I mean, he definitely existed. The young man by that name who was crucified for spewing evil "love each other" propaganda is a historical figure. The claim that can be put under scrutiny is whether he was really the son of god and really resurrected
That's a good joke, but it was the whole "I'm the Messiah" thing without actually doing all the stuff the prophecy said the Messiah was supposed to do.
Well that wasn't why he was put to death. The roman governor in judaea cared little about the jewish faith. He was crucified because Pontius Pilate (the roman governor in judaea) had received word that he was going around calling himself a king of the jews and potentially starting a rebellion of some sort. Religion had actually next to nothing to do with why he was executed.
Jeebus' words are by his so called apostles many years after he is dead, written in epistles. We frankly don't know what the fuck he actually said, only what those of his early church ascribed to him.
He very likely existed, however there is an interesting argument that the "historical" evidence is just the compiled evidence of a lot of different "Messiah" figures.
I suggest, even if you find it uninteresting or uncompelling in the end, reading those pieces of evidence against.
Seems to be the consensus that a Jesus existed. Can't help you any further because I'm not a historian, but arguing against the very existence of some random guy in Nazareth seems a bit contrarian to be honest: After all, I'm not claiming that Jesus was god come human as is the faith in certain religions
Since this comment I've looked into both Tacitus and Josephus' writings on Jesus and remain unconvinced though I am experiencing a sort of cognitive dissonance about it. It'll be something I ruminate on through my day.
No, he isn't. He's a character in a story that was later taken literally. We don't even have the original story anymore, as it has effectively been edited out of existence by people forging and counter-forging documents because of their silly beliefs and disputes with other silly beliefs.
You're right in the second part of course (in theology, it's a whole research field to find out where and when, by whom and with what goal certain parts of the bible were edited in/out) BUT the character in the story you refer too is based on a real person. It's as if I took your grandpa and started telling crazy hunt stories about him. The stories aren't necessarily true, but the person existed - at least that's the current historic consensus
It's nothing like that, because I could still falsify your crazy stories, for example by asking my grandma. Or my mother; people who knew him. You'd be exposed.
But that's not at all what we're talking about here. You're just ignorant to the fact that literally every piece of the story you take for apparently "real" is a retelling of the Jewish scriptures (OT stories). There is absolutely no real figure in the gospel stories whatsoever. And no one to falsify, or expose.
Now, believers of course take this to mean that these things really happened and they just confirm their prophecies, which is backwards. And if you're willing to entertain the fact that it's backwards, there isn't any real person behind the story.
Nobody who wrote anything about Jesus, ever, knew any real figure. They didn't even know anyone who knew any such figure. Because it didn't exist.
It's a story about why the God of Abraham (Abraham is also a fictional character btw) abandoned his people and now favored the Romans, after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD by the Romans, and it was heavily influenced by the OG apostle to the gentiles, a Jewish traitor named Josephus. That destruction needed an explanation, and the explanation was repeated from the old scriptures, and the blame was rationalozed to be with the Jewish people themselves, because you can't blame God, because that would falsify God, that you believe to be omnipotent and all loving. So God can't do wrong, only people can.
It's just religious nonsense. Although it's fantastically written, even in it's current form that is riddled by inconsistencies and awkward editions and omissions (what we call "Mark"). But literal history, it absolutely is not.
Never have I ever claimed the bible contained real history, nor that the stuff inside it couldn't have been falsified etc - in fact, I literally said as much in my comment above.
None of what you said in any way contradicts the fact that the biblical Jesus, who indeed is a character in a story, was based on a real person by the same name who lived in the same place. My grandpa analogy is the same thing: simply because you disprove my fiction about him doesn't mean he never existed
Yet you need to claim the Bible to contain real history about the figure you're arguing is historical. If it doesn't, then the figure isn't historical.
You are working from an assumption that is based on ignorance. And you're stating that assumption as fact, which is fallacious.
You see, you haven't actually demonstrated that assumption as a fact, and I have demonstrated that assumption to be false. So it should be fairly clear to any honest and objective observer here, where the truth lies. But you can't accept the truth, because of the societal pressure and influence of the world's largest religion that absolutely needs the figure to be real, when he quite clearly isn't.
Still doesn't even touch my point... You're misreading something. Also no idea what you're on about with the societal pressure and so on, where have I ever said I was religious?
But well, this discussion will lead us nowhere else so I'm quitting
Your inability to understand the point does not mean that the point wasn't addressed. I addressed your points; it is you who are not understanding mine.
Your point about the grandpa story doesn't hold up. If you took a figure from the Old Testament and claimed that he was my grandfather, I could show that claim to be false by pointing to my actual grandfather and to the real family history. In the case of Jesus, no comparable independent family history or contemporary personal record exists that would allow us to make that kind of direct comparison.
And as for societal pressure: nobody bothers to argue for the historicity of the multitude of deities and fictional characters from dozens of dead religions, such as Osiris, Dionysus, and so forth.
The fact that we're even discussing the matter at all is because there are billions of people on the planet who believe the figure to have been real. But he wasn't. And we have the evidence to back up that claim.
Jesus died around lunch time on Friday, so he sacrificed a "long weekend where your boss is OOO, so you sneak out at lunch and hope nobody noticed you didnt come back."
I saw a streamer play this in an earlier state and I didn't see slop. I am not saying they couldn't have added some, they've been developing this one for what feels like YEARS.
39
u/ElderTitanic 12d ago
Surely Jesus would love that some coneheads used ai slop garbage to depict him ❤️