/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10315958]

Why do scholars generally agree that a historical "Jesus" existed, if there is not a single piece of contemporary evidence?

[Anonymous No.10315969]

>>10315958
There are. Many accounts of jesus in the new testament cannot be later than the 1st century.
Additionally, if you want to take an euphoric approach to the evidence, you cannot just pick historical figures against whom you have some irrational bias. Have the balls to show the same standards towards other wellknown figures from the ancient world on whom we have just as much, or at times, even less, evidence than on jesus. Notable examples are socrates, alexander the great, archimedes, many political figures from the roman world far into the 1st century bc, and many more.

[Anonymous No.10315981]

>>10315969
Note: I am not arguing FOR the existance of _anyone_ here.
Also, all of the new testament, including the parts from the 1st century, was written after Jesus' time.

[Anonymous No.10315982]

>>10315958
I'm losing hope in humanity day by day.

[Anonymous No.10315989]

>>10315958
The books of the NT count as contemporary evidence, retard. Other contemporary evidence exists, of course, but Christ.

[Anonymous No.10315990]

>>10315982
>implying you already had any to beginning with

[Anonymous No.10315991]

>>10315989
>contemporary evidence
>written decades after his death
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.10315992]

>>10315981
So what? Thats all we have. That means we are very limited with the knowledge we have. Still, the fact that these accounts fit very well with other textual and material evidence we have about the geography and the period makes it very likely that they contain some truth. Im not saying that you should accept the miracles and other bullshit, but at least that some dude who thought himself a messiah and had a small following who grew after his death is more than likely given the evidence.

Again we have no contemporary literary evidence on alexander the great. Why we never see threads and other larpers about him?

[Anonymous No.10315993]

>>10315991

[Anonymous No.10315995]

>>10315958
Within 10 years of his death Jesus was famous throughout the Middle East, Africa, and much of Europe. That is hardly likely if he had been a hoax.

[Anonymous No.10315997]

>>10315982

>emotional dismissal with nothing substantive to say on the matter

He's asking a fair question. And he wasn't even particularly rude about it. Why do you instantly act like that? Wouldn't it be easier to show him why he's so clearly wrong?

[Anonymous No.10315998]

>>10315992
Ahem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great#Contemporary_sources

[Anonymous No.10316001]

>>10315991
The literary nature (histories are a lit genre in antiquity, it is nothing similar to what modern historians do) of much of the textual evidence from antiquity makes it that very little texts are contemporary to the events which they depict.

[Anonymous No.10316004]

>>10315997
>he's asking a fair question
>6th grade level inquiry
>something that has already been dealt with in detail for centuries if you took the time to inform yourself instead of shitting up /lit/ with such a low quality thread
>a fair question

[Anonymous No.10316007]

>>10315998
Nothing was preserved these authors are all reported in texts written 200 years afterwards

[Anonymous No.10316008]

>>10315995
Except none of that is true.

[Anonymous No.10316015]

>>10315995
>famous
>Within 10 years of his death
Are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.10316021]

>>10316004

>hahaha this is so juvenile to even ask it's like 6th grader shit please just delete thread now

You're the kind of anon who nervously overreacts to mask the fact that he doesn't even know how to debate a point properly.

Prove me wrong - in detail. I dare you.

[Anonymous No.10316029]

>>10316004
>"you're shitting up /lit/!"
>implying your reply isn't.
Nice self-awareness there, pal.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316039]

>>10315958
>Why do scholars generally agree that a historical "Jesus" existed, if there is not a single piece of contemporary evidence?

Because it is the best and only consistent explanation for the narrative and movement. Earliest writing we have to his life is within months of his death and within the same year.

[Anonymous No.10316043]

>>10316039
hi wolfie
I assume you're talking about that bit in 1 corinthans? how do scholars figure its written so early?

[Anonymous No.10316044]

>>10316039
>within months of his death and within the same year
Which writings, then?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316073]

>>10316044
The creed that St. Paul cites in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen. Beginning at verse three. And interesting enough it references scriptures existing in that time as well.

>>10316043
I'm no historian but it's just generally dated to the same year Jesus died or within two years. I dunno.

[Anonymous No.10316077]

>>10316073
>I'm no historian but it's just generally dated to the same year Jesus died or within two years. I dunno.
isn't this just an appeal to authority then

[Anonymous No.10316079]

>>10315991
Does this mean Socrates didn't exist? How about Alexandre? How about just about every other ancient figure?

[Anonymous No.10316094]

>>10316073

>The creed that St. Paul cites

Paul was an allegorical-minded gnostic, if anything. He didn't support exoteric literalism. In fact he was in pronounced opposition to that.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316156]

>>10316077
>citing the views of historians on history is an appeal to authority if I can't cite their reasoning myself

Looking into it, the dating comes from it being given to Paul while in Jerusalem for his conversion in 33 or his conversion in 31/32. Historians attribute time to this creed being formalized and spreading. Hence it being dated to with 24 months of his death. His death, specifically, because the evangelizing of the church began at pentecost a little over a month after.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316164]

>>10316094
Well nice bait, Valentinus, but that's very off topic.

[Anonymous No.10316171]

>>10316156
>comes from it being given to Paul while in Jerusalem for his conversion in 33 or his conversion in 31/32. Historians attribute time to this creed being formalized and spreading.
and how do they figure this?

[Anonymous No.10316172]

>>10316164

>Well nice bait

It isn't bait. And it couldn't be more on topic re: historical Jesus. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10316175]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Jesus does not appear exclusively in Christian scriptures and that is a big fucking deal.

You might want to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

All the sources are well researched and if you want to get deep into it you're going to have a good time.

[Anonymous No.10316180]

>>10315958
The Gospel of John was told by an eyewitness. It's the only gospel that explicitly claims eyewitness testimony.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316186]

>>10316171
I honestly wouldn't know how those dates come about.
>>10316172
The bit of text is very blatantly a taught creed. You can understand the words as you want and think all you want on its use in Christian circles but it is blatantly a creed in formula that is being said. I'm honestly not sure how this can directly relate to the historicity of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.10316189]

>>10315982
People taking literally the tales of a supernatural kike is a good reason to lose hope in humanity, I agree.

[Anonymous No.10316191]

>>10315989
>christcucks will never not be retarded

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316193]

>>10316191
>individuals speak for a group
Anti-Christians in action.

[Anonymous No.10316195]

>>10316180
I believe you're thinking about Luke

[Anonymous No.10316198]

>>10316193
>tripfag
>weebnigger
>christcuck

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316200]

>>10316198

[Anonymous No.10316205]

>>10316191
I'm not a Christian dummy.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316207]

>>10316198
>>10316200

[Anonymous No.10316216]

>>10316191
people always say stupid shit like this but can't explain why the new testament isn't evidence. at least Pauls writings and the gospels

[Anonymous No.10316240]

>>10316004
You're not better.

[Anonymous No.10316267]

>>10315958
>if there is not a single piece of contemporary evidence?
thats not true you little shit
why make the thread when you haven't done proper research.

