The image would be far more offensive and powerful if it didn't have the demon. Just the ideas that Jesus never left the cross, that the whole Resurrection is a lie and the cross is a symbol of his defeat.
>>52917 The man known to us as Jesus Christ was actually an infamous Cretan pederast and necromancer who had arrived in Judea fleeing from the imperial authorities. There, he earned his living by performing magic tricks and selling quack remedies. Coming across the legends that foretold the arrival of the messiah, 'Jesus' saw his big chance. He used the messiah schtick to gain a moderately large following. For a while all was good, but things got out of control pretty quickly. Despite his best efforts, he ended up becoming a symbol of the growing Judean national movement. He was arrested in a roman raid and they decided to make an example of him
>>53646 Tacitus accepted as fact that the Romans killed a man named Jesus for acts of sedition. Coming from a Roman official such as Tacitus, there's little reason to assume otherwise, unless you're a tin foil hat kind of guy.
The testimonies of Josephus are much more problematic because they have what biblical scholars call interpolation, that is, Christians inserted their own words into Josephus's history. But even then it's easy to separate Christian interpolation from what he actually wrote, because it's clunky and forced.
>>53795 Josephus is a really interesting case for the denial of a historical Jesus because if his accounts are totally fake, there would be no reason for his writings to have existed at all. Literally the only reasons the histories of Joesphus survived was because he wrote about Jesus. The Romans didn't care about Jewish history, and Jews thought of him as a repugnant traitor. Christians preserved his writings because he mentioned Jesus. Yes, they embellished a little, but that doesn't mean the completely invented a passage that made them preserve that book in the first place.
>>53932 Exactly. especially since he wrote such detailed histories of other seditious figures in the region, like Judas the Galilean who also had an active ministry that was viewed as a threat. It's also important to mention that his biography of Jesus doesn't exactly mesh with the canonical gospels of Mark or Matthew either, which if it was a complete Christian fabrication, it probably would.
He's a historical figure, alright. Perhaps a fictional being, but still historical and credited with assisting in shaping the history of the world. Say what you want about Christianity, but it's obvious how much part it has in the world's history.
I don't know how to feel about his existence. Many scientists believe in the existence of Christ, but to be fair they're mostly Christian apologists. Life becomes so simple when you're able to pin so much on a deity instead of questioning the creation of everything.
>>54453 I feel the same way. Since Mark is probably the earliest of the gospels it makes sense. It reads more like a book about someone that actually existed.
His birth and childhood aren't mentioned because nobody cared. No one really cares about him until John baptizes him and gives him legitimacy, which makes sense because John was very well-renowned. He doesn't perform a ton of miracles. The entire gospel, he basically tries to keep his divinity a secret, which makes sense if he was an actual person and didn't do that stuff, since it explains why people didn't see it. The original ending didn't even include a resurrection, just a cliffhanger ending about an empty tomb.
>>54911 >His birth and childhood aren't mentioned because nobody cared Or more likely that no one knew, which necessitated the invention of the mystical birth narrative. The lost Christ in the Temple served to show that Jesus was the chosen one from an early age and not a prophet who began his ministry as an adult.
I do find it interesting, though, that Jesus first became relevant at thirty which is also the age when Zoroaster received his revelation.
>>54328 >Life becomes so simple when you're able to pin so much on a deity instead of questioning the creation of everything. I'd say the opposite, life is far easier when there is no higher power than Man, the universe is an orderly machine, and there is nothing to answer too after death. its a very comforting egocentric ideal.
Historical Jesus by Stanford Continuing Studies Program
Description Who was the historical Jesus of Nazareth? What did he actually say and do, as contrasted with what early Christians (e.g., Paul and the Gospel writers) believed that he said and did? What did the man Jesus actually think of himself and of his mission, as contrasted with the messianic and even divine claims that the New Testament makes about him? In short, what are the differences—and continuities—between the Jesus who lived and died in history and the Christ who lives on in believers’ faith? Over the last four decades historical scholarship on Jesus and his times—whether conducted by Jews, Christians, or non-believers—has arrived at a strong consensus about what this undeniably historical figure (born ca. 4 BCE, died ca. 30 CE) said and did, and how he presented himself and his message to his Jewish audience. Often that historical evidence about Jesus does not easily dovetail with the traditional doctrines of Christianity. How then might one adjudicate those conflicting claims? This is a course about history, not about faith or theology. It will examine the best available literary and historical evidence about Jesus and his times and will discuss methodologies for interpreting that evidence, in order to help participants make their own judgments and draw their own conclusions. Presented by the Stanford Continuing Studies Program. Released with a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license.
