To Preface, I am a Christian; however, I would like to approach this topic as unbiasedly as possible. The topic is whether or not Jesus Christ was a historical figure, and how much evidence do we have to prove this case? Claims of Divinity are irrelevant, I simply want to know if there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who performed miracles, was known as the messiah, was crucified, and killed by Pontius Pilate and if there were reports of a resurrection. I also want to bring into question the authenticity of the gospels and if they are a reliable source.
>>18015488>killed by Pontius Pilatedefinitely not
>>18015500Well, condemned to death by Pilate, as for why he was put to death... Well, I think everyone knows what the reason for that was
>>18015507https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/23.html>4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”>13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people,14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him.>22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”>23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed.>24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand.your nose is showing, prefaced christian
>>18015519Yes, I know (((they))) killed him, I just said that to be politically correct. It's not relevant to the topic
>>18015488I don't find the arguments against a historical Jesus convincingNo he didn't rise from the dead
>>18015523I'm talking about reports of people claiming/believing they saw a risen Jesus. Your personal belief on the topic doesn't matter.
>>18015522how's testimony of his death irrelevant to his life story?
>>18015538I don't want to shit the thread up with this. Pharisees (or just Jews) killed Jesus, happy?
>>18015488There were definitely several people who did things like that at the time. There may or may not have been one named Jesus of Nazareth, but it's certain that the story refers to one of these real messianic figures. Completely inventing an executed messiah isn't really possible when several real ones exist, even an attempt at fiction would resemble one more than the others. Whatever Jesus's real name and story was, it's certainly true that he was a real man who gathered followers, spoke to crowds about God, and was executed by the local roman and jewish authorities.
>>18015700am I doing this right .. ? CHECKED JESUS NUMBERS AND HOLY TRVVTHNVVKE!!! OP CHINKSPAMMER BTFO!
>a man named Jesus of Nazareth yes>who performed miraclesNo>was known as the messiahMost likely>was crucifiedYes> and killed by Pontius PilateYes> and if there were reports of a resurrectionReports? Yes. Pliny the elder also reports one time it rained meat from the sky.
>>18015488Yes the same way you exist now and how Christianity is an irl thing like Charlie Memorial. The Bible says God exists (everytime Jesse is mentioned which just means God exists). God exists and therefore Jesus exists. When the Bible said Jesus went to Galilee or whatever he was actually there. The Bible says that the fire comes to test each work to see what work it is so you have to check if the Gospels went through that difficulty. If you are representing God, you will be help up to God's standards. Charlie Kirk was boomering while representing Jesus so he got held up to that standard. The thing about lies is that it is just lies. In the truth, there is something behind it that you are looking for. It's a very important thing to understand why locked in guys aka me just begin from the Bible and miracles would be obvious before even seeing it irl like I have so that's good but if you mess up, people will say you're bummy.
>>18015488> if there were reports of a resurrectionnot a response, but asking for the historicity of a supernatural event is meaningless - that is basically a rorschachtest for whether someones metaphysics. For example, if there are reports of multiple people claiming to whitness a miracle, then we still do not know whether something supernatural happened (then the folks were reported correctly) or not (then the folks were decieved, are lying, were misunderstood or whatever else).What is more reasonable is to ask whether there are reports of people that claim that Jesus was resurected, and if the people after the crucification acted accordingly.Sorry if you meant that, I have literally assburgers
>>18016002You can still do meaningful history studying how stories of the resurrection develop over time and their associated christology. Ie early christ hymn in Romans vs gospel accounts
>>18015969>Pliny the elder also reports one time it rained meat from the sky.Didn't he die in a volcanic eruption? Nature is wild in those parts.
absolutely no historicity no firsthand accounts even exist of the cult leader rabbijust anonymous gospels written up to 90 years later
One of the "too real to be literature" parts of the gospel is when the romans post guard on Jesus's tomb, explicitly so his followers can't steal the body and claim resurrection. This doesn't make a ton of sense as a later addition or myth. It's just too raw and real.