[Anonymous No.10316281]

>>10316267
could you post some contemporary evidence?

[Anonymous No.10316293]

>this whole thread
>spoon feed me
no
this shouldn't be a thread and yet it is gonna stay up for a few days and hit bump limit
>>10315982

[Anonymous No.10316298]

>>10316293

[Anonymous No.10316299]

>>10316281
thats now how history works, retard

[Anonymous No.10316305]

>>10316267
>>10316293
>>10316299

>done no real research
>have no real sources
>pretending like they have
>in absolute panic mode

the state of this board...

[Anonymous No.10316312]

>>10316293
>unable to supply even a fraction of the food on the supposed spoon

[Anonymous No.10316314]

>>10316305
there is LITERALLY no ancient witness that argues the nonexistence of Christ. Every time an ancient argument is made against Christianity, it has to do with Christ's divinity, his death, his resurrection, interpretations of scripture, things like that. NEVER is an argument made that Christ never existed. It is a recent invention

[Anonymous No.10316315]

>>10316314
"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger" -Jesus

[Anonymous No.10316316]

>>10316315
what?

[Anonymous No.10316320]

>>10316314

if you weren't such an obvious larper at the very least you'd have some textfile of pertinent info saved somewhere - be it articles, quotes, works of secondary scholarship etc - that you've accrued through your time of so-called research that would be able to steer anon into the direction that you think they should be heading.

but you don't have and therefore can't forward anon anywhere that because you haven't actually done the research.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316323]

>>10316305

Well lets get into evidence for Jesus.
Besides Tacitus' emotional comments on Nero, he is thought to source all of his comments based on Roman annals. That such a movement existed within his life (58-120AD) that made a harsh claim to a Roman governor and is treated as fact is best explained by historicity of the man.

Beyond this we do have Josephus' writings. The only alteration in regards to Jesus is assuming he believed the divinity of Christ. Origen quotes Josephus before alterations happened and the whole "james brother of jesus" and his baptism segments are irrevocably true and have been reviewed and confirmed by non-christian academics time and time again.

Else, we have:
- Pre-Pauline hymns of Jesus resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) that date from weeks to months after the death of Jesus within the same year
- Pre-Pauline hymns of Jesus as God (Philippians 2)
- Peter's speech in Acts 2
- Paul's conversation with James the brother of Jesus and Peter in Galatians
- Pre-Markan Narrative of the resurrection
- Mark's preservation of Jesus Aramaism
- Mark's preservation of Peter's embarrassments presupposes Jesus existence
- Multiple attestation of the sermon on the mount and of John the Baptist
- Suetonius mentions Christ having instigated the Jews against the Roman

You're not going to find hardly any professional historians who dispute the existence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, who is known for being extremely critical of Christianity, only notes two people in relevant fields becoming notable for such a position. It's not a tenable position in modern historian circles. It's like trying to argue that Hannibal or Boudicca or Alexander didn't exist. It's a view that is only popular in anti-Christian circles.

Historicity is probability based and there is no better understanding of the coming of Christianity than the historicity of Jesus.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10316326]

Hope that helped.
Cheers.

[Anonymous No.10316331]

>>10316320
here are ancient names explicitly mentioning christ
new testament documents, written independently
tacitus
pliny the younger
josephus
suetonius

before you go stuttering "b-but those don't count" with some smug cartoon reaction image, can you name ONE ancient witness that refutes Christ's existence. literally one. I just named 5 myself, so please name one single ancient witness. Surely if Christianity could be so easily then there would have been one person from the apex of Greek civilization to rise up and say "hm has anyone ever really seen this Jesus guy"
come on pseud. I gave names now you give one. I only want one

[Anonymous No.10316332]

>>10316323
>>10316326
OP BTFO

[Anonymous No.10316334]

>>10315958

Oh god, it's like the thread with the guy asking if Socrates existed, again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Maybe opening a fucking wikipedia page once in a while could help. There are a lot of historical evidence in written form from non-christian sources. As for most historical characters, all that is left of them is what was written about them.

[Anonymous No.10316335]

>>10316331
>if Christianity could be so easily then
easily refuted*

[Anonymous No.10316340]

>>10316323

Wow a serious response. Thank you.

>It's like trying to argue that Hannibal or Boudicca or Alexander didn't exist.
It's nothing like that because Hannibal, Boudicca or Alexander didn't have a bunch of typal solar deity figures from other times and nations in the past whose acts, events and dates therein perfectly synch up with theirs in what seems to be a chain of ritual procession. This is a misleading analogy.

[Anonymous No.10316346]

>>10316340
>It's nothing like that because Hannibal, Boudicca or Alexander didn't have a bunch of typal solar deity figures from other times and nations in the past whose acts, events and dates therein perfectly synch up with theirs in what seems to be a chain of ritual procession.
except thats called christ myth theory and has been disproved repeatedly
if you're gonna say it hasn't then YOU source an example from an ancient document since we've all given you multiple sources and you also ignored literally 90% of Wolfs whole post

[Anonymous No.10316347]

>>10316334
>Wikipedia
>The same site that says 6 million jews were killed by the germans between 39-45

[Anonymous No.10316351]

>>10315958
We have letters from someone who knew Jesus' closest followers. Paul met Peter, James, and John and spoke to them about Jesus. He wrote about 20 years after Jesus' death, which is pretty damn close considering the period.

We also have Mark, written around 40 years after Jesus' death, which was probably based on earlier stories told by other Christians, some probably based on memories of Jesus' actual life. In any case, all of Mark portrays Jesus as a real, flesh and blood, preacher who was executed.

The details are open to question, because all the earliest sources are Christian and are trying to prove theological positions, but there almost certainly was a historical Jesus.

>>10316079
Actually, there is better evidence for Socrates, both Plato and Xenophanes are first-hand witnesses who personally knew Socrates. We don't have that for Jesus. But the later evidence does all point to Jesus existing.

[Anonymous No.10316352]

>>10316323
noice

i'm not well versed on this, any recs on books on the historicity of jesus?

[Anonymous No.10316359]

>>10316347
>implying that isn't what 99% of historical books/articles says
>implying wiki page would survive if it was """"""redpilled""""""

anyway wikipedia is at the very least good to check references.

[Anonymous No.10316361]

>>10316195
It's at the very end of John.

"That disciple is the one who is bearing witness to these things, and the one who wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if written in detail, I reckon not even the world itself would be able to hold the books that would be written."

[Anonymous No.10316364]

>>10316361
I forgot about that, my mistake

[Anonymous No.10316369]

>>10316079
>Does this mean Socrates didn't exist? How about Alexandre? How about just about every other ancient figure?
Exactly. They likely didn't, at least not in their described and prescribed forms.