>>55690 I'm of the opinion that the Christ cult took off specifically because of an event that ended in his death for sedition against the Roman state. This I think was an impetus for early followers of Christ, especially in the years before Mark and Saul of Tarsus committed ink to the life and belief of Jesus.
>three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.
>>56465 As historians we can't ever know anything with 100% certainty, especially when dealing with antiquity. We have to rely on fragmentary and incomplete extant records. We have to go with what is probable and what is likely. The claims of divinity and miraculous powers, however, are subject to scrutiny; since that which is vigorously asserted must be vigorously denied. Generally the corroboration of disparate sources passes muster.
I find it odd that most of the skepticism regarding Jesus concerns the absence of first hand sources.
Is it really odd that there'd be no direct documentation of his life? It's not like he was Buddha and spent decades of his life spreading his message; his ministry was supposedly only three years in length and all of one week was spent in a large city.
Adding to that, he spent most of his life among the poor and destitute.
>>56903 An antiquities professor of mine once said that we could fit all the extant first hand sources of Alexander the Great into maybe a page or two. I want to say it's remarkable that anything about Jesus was written at all, but it makes perfect sense. Peasants rarely made it into the official record, unless they did something unsavory or crossed the authorities. Jesus's life fits that historical pattern.
>>55746 See, as an atheist I find that fucking nuts. I'd be overjoyed if there was credible evidence for the existence of a god, because ceasing to exist is literally the worst thing a self aware organism can suffer.
>>58808 People have invented deities since the birth of mankind. >1 jackass says that something magical have happened >Other people believe it >They spread it to their children >Their children spread it to neighboring tribes >Even though the belief is false, they don't know it is false
>>58245 And the time before I was born was horrible, as I didn't exist. Also considering that we live linear to the 4th dimension, quibbling over semantics over how technically you still exist is nonsense. You're dead and gone.
NOBODY would have invented the story of their so-called messiah being tortured and killed as a common criminal. It only seems to make some sense to people now because Christianity has had two thousand years to try and make sense of it.
>>54453 This makes sense to me as well. The whole childhood of Christ in the Bible is pretty clearly invented from whole cloth: it's meant to satisfy all the expectations of how a messiah should have been born, and it included elements that are easily disproven (like having to travel to Jerusalem for a census, which is simply nonsense, ditto the 'massacre of the innocents' which is utter and total BS)
>>64153 There seems to be pretty broad agreement that Jesus was a real person, so not invented out of whole cloth. A lot of the (pretty obviously made up) details about him are meant to conform to old testament prophesy.
As for the old testament, it includes a lot of stories that were shared by non-Jewishing peoples in the levant, and the middle east generally. In the Jewish bible itself you can see the evolution from very early "Judaism" which was polytheistic (Israel had many gods), to one where Israel had one national god but that didn't invalidate the gods of other peoples, to one where the Jewish national god becomes the only worldwide god.
historically, there are accounts of a prophet around the time Jesus was supposedly alive, the whole messiah thing I find hard to believe but in the academic world it is believed there was someone name jesus who went around prophesying
Why are Christ Mythers allowed on this board? They will ruin it. It's just biased plausible deniability bullshit with no substantial basis. Jesus was a historical figure. Claiming otherwise is not actual history.
Daily reminder that anyone who thinks Carrier makes "interesting points" or that Jesus was a composite figure are buying into anti-Christian pseudoscholarship because they're just atheists with an axe to grind.
They are also from /pol/, who are psychotically anti-Christian.
>>65278 The parts I think are most likely true are
>baptized by John the Baptist >traveling preacher and teacher >got arrested and crucified
John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus separate from Jesus and his account matches up somewhat to the biblical account, so he's probably real. Traveling preachers were common, and the crucifixion story is so central and striking it's hard to believe someone made it up.
>>65297 Unnecessary for Jesus to be a composite character, since he didn't do much of anything but preach a bit in the sticks, go to the capital for passover, and promptly get himself executed. Any complete retard could have done the same.
>>65524 There's no direct evidence either way. This isn't like holocaust denial or saying the earth is flat. But it's certainly much less likely than Jesus simply being real (Occam's razor being what it is)
>>61253 yeah but not so many people, pauls says hundreds say Jesus risen, in the same place where the events were said to have occurred so that they could easily have been contradicted by anyone in the area who cared. yet christianity would go on to take over the entire roman empire.