>>18016064t. shmuel fomenkostein
>>18015488Atheist here.>how much evidence do we have to prove this case?In a sense, not very much. There's no contemporary documentation of Jesus (not that that's surprising for someone of his time, place and social status) and really the only documents that give any details about him are the gospels which obviously contain legend. However I think it comes down to two basic facts: Christianity suddenly appeared in the 1st century and Christians consistently claimed Jesus as their founder. While not impossible, to me it certainly seems unlikely that Christians would become so confused about how their movement began, even when it was within living memory, that they attributed it to an entirely fictitious person. The simpler explanation is that there was a Jesus.So taking that for granted, what can we know about Jesus? Again, pretty much all we have to go on is the Bible and our own critical thinking skills, but I'll give you my opinion.>who performed miraclesDepends what you mean by perform miracles. There are so many stories of Jesus doing exorcisms and faith healings it seems likely he at least did those, if only in appearance, as many people do today.>was known as the messiahIn the synoptic gospels Jesus's status as the Messiah is a secret known only to his close disciples and the demons he casts out. I suspect they're being truthful, that Jesus didn't go around telling most people he was the Messiah. But did he secretly teach it to his disciples or not? I don't know.>was crucified, and killed by Pontius PilateAll sources about Jesus's death are consistent about this and I see no reason to doubt it.>and if there were reports of a resurrectionCertainly, in this case we have direct evidence. Paul in his letters says that Christ is raised and that it was divinely revealed to him, and he makes clear he wasn't the first. But as for the details of scenes described in the gospels and Acts? I see no reason to put much stock in them as they aren't firsthand.
>>18016075Wut? Gonna have to disagree with you there. That sounds like something that was made up to answer the question "How do we know someone didn't just steal the body?" I mean if you look at it from the Romans' perspective, they would've had no reason to expect anyone to fake a resurrection. They didn't even know Jesus was supposed to resurrect.
>>18016157They did because it was the style at the time. In order to deny the historicity of jesus you have to deny the whole paradigm of messiahs being killed by the authorities who dominated both church and state with nepotism.
>>18015523>no he didn't rise from the deadWrong. St. Constantine saw the XP as did thousands of other eyewitnesses, most of them sober as they were marching into battle
Paul refers to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, resurrection appearances, and early followers, but gives almost no biographical details like public teachings.
>>18016064>rabbithe talmud garbage did not exist in 0 ADJesus was a "tekton" meaning traditionally a carpenter or some think a mason
>>18016222Jesus is the earliest person in history we have record of being called a rabbi
>>18016395from matthew 23:8 no doubt
>>18016141>Jesus didn't go around telling most people he was the Messiah. But did he secretly teach it to his disciples or not? I don't know.I think he did. Look at Matthew 19:28>Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of IsraelHere Jesus is promising his 12 disciples including Judas that they'll each rule a tribe of israel after the apocalypse. This has got to go back to irl jesus, no later scribe who knows how the story ends would invent a saying of jesus where he's promising the betrayer Judas an exalted role in the coming kingdom. Even if the historical jesus didnt equate himself with the Son of Man it would still follow that as their leader he's above them. It also makes sense of his charge at the execution of calling himself King of Jews. The gospel narrators never call Jesus king of the jews, seems a lot more like a historical memory than something the narrator invented. Its a bit of a house of cards but TLDR I think its likely jesus taught his inner circle hes the messiah and therefor king of the jews. I also think thats what Judas betrayed to the authorities, since the narrative of him just revealing who jesus is makes little sense after Jesus's big crashout in the temple.
>>18016402Strictly speaking the earliest surviving usage of the word rabbi is Mark 9:5 where Simon Peter calls Jesus rabbi during the transfiguration. In Matthew its a negative term spoken only by Judas or in a negative context. Luke never uses rabbi.John has rabbi everywhere and followers of john the baptist are calling jesus rabbi in the very first chapter. But thas already much later than mark.
