misinformation in this thread buddy. I’m sorry you and all the morons like you believe in fairy tales. The world sucks because of it.
haha yes, Jesus of Nazareth and Julius Ceasar, totally the same! As one would expect of a… peasant zealot and the leader of the largest empire in the Western world. Their respective footprints in history, shit they might as well be twins!
Much of the ‘historical Jesus’ movements especially since the 1970’s or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it’s fine.
FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line…evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It’s been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV’s for lolz.
Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.
He pops up in Marcion’s New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn’t really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since…the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone’s guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say “Most of our scholars agree xyz” instead of providing any evidence.
This seems like St Paul: why?
Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? We can trust St Mark as he’s the bro-science Jesus evangelist
Good scholars often don’t comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of ‘the historical Jesus’ in NT scholarship here.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
You replied with “Just insulting you on your education level” and then deleted it, probably because someone else told you it was dumb. Then your “upgrade” from that reply is this? You’re hopeless.
Post doesn’t say the first time someones death was cele bvbration, just the first global celebration. Thought the post was about Christmas or a celebration like that. But celebrating the end of a war makes sense too.
I’ve never thought about it until now, but there are definitely different definitions (or at least uses of the word) for celebrate. You might celebrate your wedding, but you certainly don’t have the same type of event for your anniversary. Same for your favorite sports team winning the championship, vs any observance of previous victories.
Yeah i interpreted this more like a celebration of an anniversary than a victory of a match. Looking at it for a second time i also see this could be written about something that hasn’t happened yet, while i read it as celebrating something that happened once.
One reason I don’t believe internet atheist types are smarter than religious people is because the way a lot of them get when you mention that Jesus being a real person is historian consensus is eerily similar to how Evangelicals get about evolution.
You mean that dude they hang on a cross two millenia ago?
No, because if that dude actually existed, he would’ve been known by a small population only. But that German dude killed 1912 years later was globally famous.
Jesus is a verified factual historical figure who was executed more or less according to Biblical tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
My understanding is that the Romans killed Jesus because they just wanted to avoid Jewish people rioting against Roman occupation. The Jewish priests framed Jesus so this would happen because he was speaking against specifically their religious power (He was not anti-rome).
I subscribe to the belief that some of Jesus’ disciples faked his resurrection and started a cult.
It seems likely that he was an actual person. It is not verified, nor is it verifiable. This is the kind of shit Bible apologists like to whip out as if it confirms their beliefs. Almost to a person, people who refer to the Historicity of Jesus Wikipedia page use terms like “verified fact” in the same breath. If you’re not intending to be a Bible apologist, you should probably take a different tack.
Nobody (especially the apologist) gives a shit whether some rando Nazarine created a religious movement. They were a dime a dozen. What the people who bring this up actually care about is that said Nazarine is the Son of God and the Christian Messiah. Just because he existed, doesn’t mean he is anything of the sort, or that God even exists. There is literally no other useful knowledge to be had in pointing out that Jesus was probably a real person, so if you’re hell bent on making sure everybody knows he was so totally super-duper real guys, then everybody figures you must have an agenda.
deleted by creator
I’m sorry you’re so upset about people correcting misinformation.
PS: There’s one useful thing about telling people that Jesus existed: We don’t have to suffer smug atheists being like “haha Jesus is fake I’m so smart.”
Calling Jesus “verified fact” is the only misinformation in this thread buddy. I’m sorry you and all the morons like you believe in fairy tales. The world sucks because of it.
Well he’s attested in literary evidence with uncontested reliability, which makes him about as unverified as Julius Caesar.
haha yes, Jesus of Nazareth and Julius Ceasar, totally the same! As one would expect of a… peasant zealot and the leader of the largest empire in the Western world. Their respective footprints in history, shit they might as well be twins!
Faked resurrection?! Now I’ve heard everything!
lol
Much of the ‘historical Jesus’ movements especially since the 1970’s or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it’s fine.
FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line…evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It’s been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV’s for lolz.
Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.
He pops up in Marcion’s New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn’t really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since…the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone’s guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say “Most of our scholars agree xyz” instead of providing any evidence.
This seems like St Paul: why?
Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? We can trust St Mark as he’s the bro-science Jesus evangelist
Good scholars often don’t comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of ‘the historical Jesus’ in NT scholarship here.
[Citation needed]
And what the fuck do you think they put that Wikipedia link for?
Harry Potter has a Wikipedia entry too.
Now find me one for the historicity of Harry Potter. “Evolution is just a theory”-ass moment.
Brain Pulse needed.
Like seriously so easy to find that for yourself unless you’re an AI slop consumer.
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Brain pulse? 😆 Breaking out the first grade insults that were thrown at you as a child is really incredibly pathetic.
Try opening a book other than just the one. Come back when you have an insult worth reading.
deleted by creator
I have to insult you in a way you can understand or it’s pointless.
You should be thanking me since you weirdly enjoy this.
You replied with “Just insulting you on your education level” and then deleted it, probably because someone else told you it was dumb. Then your “upgrade” from that reply is this? You’re hopeless.
Post doesn’t say the first time someones death was cele bvbration, just the first global celebration. Thought the post was about Christmas or a celebration like that. But celebrating the end of a war makes sense too.
I’ve never thought about it until now, but there are definitely different definitions (or at least uses of the word) for celebrate. You might celebrate your wedding, but you certainly don’t have the same type of event for your anniversary. Same for your favorite sports team winning the championship, vs any observance of previous victories.
Yeah i interpreted this more like a celebration of an anniversary than a victory of a match. Looking at it for a second time i also see this could be written about something that hasn’t happened yet, while i read it as celebrating something that happened once.
Just in case, the consensus among historians is that Jesus did exist.
Yeah I went to school with a few of them.
One reason I don’t believe internet atheist types are smarter than religious people is because the way a lot of them get when you mention that Jesus being a real person is historian consensus is eerily similar to how Evangelicals get about evolution.
Orthodox Christians: am I a joke to you?
(Some sects celebrate as late as January 19th)
Did they nail him to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change?
He was nailed to that tree to make way for a spice caravan bypass!
Apparently, He was nailed to a tree to please the Jews.
deleted by creator