>>52917 he more than likely existed. he was a jewish man that was highly influenced by the essene and nazarene jewish sects, which would explain why his ideas were so different from mainstream judaism. he obviously wasn't the son of god or whatever. he was just another cult leader, y'know.
>>52917 Well yes he existed there are records of people talking about him around his time and he certainly had a significant impact on world far after his 'death'.
Whether you believe all the miracles he did, his philosophy, or whether he was God or not I imagine most would agree that he did in fact exist in some form and was rather significant in shaping history after his exit.
>>55222 jesus could have been highly influenced by zoroastrian teachings. he could have known that zoroaster was 30 when he received his revelation before deciding to start preaching at 30 as well. he could have even lied about his age too.
Yes. Tacitus explicitly mentions 'instigations of Chrestus' when talking about the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. I also think his crucifiction mentioned in the Writings of Josephus (from AD 90ish?) as is some reference to Jesus having a brother named James. But i havent read those sources in years so i could be wrong in the specifics but Jesus is generally viewed as a Historical figure.
>>73526 There are still numerous reports of miracles today, I seem to remember something about the pope and some blood a while back. There's at least one people I know personally, and a person I wouldn't call a liar under any circumstances, that claims to have spoken a language he doesn't speak on a couple of occasions, and was only alerted to it by onlookers after the fact.
It really matters were you look and what you acknowledge as a trustworthy source. Again, consider how and why you are denying the premise.
>>73729 Whether it is an emotional leap or not is a matter of debate, one which has been waged by more and brighter minds for quite a while. As it stands, there's not a great way of deciding this here.
>>73858 Mythicism is hard to support given the evidence. There were plenty of wannabe Messiahs in the time period in question and it's unreasonable to suppose that one of them wasn't named Yeshua.
Unfortunately what we can say positively about Yeshua is very limited, again given the evidence. There is a line in Josephus that is either a total or partial forgery. Tacitus wrote (based on what sources we do not know) about Christus in 116 AD. The synoptic gospels were written somewhere in between. The gospel of John is so late it's less than worthless.
I think the poor quality of evidence frustrates everyone regardless of ideological position (if any).
>>74483 Again, you are first denying the sources we do have, the gospels and the epistles, as untrustworthy or unnotable.
What makes John's Gospel worthless? It still claims to be written by an eyewitness, and even after decades an eyewitness is still considered valuable testimony. The only real problem is that he would be, at best estimates given what we know about John, ~90 years old at this point if the gospel was written in A.D. 100. It's not impossible that he could have lived to be that old, merely highly unlikely.
It is worth noting that the gospels and Josephus are the -only- sources for Pontius Pilate having ever existed, and he was the governor of a valuable and tumultuous region. No Roman or Jewish source besides these alludes to him at all. Why would outside contemporaries spend that much time on the head of a sect only estimated to be around 7000 strong as of the 100 A.D.?
Why are the Christian sources of poor quality? We have numerous manuscripts dating within a couple decades of the event that agree almost without fault. They claim to be written by eyewitnesses (John's gospel and the epistles in particular) or by secondhand hearers (Matt. Mark and Luke). The persons who handed these down were derided in the text itself, the commands passed down were ones they admit are difficult for themselves (Acts and Paul's epistles in particular) and, it is to the best of my knowledge universally agreed, they would later die for these statements. Paul's account of his sufferings in 2nd Corinthians certainly doesn't paint a picture of someone who stood to gain a hell of a lot by standing by this.
>>75069 >Tacitus mentions him... You are correct on both counts and my research was bad. But the issue of sources that survived remains an issue, why is Pilate so sparsely mentioned if they kept records? Either they didn't keep good records or few have survived.
Why would Jesus, to outside observers just another false messiah, be picked out for record? It doesn't make sense for contemporaries to keep talking about Him if His followers don't start becoming important until the second century.
>What event? The miracle that makes Jesus matter: the Resurrection. If that doesn't happen His teachings don't have authority, His remaining followers don't have a reason to keep doing things, and the Jesus recorded in the Gospels doesn't exist.
>>76315 Special pleading, ad hoc hypothesis. I'm sure the Moabites felt that Chemosh did plenty of miracles for them.
The record in Tacitus is a footnote to the Great Fire of Rome that Christians were blamed for out of convenience (them being an oddball non-traditional religion spreading out of the Levant and refusing allegiance to the Emperor) and occurred during Tacitus' childhood.
>>76315 >The miracle that makes Jesus matter: the Resurrection. Assuming 33AD for a date, we have absolutely zero manuscripts written any closer than 150 years after the resurrection would have taken place.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.