>>18015488I believe it is very probable Jesus Christ existed as a historical person, though how reliable accounts of him are is very debatable. Whether he did actual miracles is not something we can ever know, however he is by no means the only person of the era to be attributed miraculous habilities. Apollonius of Tyana was a Pagan miracle worker while Honi HaMe'agel was a Jewish example. And Apollonius was also thought to have ascended to heaven.For me, historical Jesus was an itinerant preacher of the manner common in Judea at the time, he may have genuinely disturbed the peace, and was thus executed by the Roman government at the behest of the priesthood. He had followers. Though it is not certain if they were the apostles.Beyond that we cannot know.
>>18016414>no later scribe who knows how the story ends would invent a saying of jesus where he's promising the betrayer Judas an exalted role in the coming kingdomI like to think that this is one of the indications that in Matthew's version of the story Judas was saved. After all, he did repent. From Matthew 27,When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. He said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.Of course that idea still has to deal with Jesus apparently saying that it would be better had Judas not been born in Matthew 26. The two main defences of that are a bit iffy, but one of them is that in the Greek it's supposedly ambiguous whether Jesus is saying it would be better for Judas if Judas hadn't been born or if he's saying it would be better for Judas if Jesus hadn't been born (at that time). "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if that man hadn't been born."And then the second defense is that it does mean it would be better for Judas if Judas hadn't been born, but it doesn't mean it would be better for Judas if he didn't exist or that his afterlife will be awful, just that it would have been better for him if he didn't have to live his life, if he didn't have to play the role he was going to play, in line with lots of old testament passages where even righteous people and prophets wish they had never been born and Solomon says those who were haven't been born are the best off of all humans.
>>18016523This is a good point, appreciate the effortpost.I still think when considering jesus's charge above the cross its likely he taught at least his inner circle hes the messiah. Otherwise youd have the scenario where he gets killed, people start thinking he was raised, and then declare he was the messiah all along. It seems more likely some people thought he was the messiah, then he gets killed, and in order to maintain the belief he still is and was the messiah the resurrection belief comes naturally from there. The christ hymn paul quotes in Romans emphasizes the davidic messiah, and thats quite old, again its not ironclad but i feel lots of evidence points towards people thinking he was messiah very early, even during his own lifetime
>>18016217I think that is one of the most interesting things about Paul. He was not afraid of claiming authority through knowledge. But sharing very little about the actual Jesus in his letters or referencing it to claim authority on a matter, when by all means he should have known at least something about the man via his communications with the surviving disciples is interesting. Because if he didn't know much of anything about Jesus, why the hell was he so dedicated to the man? Why would he think he was the Messiah (in a way that Jewish society didn't predict at all) when he knew so little about him or at least didn't feel a need to talk about his deeds in life.
>>18015488>I am a Christian; however, I would like to approach this topic as unbiasedly as possible.so, first you announce your bias ...
>>18016190>it was the style at the timelike, it was a real possibility that people will claim executed people will come back to life, so much that the procurator ordered guards posted at graves? one example?
The problem is that it's constructed more like a story and less like an account of historical events. The things that would be relevant to history are left blank while the things that would be relevant to storytellers are there.The gaps in knowledge and lack of objectivity mean that we can never know for sure.
>>18016395pilpul will not help (you) talmudfreak
>>18017219The talmud didn't exist yet during the time of jesus. There were surely people called rabbi before jesus, but those texts are all lost. The dead sea scrolls never use the term either. Simon calling jesus rabbi in mark 9 is the first time in recorded history the word is used.I'd recommend reading the new testament if you're interested in this stuff, mark is a great place to start and is a brilliant book in general one of my favorites.
>>18015488I worked on an excavation in Rome where we found relatives of Pontius Pilate and reference him as governor of ludaea. So Pilate definitely existed and if Josephus is to be believed Jesus did too
>>18017300>The talmud didn't exist yet during the time of jesusThat's what I said. Good, you're paying attention. rabbi was used in an entirely different context in 0 ADas was the term Judahite/Ivdaean
>>18016779>I am a Christianhe did
>>18016784Haile SelassieKing ArthurIt even has its own wiki page though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_asleep_in_mountainYou'd have to be completely ignorant of human history to claim this isn't how it always goes. Oddly, there's no part of King Arthur's story where Mordred tries to disprove his divinity and scatter his bones. I guess it didn't fit into the mythology.>>18017008>The things that would be relevant to history are left blankLMAO this is the new dumbest argument against the historicity of Jesus. I feel 12 years old again.