[Anonymous No.10316371]

>>10316369
>Exactly. They likely didn't, at least not in their described and prescribed forms.
"didn't" and "not in their described forms" are 2 VERY different arguments

[Anonymous No.10316377]

>>10316323
>Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122)

[Anonymous No.10316379]

>>10316346

>except thats called christ myth theory and has been disproved repeatedly

List your sources that disprove this, please. I'm not saying that in an antagonistic way; I'm genuinely interested.

I've yet to see any work that sufficiently discredits all the astronomical relationships at play here. I don't know how it possibly could: there are far too many at play. The massive amounts of data that comparative religion and mythology bring to light are too glaring to deny. Though I'm open to pursuing any legitimate works you recommend. I'm no staunch partisan for any camp here.

[Anonymous No.10316385]

>>10316376
>List your sources that disprove this, please
you'll have to give an example of exactly what similarities you're referring to.
>all the astronomical relationships at play here
>The massive amounts of data that comparative religion and mythology bring to light
this is what I mean by specific examples. you haven't actually given me anything to respond to, its just cryptic assertions. The most common claims are the ones put forth in Peter Josephs Zeitgeist documentary, which can be debunked very easily by just searching "jesus horus myth theory" or replacing horus with whichever mythological figure you're referring to. the debunk articles are certainly going to be among the very first results to come up

[Anonymous No.10316391]

>>10316385

So you don't have any books you could give me on this? I would actually like to read them if you know of some.

[Anonymous No.10316392]

>>10315958
Because we don't actually have all that much to go on and have no reason to think he's fake.

[Anonymous No.10316404]

>>10316175
The only thing possibly even close to contemporary from a non-Christian source is Josephus, and the passage about Jesus in his Antiquities is unanimously agreed to be a Christian interpolation. He may have mentioned Jesus off-hand, and that's what was modified by a Christian scribe, but we'll never know. Tacitus only confirms that followers of Jesus existed in the early 2nd century.

Paul's letters are actually the strongest evidence, since he was a contemporary and knew Jesus' earliest followers. We can safely say he existed based on that and the early biographies.

>>10316323
Not all of that's correct, but I'll say that Jesus almost certainly existed and only cranks like Richard Carrier advocate mythicism.

>Pre-Pauline hymns of Jesus resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) that date from weeks to months after the death of Jesus within the same year
It's probably pre-Pauline, and is the best candidate for the earliest Christian creed we have, but the claims of it being made in a few weeks of Jesus death are not substantiated. It could be as late as c.40 AD when Paul started preaching, we just don't know.

>Pre-Pauline hymns of Jesus as God (Philippians 2)
The pre-Pauline nature of the poem is debated. And "though in the form of God" etc. is possibly the most debated part of the New Testament, it's far from decided what Paul meant.

>Peter's speech in Acts 2
Acts is a classical biography combined with a classic travel story, both genres are marked by putting extensive speeches into the mouths of (real) subjects. It may reflect what Peter taught in general, but it's certainly not a transcript.

>Paul's conversation with James the brother of Jesus and Peter in Galatians
This is very solid evidence, Galatians in itself seals the deal that Jesus was a real person

>Pre-Markan Narrative of the resurrection
Correct, but the details of earlier passion narratives are largely unknown. Paul only says Jesus died and rose.

>Mark's preservation of Jesus Aramaism
There's no guarantee those are genuine, being Aramaic doesn't mean Jesus had to have said it, but they are possibly original to Jesus.

>Mark's preservation of Peter's embarrassments presupposes Jesus existence
The theological message of Mark is that Jesus' identity is mysterious, it's not a mark (ha) of authenticity that the disciples make mistakes about who Jesus is in his gospel.

>Multiple attestation of the sermon on the mount and of John the Baptist
There is only one attestation to the Sermon on the Mount: Matthew, its composition suggests a compilation of Jesus' saying, and not a memory of an actual sermon, as Richard Bauckham argues. John the Baptist is indeed a well-attested historical figure.

>Suetonius mentions Christ having instigated the Jews against the Roman
Suetonius mentions a "chrestos" associated with Jewish unrest at the time of Claudius, who reigned 41-54, after Jesus' death. Additionally neither Paul nor the gospels suggest that Jesus caused any kind of insurrection.

[Anonymous No.10316422]

>>10316323
That picture isnt very accurate regarding the carbon dating

[Anonymous No.10316584]

>>10316346
Jesus does not even fall into those "typal solar deity figures" as has been refuted time and again after the release of zeitgeist. Regardleas, the fact that you, like christian believers, confuses the historical man jesus with the myth surrounding him (inc all the supernatural bullshit) only proves that you are not interested in a historical investigation of the matter, but only to pick and choose and distort evidence to satisfy your personal biases and ideologies against christianity.

[Anonymous No.10316600]

>>10316331
>josephus
HAHAHHA a forged in akwardly placed sentence doesn't count

[Anonymous No.10316603]

Jesus did not exist, it's that simple. Paul never talks about an actual historical being, his Jesus is more like an angel. All Gospels were created after him, so they have zero validity in corroborating whether Jesus existed.

Read the books from Richard Carrier for more https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MMQ7ZMWHA28FQG57HVBG

[Anonymous No.10316620]

>>10316603
>this

[Anonymous No.10316622]

>>10316603
How does it feel to lose an argument?

[Anonymous No.10316633]

>>10316622
Huh?

[Anonymous No.10316647]

>>10316584

>only proves that you are not interested in a historical investigation of the matter
I have literally been saying that I am no staunch partisan and am genuinely interested and asking for books to further study on this. Read more than one post before you decide to get angsty and spaz out.

[Anonymous No.10316651]

>>10316622
You're qualified enough to answer that on your own, methinks

[Anonymous No.10316670]

>>10316647
Ok, here's some books on the historical Jesus:

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium
-Bart Ehrman
Did Jesus Exist?
-Bart Ehrman
Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet
-Dale Allison
Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History
-Dale Allison
The Historical Figure of Jesus
-E. P. Sanders
Jesus and Judaism
-E. P. Sanders
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews
-Paula Fredriksen
Jesus the Jew
-Geza Vermes
Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account
-Maurice casey
Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity
-Chris Keith

Now, please read someone other than Carrier, he's a single historian and holds an extreme minority view.

[Anonymous No.10316672]

>>10316029
>Oh no! He took a pee on my poop.

[Anonymous No.10316683]

>>10316079
Socrates is not only referenced in philosophical sources but also historical sources. For example he was the epistates in the trial of the generals for the battle of arginusae during the pelloponesian war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arginusae
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0206%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D7%3Asection%3D15

[Anonymous No.10316705]

>>10316670

Thanks. I'll check these out.

[Anonymous No.10316708]

>>10316079
Aristophanes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clouds

[Anonymous No.10316717]

>>10316670
>Now, please read someone other than Carrier, he's a single historian and holds an extreme minority view.
So what? Holding a minority opinion is no reason to outright dismiss their premise with zero arguments. Lazy posturing desu.

[Anonymous No.10316733]

So, what do we actually know about the historical Jesus?

