• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    Literary proof is, but also doesn’t exist for Jesus Christ.

    There’s a few mentions of just a “Jesus” but its not like no one else was named Jesus, and those don’t really make any mention of him being remarkable in any way.

    There’s just no evidence

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called ‘Jewish Apocalypticism’, basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.

      Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement’s key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.

      This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.

      There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are ‘Mythicists’ of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.

      This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.

      Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      AFAIK most historians/scholars agree that Jesus was a real person (even if a lot of the Bible’s claims about what he did are not true). But I’m not a historian. What are you basing your opinion on?

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s just no evidence

      I have a pet peeve about this phrase. A) yes there is. B) that’s not the standard, e.g. it would be incorrect to say there’s no evidence aliens abduct and probe people: there are eyewitness accounts

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        A) yes there is.

        I don’t believe that, and since it’s impossible to show evidence something doesn’t exist, the people claiming evidence Jesus existed is gonna have to do some linking…

        that’s not the standard

        You mean evidence?

        Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

        What exactly is the standard in your mind for whether a historical figure existed?

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

          What exactly is the standard in your mind for whether a historical figure existed?

          Hard evidence has never been the standard for proof that a historical figure existed. Corroborating records are. It’s great if you can find some hard evidence, but if that was the standard then most people in history wouldn’t have any historical proof of their existence. And even when there is a corpse, we still rely on burial records to be certain that the corpse is who we think it is. Or if there are letters, we can’t confirm they were written by the same person we think they were.

          Like a third of the bible as well as several contemporary documents all point to the existence of a guy named something like Joshua (which we now translate as Jesus) who traveled around Palestine preaching and was crucified in around 33AD. There are plenty of historical figures who we mostly agree existed despite having approximately the same amount of proof as for Jesus.

          • Jericho_One@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            several contemporary documents all point to the existence of a guy named something like Joshua

            IIRC, there’s really only a single mention of a possible link to someone of this name that was crucified at the supposed time, and that single mention happened at least 50 (maybe 100?) years later, and there’s evidence that this passage was added even later.

            So I didn’t think it’s true that there are “several contemporary documents” like you claimed…

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Corroborating records are

            And there’s not enough to prove that Jesus Christ existed…

            There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

            Like a third of the bible

            I don’t think any of it was written till decades after he supposedly died tho…

            Like, there’s lots of information about Bilbo Baggins in Lotr, that doesn’t mean it was written in the third age of Middle Earth homie.

            There are plenty of historical figures who we mostly agree existed despite having approximately the same amount of proof as for Jesus.

            Name one and I’ll disporve it.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

              Obviously miracles aren’t real. I wasn’t claiming otherwise. We’re talking about whether or not the person Jesus existed, not if magic is real.

              It sounds like we agree

              I don’t think any of it was written till decades after he supposedly died tho…

              Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

              To borrow your asinine LOTR analogy, it is more like you are claiming Thorinn Oakenshield never existed simply because Bilbo only wrote “There and Back Again” after he got home from memory.

              • Thistlewick@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                If your only requirement is that a man once existed by the name of Jesus and was crucified, then the bar is on the floor. Jesus was not a rare name, and the Romans crucified many, many people. It is not out of the realm of possibility that these two common data points would overlap and give us a crucified Jesus.

                Is there proof that it was THE Jesus though? Do we have corroborating evidence of a man travelling the countryside with his posse, changing the minds and hearts of the masses?

                • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I feel like there’s some room for Occam’s Razor here. Is it more likely that dozens of people got together and agreed to start a cult centred around a fictional person that they were all going to agree existed? Or that the guy actually did exist? Like why would all the people who say they followed him around lie about that but also be on the same page about so many details of him?

                  Like, we know the posse existed, so why is it a stretch that the guy they all went on to turn into a religion was really there in the middle of it all?

                  To be clear (and I can’t believe I have to say this, but there are some idiots in this thread) I’m not claiming magical miracles are real, just that there was a real dude in the middle of that posse that those followers went on to turn into a religion.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

                Not really, and definitely not the 1/3 you were claiming…

                Like, where are you getting any of this?

                It sounds like what they teach at one of those “bible colleges”

                • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  A bunch of the books in the new testament are letters written by Jesus’s followers. We can’t prove whether they really are that, but they all agree that a dude named Jesus existed. If a bunch of people all wrote about a guy they knew, and most of the details match, that guy probably was real.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    A bunch of the books in the new testament are claim to be letters written by Jesus’s followers

            • mkwt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Like, there’s lots of information about Bilbo Baggins in Lotr, that doesn’t mean it was written in the third age of Middle Earth homie

              The conceit of the LOTR appendices is that Lord of the Rings, as published in English, is really just the Red Book that Bilbo writes at the end. Dr. Tolkien merely found the manuscript somewhere and has graciously translated it from Third Age common language into English for the benefit of us modern people.

            • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

              You just 100% conceded. /thread

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                There was a Paul that lived in Midwest America

                Is that proof he had a big blue ox?

                Like, you know the Romans were pretty big fans of crucifying people for pretty much anything?

                Like, we have that elusive physical evidence that 6,000 of Sparticus’ followers were crucified…

                There’s a pretty good chance at least one of those guys was named Jesus too mate, it was a pretty common name

                • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  There was a Paul that lived in Midwest America Is that proof he had a big blue ox?

                  I do not understand.

                  Like, we have that elusive physical evidence that 6,000 of Sparticus’ followers were crucified…

                  Go on then. Show us the evidence.

                  There’s a pretty good chance at least one of those guys was named Jesus too mate, it was a pretty common name

                  Not all the texts use that name. Some say Christus or Chrestus, ha-Notzri, Yeshu, ben Stada or ben Pandera.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I do not understand

                    That is clear.

                    Go on then. Show us the evidence.

                    You want me to physically show you? Like roll up to your house with it?

                    Can’t I just give you a link that provides the info about it?

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome

                    And you definitely didn’t understand that last bit you quoted…

                    You haven’t understood all of this.

                    I get it man, you have “faith” but that’s not evidence.

                    It doesn’t mean anything

                • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Right. I think we’re in agreement. There was a historical Diarmait. There was a historical Jesus. We know this from textual sources dated a little later than the historical figures.

                  His life was written about while it happened in the Irish Annals…

                  We have no Irish texts as old as Diarmait’s reign. CELT date the Orgguin trí mac Diarmata Mic Cerbaill “Created: Possibly in the Old Irish period. Date range: 700–900?” So we rely on things written 100+ years after the historical figure. And that’s referring to when it was originally written; it’s know from later transcriptions; the oldest physical Irish manuscript we have (Lebor na hUidre) is around 1100. So how do we know there was a historical Diarmait?

                  In the case of Yeshu the Nazarene, it’s similar, though some texts are a little nearer his historical period than in Diarmait’s case.

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Quality of the evidence matters. I’m personally not a historical expert on the topic and in such situations, I’m inclined to believe whatever the people who are experts say - and as far as I gather, most experts are in the “Jesus was a real historical person”-camp.

        • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Evidence isn’t the standard for things existing?

          Of course not. There are millions of examples of false claims for which there is more than zero evidence. e.g. I can claim I know which stocks will rise tomorrow, and point to various data of times I’ve been right. You can’t correctly say “There is zero evidence Frightful Hobgoblin is prescient about stock movements”.

          There often exists evidence of two mutually incompatible propositions. This is basics.

          If you want to research the historicity of Jesus it’s easily done. If you want to argue on the internet… you know what they say about that.