>>18017414>rabbi was used in an entirely different context in 0 ADWhat's the difference? Rabbi jesus in mark and john is a teacher, an interpreter of scripture, and the master of disciples. After john rabbis start appearing in the talmud where theyre teachers, interpreters of scriptures, and masters of disciples. Interestingly neither Philo or Josephus ever use the word rabbi, only the gospels and talmud. The one thing maybe worth digging into is how the gospels mistranslate rabbi as teacher when it really means something like great one. Elsewhere they translate jesus's aramaic into greek pretty well so i wonder whats going on there. Maybe some other jewish scroll will get dug up but until then the earliest rabbi known to history is jesus christ.
>>18017458>engaging with someone who simply hates jews and has no idea what he's talking about>on an issue of no importanceyou lost the plot
>>18016784The actual history is crucified people were left to rot on the cross and then eventually dumped in a mass grave. Paul never mentions the empty tomb and his resurrection list in corinthians doesnt mention the women at the tomb as witnesses of the risen jesus. The entire empty tomb story was invented to counter docetism
>>18017461I know its impossible to actually educate this retard, I just like watching him change his claims every post as he repeatedly gets proven wrong with actual scripture citations
>>18017466Oh PAUL doesn't mention it. I guess he's a reliable historical record now. What else does he say about Jesus?>>18017472I don't trust people like that anymore, time is money. If they can't hack it I try to say so and move on. Too many bots afoot these days
>>18017458I will not waste my time with your pathetic pilpul. answer me this if you're capable of:what does your talmud say about Jesus and Mary?I know very well what our Gospel says about the ancestors of your rabbis pic related
>>18017461>hates jewswho gave (you) the right to speak about what I hate, jew?did (you) ask me directly?or are (you) here just to be a shit disturber as is your tradition?
>>18017499You're another stupid chinkbot worth about two pixels of my day. You can't talk straight far less produce a good argument. Goodbye.
>>18017480If paul knew about the empty tomb tradition he would have mentioned the women at the tomb in his comprehensive list of witnesses to the resurrection in 1 corinthians 15. This isnt immediately accessible history its just our earliest data. You could say paul knew about the empty tomb but decided to suppress it and not mention the women at the tomb (stretch), the empty tomb did happen and was a known story that paul somehow didnt know about (huge stretch), or stories of jesus being resurrected were known but the details of the empty tomb were only invented later by Mark (most likely). Theres other reasons to believe #3, you can see later gospels being bothered by Marks tomb narrative and needing to emphasize it was a brand new tomb. This is needed because 1st century jewish tombs had lots of corpses in them, and one missing corpse wouldnt mean jesus himself was raised. Matthew Luke and John all fix this with increasing emphasis to show the missing corpse in the tomb had to in fact be Jesus's since it was the only body buried there.
>>18017511>scurries back to its tunnelgood call moshi. good luck
>>18017533You got me, I don't care about the specific sequence of the tomb being one room and the stone being yea big and the number of guards. That's all peripheral. This conversation began in reference to putting a guard over his body.
>>18017545Right and I'm arguing the guard at the tomb and in fact the entire empty tomb narrative isnt historical, its invented legendary narrative to emphasize the physical resurrection of jesus's body and counter other christians claiming a non bodily spiritual resurrection. Its also illustrative to compare different NT texts and if jesus rises "on the third day" (~36 hours dead) or "after three days" (~72 hours dead), the timing of which depends which old testament passage the author is citing as a scripture. Another strong indication to me the original core story was simply that he was resurrected, and the timing and details and tomb etc were created later each by different authors and are literature, not history.
>>18017574It's amazing you can say stuff like this with a straight face.
>>18017578You're a stupid faggot Jesus was never put in a tomb, cope.