[Anonymous No.10316738]

>>10316733
He was an aramaic-speaking jewish preacher from Galilee who was executed by crucifixion in Jerusalem. He had a core of close followers which included guys called Peter and John, and had at least one brother, one of whom was called James.

That's pretty much it. Everything else is speculation.

[Anonymous No.10316761]

>>10316733
try reading the four gospels

[Anonymous No.10316778]

>>10315958
Because deep down we know he was just Caesar.

[Anonymous No.10316784]

>>10316761
>Historical Jesus
>Gospels
Shoo out of here

[Anonymous No.10316788]

>>10316784
you: small brain
me: large brain

[Anonymous No.10316797]

>>10316788
brainlet even talkslie a caveman

[Anonymous No.10316807]

>>10316738
Do we know if he was illiterate?

[Anonymous No.10316841]

>>10316807
We don't know, but coming from a poor rural area, he was very likely illiterate. The scene where he reads from Isaiah in Luke 4:16-19, what he says is a mash-up of phrases from Isaiah, not an actual passage. If it's a genuine episode (a big if), it would suggests he was illiterate and was reciting from memory.

[Anonymous No.10317120]

Maybe im thinking of something else but wasnt there a writer in the Khanate that wrote about him around the same time?

[Anonymous No.10317167]

>>10316784
Dum dum, the synoptics vs Pauline and Johanine perspective on historical jesus is freshman level religious studies.

Here is a lecture on it: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-13, if you want to read more of it try Burton Mack's Myth of Innocence. Ehrman also wrote pop books about historical jesus, but if you want his scholarly masterwork read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

>>10315958
>>10316293
>>10316305
What is so distressing about this thread is that an anon who has done 0 resource on a massive subject that was the focus of a huge and publicly followed consortium called the Historical Jesus Project in the 70s and 80s is dismissing it out of hand, and when people who are frustrated with the massive decline in quality of this board roll their eyes, the /pol/ tier empty response is as predicted. The question being asked is literally 6th grade tier, the meat of the subject is regarding what we can actually derive from extent sources based on the following criteria:

Multiple Attestation
double dissimilarity
criterion of embarrassment
archaeology
historical plausibility

If you want to actually get into it, here is a good syllabus, this course is also online at stanford:

http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/FeedEnclosure/itunes.stanford.edu.1291405182.01291405187.1297459218/enclosure.pdf

I literally weep for this board, there were problems with slavish love of memes in 2011 but it is so utterly worthless now that I find myself returning out of simple habit, and never finding a worthwhile recommendation.

[Anonymous No.10317793]

>>10316351
>Actually, there is better evidence for Socrates, both Plato and Xenophanes are first-hand witnesses who personally knew Socrates. We don't have that for Jesus. But the later evidence does all point to Jesus existing.
>circular reasoning
you might want to neck yourself

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10317813]

>>10316340
>It's nothing like that because Hannibal, Boudicca or Alexander didn't have a bunch of typal solar deity figures from other times and nations in the past whose acts, events and dates therein perfectly synch up with theirs in what seems to be a chain of ritual procession.

Well that is false as neither does Jesus. The solar deity comparison has been refuted for years now for grasping at straws and/or outright lying.

>>10316422
Explain.

[Anonymous No.10317863]

>>10317793
Explain how it's circular m8. There is better evidence for Socrates' existence than Jesus, but there is still enough evidence for Jesus to think he existed.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10317868]

>>10316600
>>10316603
see
>>10316323

[Anonymous No.10318004]

>>10315982
You're weak.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10318009]

>>10318004
You're r00d

[Anonymous No.10318039]

>>10317167
>criterion of embarrassment
so jesus was real because his story is too stupid to have been made up?

[Anonymous No.10318051]

>>10318039
Thats not how it works.

Criterion of embarrassment applies to stuff like Jesus saying God is Good, saying he is the son of man, John the Baptist baptizing him and thus showing religious supremacy, and INRI, to say nothing of his apostles using swords despite him being the lord of peace.

Its when a statement goes against later Christian dogma, yet is included in the bible because everyone knows it happened, or because Mark was not portraying him as a Trinitine God-Piece

[Anonymous No.10318062]

>>10318051
To continue, the crucifixion.

For the Jews, a crucified man is impure, and we have no evidence prior to Jesus that the Messiah would be crucified. If anything it would outright dismiss Jesus as the Messiah. But since it almost certainly happened (t. Josephus), and even Pharisic and Roman scholars knew of it, it had to be explained, and not ignored, hence the whole redemption angle.

[Anonymous No.10318064]

>>10318009
I meant it reassuringly.

[Anonymous No.10318068]

>>10315969
>alexander the great
wait what?
I can understand your scepticism toward Socrates existence/adequacy to Plato's tales, but Alexander? How can you put in doubt the existence of someone who caused visible geopolitical changes?

[Anonymous No.10318085]

>>10318062
>For the Jews, a crucified man is impure
why?

[Anonymous No.10318103]

>>10318068
Not him but all of the source material regarding him was from Ptolemy and Callisthenes. And the currently available sources are all second hand. I think it is a shitty argument but that is the one that made, that Arrian and Plutarch and Rufus and Diodorus were writing their histories out of bullshit, although Arrian himself says that Ptolemy's material was solid because he was A. a king himself B. had to answer to other diadochi who would slander bad reports.

>>10318085
Deut 21 22 When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

If you really fucked up and say, fucked a goat, and were killed, you were exposed according to the law

[Anonymous No.10318215]

>>10318051
>Criterion of embarrassment applies to stuff like Jesus saying God is Good, saying he is the son of man
I don't think it applies to those, praising God and Jesus being the Son of Man (implying the figure from Daniel) would fit perfectly with the message of Jesus being the Messiah.

Being crucified is probably the best example of where the criterion can be used. It was a known form of Roman execution, was reserved for the worst criminals, and had nothing at all to do with jewish beliefs. There's no way his followers would have made that up.

>>10318103
Hanging on a tree meant being hanged from the branch of a tree, Paul's connection of it to Jesus's cross is a midrash, he takes it totally out of context. That said, it was indeed a humiliating and painful execution and wouldn't exactly put someone in the running for being the Messiah.

[Anonymous No.10318291]

>>10315997
>>10316021
>>10316029
>>10316240
>WAHHHH!! WHY DO YOU CALL A STUPID ASSHOLE STUPID!!! YOU'RE THE IMMATURE ONE!!!

[Anonymous No.10318300]

>>10318215
I think in the context of the Pauline/Syriac Christ Cult which pre-supposes the Trinity, Mark 10:18 is somewhat problematic.

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10318302]

Evidence for those who wanted it.
>>10316323

[Anonymous No.10318303]

>>10316315
>telling someone why they're wrong
>"Wh-why you so angry bro? Just chill dude!"
You're using religion wrong.

[Anonymous No.10318315]

>>10318300
Don't know about that, 1st century Christianity wasn't trinitarian, that's more of a 3rd century thing. Writing in his own time, I don't think Mark would have been embarassed to include that.

[Anonymous No.10318322]

>>10318315
Do you think Jesus believes himself to be God within Mark?

[Anonymous No.10318327]

>>10318322
I have no idea, in Mark the entire point is that Jesus' identity is a mystery. He's only identified as the Messiah, with maybe some hints that's he's divine in some sense. It leaves room for that interpretation but I don't think we can know if Mark intended it.

[Anonymous No.10318335]

>>10316717
>Lazy posturing
Isn't that your position here, going with one extremist against many experts? Authorities aren't called that arbitrarily.

[Anonymous No.10318338]

>>10315969
fr, like we have all come to a consensus that say Troy was a real city with the 1,700 manuscripts and fragments of the Iliad along with the fact Homer wrote the Iliad 500 years later.

For the NT, we have about early 6,000 greek manuscripts and fragments (about 25,000 total). We should also note that the earliest books of the NT were written within 2-3 decades of Jesus's death and the latest books were written did not exceed the 1st century (later books were probably not written past year 100).

This is fucking archaeological, historical, literary gold. No ancient historical figure is better attested to than Jesus

[Anonymous No.10318355]

>>10318338
>No ancient historical figure is better attested to than Jesus
The number of manuscripts doesn't make a text more historically accurate, it means we have a good understanding of what the original version of the text said. Someone like Augustus is far better attested than Jesus. There is no archeological evidence for Jesus, that's basically impossible, even if his skeleton was preserved and dug up how would you ever identify it?

[Anonymous No.10318358]

>>10318300
>tfw Jesus wasn't God and didn't think he was
>tfw he was just a spiritual teacher and felt humble before God and would have been angered to see people worshipping him as God
>tfw billions of people have misinterpreted one of the world's biggest religions by worshiping a man as God
>tfw it is actually blasphemy to worship a man as God
>tfw his miracles of healing were just him pulling a Franz Anton Mesmer with his animal magnetism
>tfw him rising from the dead is allegorical/refers to his soul rising from his dead body
>tfw him resurrecting people from death represents him enlightening people who were spiritually dead
>tfw everyone will hate me for this post

[Anonymous No.10318365]

>>10318358
Mysticism and gnosticism aren't new bro.

[Anonymous No.10318372]

>>10318355
>even if his skeleton was preserved and dug up
his skeleton is in heaven, dum dum

[Anonymous No.10318378]

>>10318365
>tfw Jesus only claimed he was God inasmuch as any enlightened person can be Godlike or feel they are unified with God
>tfw people are called upon in the Gospels to be sons of God and brothers of Jesus i.e. to be Godlike

[Anonymous No.10318387]

>>10318372
Obviously, if he bodily ascended to heaven there's no archaeological evidence by definition. I'm saying that even if he left a body behind, we'd never know it was his, so there really can't be archaeological evidence for Jesus either way.

[Anonymous No.10318394]

>>10317813
Well in that image it talks about the complexity and uniqueness of the weave. The contamination theory is based on the idea that that there was a repair made during the period the shroud was found in Europe, that this repair was undocumented - and here is where it gets iffy- the repair was so expertly done as to be undetectable to the point of it being invisible.

Then instead of just carbon dating another piece of the shroud (bearing in mind the carbon dating had been done in three separate labs). Rodgers invents a methods of chemical dating based on the decay of certain products in the samples. A method that has not actually been used to date any other item or show any real degree of accuracy.

It gets even iffier because if there really was a 14 century contamination in a 1st century item the carbon dating would have given results closer to 700AD and not 1400 hundred specifically.

This is why despite that images seemingly good argument you will not see the church tell people its the literal burial shroud of Jesus and nor will they allow carbon dating of any other piece (although Rogers "invisible repair argument" could theoretically be used to deny any results he doesnt agree with)

[Anonymous No.10318422]

>>10318355
by that standard, (there are other ways to determine Jesus's historicity, especially when you put them all together) we ought to be sooooo much more skeptical of Socrates, Plato, Homer, Alexander the Great, Archimedes. We ought to be more skeptical of them compared to Jesus. The list of ancient figures that we find to be historical individuals goes on

[Anonymous No.10318454]

>>10318422
Fucking hell, where did I say Jesus didn't exist? The written evidence is enough to say he did, all I said was that more manuscripts doesn't make the original more historically accurate, and that we don't have archaeological evidence.

[Anonymous No.10318456]

>>10316340
brainlet:
>SUN-day
>Eucharist looks like a sun

[Anonymous No.10318461]

>>10315958
Oy vey! I wonder who could be behind this thread.

[Anonymous No.10318471]

>>10318422
>We ought to be more skeptical of them compared to Jesus.

Not that anon but how so? Should all claims require equal evidence?

[Anonymous No.10318542]

I wonder who's the fedorafag with daddy issues that keep making these threads

[Anonymous No.10318615]

>>10316391
Bart Ehrman is an agnostic whos written books on Jesus existing. rather than spending money though, hes also done debates on the subject which are probably on youtube. Hes a historian who specializes in the new testament

[Anonymous No.10318635]

>>10318358
>tfw when I say "before Abraham was I AM" and everyone tries to stone me for blasphemy
>tfw when retarded normies in the year of me 2017 don't believe I meant it

[Anonymous No.10318687]

>>10316331
what a surprise, the faggot didn't respond.

[Anonymous No.10319044]

>>10315969
I have herd rumors that Homer is also not real as well.

[Anonymous No.10319771]

>>10319044
>rumors

[Anonymous No.10319783]

>>10315958
>excluding all evidence that Jesus historically existed, why isn't there any evidence that Jesus existed?

[Anonymous No.10319798]

>>10315958
Because his existence and story are problematic for his proponents. Why invent facts that you have to explain away?

Also, if you had copies of the Galilee Tribune from the era and found no mention of him you would have a point, but you don't and you don't.

[Anonymous No.10319815]

>>10319798
Prove he exists then.

[Anonymous No.10319820]

>>10319798
>Why invent facts that you have to explain away?
To control people

And you don't have to explain them away if millions accept it on faith

[Anonymous No.10319887]

>>10319820
>To control people
Right on the money.

[Anonymous No.10320405]

>>10315958
>Roman Empire were some of the best record keepers of any ancient civilizations
>You can literally tell which days it rained thousands of years ago they were so precise
>Controlled pretty much the entire Mediterranean region
>Zero accounts of man performing miracles in desert

[Anonymous No.10320471]

>>10320405
b-but muh Tacitus!!!1!

[Anonymous No.10320550]

>>10320471
>muh josephus!!

[Anonymous No.10320553]

>>10320405
They were also very destructive to hostile lands, equally much as the antichrists of Judea.

[Anonymous No.10320554]

>>10320550
>muh pliny the younger!

[Anonymous No.10320565]

>>10320553
>antichrists of Judea
Did they wear fedoras, perchance?

[Anonymous No.10321181]

ITT: christcucks getting butthurt over a kikesicle.