>>18017580no, instead he flew through the air leaving earthquakes in his wake
>>18017584Lol
>>18017578Its not that hard to read books and pay attention to what they say. The new testament isnt even that long. If you got an argument for the historicity of matthew's tomb narrative id be happy to hear it
>>18017574and I'm saying it's of no interest whether he was in a tomb or still up on the cross, although a tomb would be easier to guard. What matters is whether the stealing of a leader's body was considered a threat.
>>18017594>What matters is whether the stealing of a leader's body was considered a threat.Its not a legitimate threat even in Matthew, the guard at the tomb story is an etiology explaining why jews dont follow jesus and is part of his wider polemic. Matthew spends more words explaining why jews dont believe in the resurrection than he does narrating the actual resurrection.
>>18017626source: there is none
>>18017591The alternative is everyone immediately forgot about Jesus when he was executed. That allowed the romans to leave his body unguarded on the cross until it became light enough for one man to throw in the mass grave. Then nobody ever heard the name "Jesus" again. In fact, his name wasn't Jesus. In fact, there were never irritating prophets in Judea who got executed. The whole thing is false history created by Faul. That's the alternative.
>>18017633The source is the gospel of matthew 27:62 - 28:15Tldr chief priests tell pilate the disciples will steal the corpse, pilate gives them guards, angel blinds the guards and jesus gets raised, chief priests bribe guards to say the disciples stole the body, and "And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day". This is the only time Matthew as narrator calls them "the Jews" collectively, in his book this is where they stop being the children of israel and become the Jews.
>>18017664Where would that story come from if nobody ever claimed anything of the kind? There's no such thing as stealing a body no one cares about out of the mass grave. Couldn't the Jews just say the body is with the rest?
>>18017674Id image a story in a book came from the author of the book. If the guard is historical you have an even bigger problem that Matthew is the only author mentioning roman guards personally delegated by Pilate himself being blinded by angels, Mark Luke and John would all have to be unaware or decide not to mention this. I find that impossible>Couldn't the Jews just say the body is with the rest?Well in Matthew unlike in Mark its a fresh tomb with only 1 body. But to your point the question isnt what the jews could say or couldnt, the question is how does the guard story at the tomb serve Matthew's overall themes and message. I think the easiest way to understand Matthew's unique themes is to look at the stories only found in his gospel: the guard at the tomb, the blood cry during the trial, massacre of the innocents, woes to the pharisees, etc. When you isolate all the stuff found only in Matthew his goals and themes of his book become much more clear imo. Same is true for other gospels.
>>18017712And their goal in creating a tortured messiah of a foreign people is . . .
if there truly were a god who required us to go through this arduous probabilistic scrupulous maze in order to be saved, then that god should just be laughed at. No fear, not even of Hell. Just, "Seriously? LOL. Do your worst. I know I'm more moral than you."So don't sweat it.It isn't real by the way. God is chill and Good. It's
>>18016002>and if the people after the crucification acted accordinglythe existence of martyrs would imply that it's real. Would you get executed in extremely brutal ways to keep up a lie?
>>18017716This is a different topic than what we've been talking about. Did I convince you the guard at the tomb is non historical? Or the full claim that none of the tomb stories are historical. Its a fascinating topic but youll get a different answer for each new testament author who each had their own theology and their own goals as an author. For Matthew in particular I dont think hes creating the tortured messiah, I see matthew as internal literature for an existing Christian community and not a missionary document to convert non believers. I think a lot of matthew reflects the concern of a 2nd generation christian community in conflict with jewish non believers. Mark is probably the most relevant to that question, imo mark's main goal is to redefine the concept of the messiah to say jesus is the messiah not just in spite of the fact he got crucified, but actually because of it. But in general trying to define an authors goal is a lot more subjective than even identifying their unique themes, which is already not very objective but still interesting to talk about. With Paul OK hes got occasional letters so the goals are more transparent but for narratives like gospels I dont think anyone can objectively define a goal more specific than "write my version of the life of jesus"
>>18017753No, he was unguarded because he had no disciples, because the gospels are fiction. Haven't read the rest of your post yet, will double post in response.