[Anonymous No.10321182]

>>10320405
the magic shit was just allegories, man

[Anonymous No.10321195]

>>10321182
>Matthew 21:18-22New International Version (NIV)
>Jesus Curses a Fig Tree
>18 Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
>20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.
>21 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
AHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Anonymous No.10321212]

>>10318394
Bumping one last time for that trip poster to answer

[Anonymous No.10321331]

>>10320405
We don't have contemporary records for any commoners in Judea when Jesus was around. We know about Pilate, the Tetrarchs, and the High Priest, but that's basically it.

>>10321212
He won't because he just reguritates whatever he last read on Catholic apologetics websites.

[Anonymous No.10321338]

>>10321195
there is no spoon, maaan

[Anonymous No.10321343]

>>10320405
>every chapter of Roman history starts with auspices and signs of two headed cows giving birth to rivers of blood
>we dont write off said works

[Anonymous No.10321348]

>>10321343
We write off the magical parts though

[Anonymous No.10321354]

>>10321348
thats fine, do the same for the synoptic gospels

[Anonymous No.10321363]

>>10319887
Who is controlling people and what are they trying to achieve?

[Anonymous No.10321443]

>>10315958
Because the majority of scholars who care about the question are also members of his fanclub and are invested in him and the traditional version of his story.

Though I think its pretty clear that cults rarely center around an entirely mythic character and that even if the Christ was originally meant to be a purely heavenly figure in the exoteric teachings of the first Christian groups the leader(s) of the group adopted the name/title Jesus Christ inside of the group itself, and that then the traditional narrative developed and was placed into a recent historical context after the fact likely when the sack of Jerusalem disrupted the original group(s). Proto-Christian sects could have been around for decades centered on other cult figures that then got merged in and subordinated to Jesus as a sort of 'cinematic universe' developed. We know this happened with John, and it seems unlikely that was the only case.

It also seems pretty clear from looking at modern new religious movements centered around charismatic messiah figures that the Jesus of faith likely has almost nothing to do with any actual historical Jesus to the point that saying there was a historical Jesus is basically meaningless. If 'there a person who started Christianity, lets call them the historical Jesus' becomes an acceptable answer then no shit, but there's basically nothing you can say about that person for certain based on the information we have available now.

[Anonymous No.10321510]

>>10321443
>a historical Jesus is basically meaningless

a historian would find the synthesis of the syriac christ cult and the philosophy of jesus of nazareth as told by james and peter in jerusalem very interesting indeed

[Anonymous No.10321525]

>>10321182
>>10321195
Literally meme-magic / Egregore.

[Anonymous No.10321544]

>>10321510
Sure, but that's not what the majority of historians are doing, they're trying to put their preferred Jesus from their reading of the bible into history.
When confronted on this they will retreat to the most generic position - "Jesus" is simply the label for the founder of Christianity, and so must have existed.
As soon as the pressure is off though they will again pick and choose things from the bible they want to be historical vs what they consider to be mythical and then make new claims that cannot be backed up with evidence.

[Anonymous No.10321555]

>>10321544
This isnt really true, ive listened to most of the lectures available through open sources and available to pirate and on youtube on the subject, and while I agree there is a lockstep, its more to stuff like this:

>>10317167
>>10316323

Where specious "criteria" are used to tease out facts that are very nearly useless in understanding the man or the vague "truth" that the quest for jesus inherently dangles in front of us.

[Anonymous No.10321574]

>>10320554
>>10320550
>>10320471
>ask accounts
>get accounts
>reject them for no logical reason

Reminder that fedoraposters on /lit/ are mentally ill and you are tilting at windmills with them

[Anonymous No.10321598]

>>10321181
more like
>fedorafags getting butthurt over something they don't believe in it's existence and waste their life crying about it instead of ''living life''

[Anonymous No.10321608]

We don't have hair from the head of Julius Caesar either, OP.

History involves doing a lot of guesswork but for the most part we don't find claims like "Our founder was a man called Jesus" controversial.

[Anonymous No.10321623]

Why is this being posted in /lit/ instead of /his/?
I don't go to other boards other than my regulars, but I notice /lit/ gets questions that have boards better suited for it. I know we used to have very heavy leaning threads on other subjects simply by consequence of the literature involved, but /his/ exists now.

[Anonymous No.10321638]

>>10321608
It becomes controversial in light of the existence of various Joshua sects earlier, a variety of messianic religions going around at the time, and the existence of Christian sects that placed Jesus entirely in a spiritual realm.
Even if the founder of Christianity adopted the title Jesus Christ, that individual would not be what most people are picturing when they say 'historical Jesus'.

Its a lot more difficult to tease out the truth about religious leaders because their followers have no motivation to be factual as you can even see today with much better secular record keeping vs the narratives told by Mormons, or Scientologists about their founders.

[Anonymous No.10321657]

>>10321598
The only ones who are butthurt ITT are Christians. They really can't handle the banter.

[Anonymous No.10321710]

>>10321638

The first time I wondered if there was a "historical Jesus" it was in the context of "are Christians full of nonsense or not?"

Unfortunately I don't think one can divorce explorations of early Christian history from perspectives on contemporary Christianity or religion in general.

It is my strong suspicion that Biblical scholars are merely channeling these broader perspectives into their work. But we can all admit that so it's a bit of a moot point.

Nonetheless it is important to be mindful of the fact that "no historical Jesus" claims are music the ears of atheists.

We can try to say Jesus was just one of many apocalyptic/messianic figures, but we must recall that only one apocalyptic/messianic movement managed to spread across the Greco-Roman world and convert Constantine.

This movement, like all movements or cults or religions, absolutely must have had a founder.

This is the person we are referring to when we say "historical Jesus."

[Anonymous No.10322030]

>>10321657
it isnt "Christian" to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. The people you are referring to are /lit/izens that expect a base knowledge of a subject before rejecting it entirely.

[Anonymous No.10322094]

>>10318291
You proved him right. No more (you)s for you.

[Anonymous No.10322131]

>>10316156
>citing the views of historians on history is an appeal to authority if I can't cite their reasoning myself
>citing of x on y is an appeal to authority if I can't cite them
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.10322282]

>>10316156
what source are you using? I have never heard of Paul earlier than 50, and thats Thessalonians right?

[Anonymous No.10322384]

>>10322282
The source is a 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

>For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

"What I also received" is often interpreted as Paul saying he heard the creed from other Christians and is repeating it. The very early date is arrived at by assuming he heard the creed around the timeof his conversion, sometimes estimated to be 33-35 AD.

As you can see, it's speculation on top of speculation. Additionally,Paul adds his own vision of Jesus to the creed.

>Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

According to Paul himself in Galatians, he spent years doing his own thing before even meeting the disciples in Jerusalem. Even if we accept it's a formal creed, Paul would have picked it up from the Jerusalem followers in the 40s AD. Usually, speculation is used to suggest that the disciples formalised this creed within a year of Jesus' death, but there is literally no evidence for this.