>>18017753Seems like you agree there's a kernel of historically necessary Jesus story in order for any of the events of early christianity to happen. Themes and details are added and stories refined, I defer to your greater interest in the subject of authorship. Back to the guard on the body, it took over the conversation but for our purposes it's interchangeable with the idea of historical Jesus. If he had followers there would've been some need for control over his remains. If there were no followers, the fundamentals of the story are open to speculation. In other words, there was no prophet even resembling Jesus and the whole thing is fabrication. I swear this is not a motte and bailey argument, you just need control over the crazy prophet's body. My original point was they don't include this stuff in Beowulf because you can just say he came back. Fiction has no need of these convoluted explanations.
>>18017797>Seems like you agree there's a kernel of historically necessary Jesus story in order for any of the events of early christianity to happenYes, for sure I agree here.Your bring up good points and its even more nuanced than that, its long been noted in his final days Jesus sems to be abandoned by his apostles and is suddenly instead with women at the crucifixion and at his tomb, and we get new characters like joseph of aramathea out of the blue to pay for his tomb. The established group of followers is basically suddenly replaced with these women when he dies. I just bring this up to demonstrate even something as simple as "he had followers" gets tricky when you compare his massive crowds in his ministry, the Eleven, and the whole city of jerusalem calling him the messiah during the triumphal entry and contrast that with just the handful of women who are suddenly with him at his death. (Luke notably fixes this by mentioning these women in chapter 8, I think evidencing his issue with the narrative whiplash in his source Mark). Overall I still think the guard at the tomb in Matthew fits better into his overall context and fits better into the polemic of all the other uniquely Matthean content and isnt historical. But your beowulf comparison is well thought out and i appreciate that
>>18017852I always understood that to be a result of the authorities closing in. Jesus mopes about his impending arrest and instructs people to save themselves. It's kind of spine-tingling and bonechilling to imagine people so acclimated to prophet executions that they just move on, one more leathery corpse staked up next to the road. It really was a pagan world order.
Because of course in the modern day, you can't leave anyone's dead body unsecured, far less a famous person. They did have more dead human bodies around back then.
The reason I keep saying he was left on the cross, IIRC the security of crosses in use and after use was a matter of some note during the jewish wars. If you left the area too soon they might be taken down alive, and dead leaders were displayed as part of the punishment. Anyway, I won't keep you. It's been informative.
>>18015488He was a man who is highly and often attested in many literary accounts and even his fiercest detractors still admitted that he existed and was crucified. That is very strong evidence, especially considering that he was a carpenter in a far off province of the empire, and we have more written about him than figures like Caesar and Augustus. Probably the most compelling argument for the existence of Christ, however, is the moral paradigm shift he caused. The modern west and our conceptualization of right/wrong/justice flow directly from him and his teachings.
>>18018227imagine if a piece of woodwork was somehow attributed to Jesus. I'm amazed there are no catholic relics of his work
>>18018359>piece of woodwork attributed to Jesus>true cross>spear of destiny/holy lanceAnyway why is it important for the individual Christian whether historical Jesus existed or not? Following the teaching is enough for salvation.For purely historical squabbling over jots and tittles, cf. Bart Ehrman's work on the subject (and through it, every other modern scholar in the field).
>>18018705>why is it important for the individual Christian whether historical Jesus existed or not?It doesn't matter whether he literally existed, what matters is the implication. What kind of world do we live in? The world where Jesus never existed is almost completely built on lies and esoterica, truth might as well not exist in any meaningful sense. Thousands of years of men who lived and died deep within the lie, like The Matrix, and probably some who kept the secret on purpose. The world where Jesus existed is at least somewhat logical and knowable.
>>18018359I do wonder how many wooden artifacts remain from antiquity
>>18018705>why is it important for the individual Christian whether historical Jesus existed or not?christians are called to evangelization, although most of them don'tit often means you have to have "modern debates" which means having peer reviewed proof and scientific proof you know how they keep testing the shroud of turin? same reason.