[Anonymous No.10322398]

>>10322384
Im sorry i thought i read that as Paul being the primary source of extent text.

[Anonymous No.10322400]

>>10318338
>fr, like we have all come to a consensus that say Troy was a real city with the 1,700 manuscripts and fragments of the Iliad along with the fact Homer wrote the Iliad 500 years later.
Um, no, it's because archaeologists have found the ruins of Troy. Before that, many people doubted its existence.

[Anonymous No.10322509]

>>10316198
lmao BTFO

[Anonymous No.10322519]

>>10316352
Source on that?

[Anonymous No.10322523]

>>10315958
/his/ is a very cucked board if this is posted here rather than there.

[Anonymous No.10322524]

>>10315958
i thought some emperor had written about Jesus, or some other figure i think. just like some person other than Plato wrote about Socrates.

[Anonymous No.10322538]

>>10315969

the increased scrutiny on the historicity of a person/god? named Jesus, or whatever they called him back then, is deserved when the verity of his words and actions are wholly dependent the actual occurrence of numerous extraordinary events that defy anything observed in the age of science and modern tech of documentation.

Excuse the banality, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The Bible was not written by who the claimed authors are (yet most, who throughout history have imbibed and propagated christianity thought otherwise). Neither is my subjective feeling of splendor when I meditate my christian god and feel an ineffable effulgence have anyth connection to whether Jesus, let alone did all those supernatural feats. Neither is Christianity's rise from plucky nascent mystery cult to dominating the globe both geographically and philosophically at dependent on a historical jesus.

[Anonymous No.10322585]

>>10322384
I think the implication is that he received it from Christ, no?

[Anonymous No.10322669]

>>10322585
Paul never met Jesus, he was making shit up as he went. Whether or not he got it from divine revelation is a faith reading, not historical jesus

[Anonymous No.10322672]

>>10322585
I don't think so, his vision of Jesus happened before he met the disciples in Jerusalem. If it's a pre-existing creed, it's very specific and is probably something he picked up from other Christians, not a vision.

[Anonymous No.10322696]

>>10322538
>doubting Jesus’s historicity
Absolutely embarrassing, it’s like you’re trying to be retarded. That, in addition to your word salad grammar, makes me feel nothing but pity for you.

[Anonymous No.10322706]

>>10322696
this thread is depressing in general, no matter how many sources are listed, some fedoraposter keeps posting

>Yeah but can we REALLY believe that?

[Anonymous No.10322709]

>>10320565
Holy shit that pic is blasphemy anon

[Anonymous No.10322744]

>>10322706
>ask for contemporary sources
>get some roman historian name-dropping jesus a century after his death

[Anonymous No.10322776]

Christ > kristos > krsna

Drop the jewish myth and go to the original source

[Anonymous No.10322959]

>>10322706
Ironically, they act just like creationists who say you can't know evolution happened "because you weren't there."

[Anonymous No.10323277]

>>10316207
This explains so much. I say in time they'll come around.

[Anonymous No.10323349]

>>10316340
THIS MEME AGAIN

[Anonymous No.10323353]

>>10315958
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA

[Anonymous No.10323423]

>>10323349
ur lord is a meme lmao

[Anonymous No.10323651]

>>10323423
>21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
>23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”
>25 The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” 27 “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
>27 Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Racist Jesus.

[Anonymous No.10323716]

>>10316369
You realize treating history like this leaves us little better than children going "lalalala I can't hear you!"

No shit, history is not always 100% provable, but we work with what we have. What we have points to all of the above being true.

[Anonymous No.10323755]

>>10316603
Has there ever been any examples, besides what you're claiming happened with Paul and Jesus, of someone starting a cult that doesn't place themselves at the head, but instead as a former enemy of the religion, before preaching it? And makes up some really cool guy, that isn't them or an unseen god?

[Anonymous No.10323770]

>>10321574
There is a fedorafag that has a very ''distinctive typing'' style. He doesn't deserve yous desu

[Anonymous No.10323771]

>>10323755
No.

[Anonymous No.10323775]

>>10323755
The Quraish becoming elites in the early Caliphates

[Anonymous No.10323780]

>>10321574
Those """accounts""" were all known Christian interpolations.

[Anonymous No.10323823]

>>10323780
If you have disparate sources saying the exact same thing and matching up with our outside source material (pliny, josephus), you have evidence.

Assigning the synoptic gospels, paul, james, john, work on Q Source, Galatians, Gospel of Peter Resurrection Narrative (not a great source but very real) some sort of monolithic "Christian" identity in the first century is fucking retarded, and we arent all looking at you offended-like, we are looking at you as a total fool.

[Anonymous No.10323842]

>>10323823
Oh and Thomas. Truly "Christian" and accepted by the "Christian" proto-Orthodox community. Definitely not at odds with other biographical material.

[Anonymous No.10323870]

>>10323823
But Jesus was long-dead when literally everything mentioning him was written. Explain that one for me. You have evidence, it's just shit evidence.

[Anonymous No.10323925]

>>10321443
Are you just talking out of your ass?

[Anonymous No.10324089]

>>10323870
Why would anybody write about him when he was alive? It's not like he was that important and his followers expected the world to end soon anyway.

[Anonymous No.10324384]

>>10324089
That is retarded. Why _ONLY_ write about someone posthumously? That's fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.10324405]

>>10324089

>It's not like he was that important

Dude he was going around performing literal miracles. What is your standard for what constitutes something important and in need of writing about again?

[Anonymous No.10324429]

>>10324089
t. logiclet

[Anonymous No.10324438]

>>10324405
uhhhh they sampled a page corner that underwent an invisible repair 40 years later and oops they can't re-date it sorry

[Anonymous No.10324638]

>>10319798
>using "problematic" unironicly

[Anonymous No.10324644]

>>10323755
The "Paul was a persecutor of Christians before becoming one" narrative may not be original and may have been invented later. He wasn't the most popular guy in the proto-orthodoxy and was widely regarded as the father of heresy so an unflattering back story may have been invented to lower his prestige, in much the same way that Pauline sources often portray Peter and the 12 as bumbling idiots who fucked everything up requiring Jesus to appear to Paul to straighten things out.

Its really amazing how much the early christian community resembles modern comic book fans trying to prove that their favorite hero is the strongest.

[Anonymous No.10324652]

>>10324638

[Anonymous No.10324816]

>>10322523

/his/ isn't "cucked", it's just entirely redundant and filled with faggy communists. It was basically a mistake, and should be deleted, as history and religion are basically inseperable from literature. Plus, /lit/ is one of the few civilized boards where you can have a discussion about religion and adjacent subjects without it being politicized.

[Anonymous No.10324823]

>>10324816
/his/ are basically just /lit/ on training wheels.
Just had a look there and saw a book chart thread and everything.

[Anonymous No.10325140]

This was a fun thread. Night-night, /lit/ christcucks.

[Anonymous No.10326153]

>>10323823
Not that anon but doesn't Pliny just talk about the persecutions of Christians rather than the existence and miracles of Jesus? Its kind of like saying the Extermination Order directed at the Mormons is proof of Joseph Smith being a prophet.

>>10324089
Not only the miracles and controversy he caused in Jerusalem but the fact that his death resulted in darkness across the world and his rising in a multitude of Jewish men to also resurrect. Pretty intense things to ignore for 50 years

[Anonymous No.10326202]

>>10326153
>Not that anon but doesn't Pliny just talk about the persecutions of Christians rather than the existence and miracles of Jesus?
Yes, Pliny and Tacitus mention the existence of Christianity, which only confirms that Christians existed (well duh). The Josephus passage (testamentum flavianum) is a later Christian interpolation. The earliest source, Paul, is very short on detail, and the later gospels disagree with each other and Paul on many details. Of course, those are all Christian theological works as well and are heavily biased.

That said, the evidence we have is relatively early and points to a real Jesus existing. Mythicism requires a totally hypothetical council of mystics who invented a new syncretic figure for some reason, which immediately turned into a belief in a historical figure for some other reason.

[Anonymous No.10326246]

>>10326202
>is a later Christian interpolation
literally untrue, you are referring to antiquities Antiquities 18.3 (Jesus, a wise man), while conveniently forgetting Antiquities 20.9 (the death of James) which modern biblical scholars accept as vital evidence.

You are either misinformed on the subject and talking out of your ass or willfully twisting the narrative to confuse other posters. Get yourself a trip so i can block you either way, its repulsive to me.

[Anonymous No.10326255]

>>10326202
The point was showing the deceit of that poster who stated that sources like Pliny were not only accounts of Jesus but that they also matched up or said the same thing as the gospels.

[Anonymous No.10326260]

>>10326202
>all Christian theological works
All these faggots who keep conflating small c christian vs big C Christian.

When Paul, James, Mark, Q, and the source material for Thomas were being written there was no monolithic elite Christian cult. These are separate sources from separate communities saying they are drawing their moral and theological basis from a teacher named Jesus of Nazareth. But this has been amply demonstrated to the 1-2 assholes who are arguing against it. Either they are immune to evidence and changing their opinion or trolls at this point.

[Anonymous No.10326265]

>>10326246
Testamentum Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3) is an interpolation, that's not exactly controversial.

He does mention Jesus in Antiquites 20.9.1 which is not an interpolation, you're right on that.

[Anonymous No.10326286]

>>10323651
He was testing her. It was just a prank bro

[Anonymous No.10326293]

>>10324644
>Its really amazing how much the early christian community resembles modern comic book fans trying to prove that their favorite hero is the strongest
>early
How about now, with ten million denominations and many of them calling each other heretics?

[Anonymous No.10326633]

>>10315958
For the same reason we agree that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare despite no surviving manuscripts written by him: it raises too many questions to say he didn't write his plays, despite 'Shakespeare' doubters wasting a stupid amount of time insisting he didn't. Fewer unanswerable questions are raised by saying he existed.

[Anonymous No.10328238]

>>10316021
He very obviously can't. It isn't even worth trying to argue with him.

[Anonymous No.10328267]

>>10323353
pretty long but... "jesus exists" clearly fucking won

[Anonymous No.10328311]

>>10315958
Just because they are obviously bias the new testiment accounts cannot be completely discounted.

We also have to account for where all these Christians came from? is it more likely there was a preacher named Jesus or that someone made him up? the latter is unlikely because of how fragmented the early christian community was. there was no one figure uniting them.

[Anonymous No.10328325]

>>10328238
Except he, or others, did, several times over. Read the thread.

[Anonymous No.10328405]

>>10328311
>is it more likely there was a preacher named Jesus or that someone made him up?
Is it possibly that the biblical Jesus is based on several different preachers?

[Anonymous No.10329176]

>>10328405
That's quite possible actually.

[Anonymous No.10329544]

FYI, believing that Bible is a biography of Jesus as a historical person that had a miracle (and subsequent discussion whether or not that miracle had a “realistic explanation”) is actually frowned upon in Christianity. Most likely, there's some Greek word for that travesty. Militant atheists doing the same — by asking for proofs that Jesus existed, for example — are, in fact, fighting with most retarded of believers. (Imagine that there are many layers, and people who believe in magical properties of crosses, etc. form the outer layer. Faith, then, is not an acquired state, but a process of going deeper.)

[Anonymous No.10329602]

>>10315958
Thereally is evidence that someone who fits many of these descriptions probably existed. The historiocity of most quotes attributed to Christ seems rather likely as even when the wording differs the implications and meanings are mostly preserved across sources.

The most simple explanation is that some peasant class jew of the first century with the fairly common name of Joshua (roughly) did in fact exist and say most of the things we know as Sayings of jesus today. The events of the narrative likely arose from the culture which formed prior to and in the wake of his death to try to add context to the sayings.

This is the most straight forward way to think about the evidence we do have. It turns out this is also why we believe in Any number of caesars and rulers of ancient societies about which we honestly have rather limited information

[Anonymous No.10329717]

>>10326265
But surely you're aware that the majority of scholars believe that the interpolation was an addendum and not a completely forged passage?

[Anonymous No.10329729]

>>10329544
Nice deceptive physical metaphor, causist

[Anonymous No.10329736]

>>10316323
Dont forget Pliny the youngers letter to Trajan anon.

[Anonymous No.10329928]

>>10315958
It doesn't seem all that unlikely that there was a Jew rebel at some point in history.

[Anonymous No.10329965]

>>10315989
>Christian
>casually takes lord's name in vain

[Anonymous No.10329970]

>>10315982
As a Christian you are supposed to have no hope in humanity.

[Anonymous No.10330229]

>>10316352
let me post another unverifiable and manipulative image

[Anonymous No.10330567]

>>10330229
How is that unverifiable? The bible is full of contradictions.

[Anonymous No.10330573]

>>10330567
yeah but probably not that many are really unambiguously contradictory. A lot of it is probably Iron Chariot tier BS.

[Anonymous No.10330887]

>>10330573
>Iron Chariot

[Anonymous No.10330889]

>>10330887
well I'm agreeing with you. are you seriously skimming posts on the literature board?

[Anonymous No.10330923]

>>10330889
>skimming posts
Please define.

[Anonymous No.10330929]

>>10330923
I think you need to find another board

[Anonymous No.10330969]

>>10315958
Tacitus mentions the bollocks, and that's good enough for me.
>that man Chrestus.

[Anonymous No.10330990]

>>10318358
>tfw I have literally never read the Bible but I like to make shit up on the internet
>tfw I'm just saying arbitrary things to get (You)'s

[Anonymous No.10331005]

>>10315989
That's like saying the Lord of the Rings will be evidence in the future that hobbits and orcs actually existed.

[Anonymous No.10331053]

>>10329544
What, precisely, are you babbling about?

[Anonymous No.10331065]

>>10331053
some gnostic booshi. Just gnore him