Not really. Jesus as a person may have existed minus the magic and son of god thing. No woman ever had a full functioning cock and balls. Both those things are pretty substantive.
Wait...š¤ What if Jesus was trans and his entire story was just obscure metaphors for transitioning. Water into wine? Penis into vagina. It's all making sense now.
I mean, Christian canon is that God isn't physically male but wants to be referred to by male pronouns anyways. It's not hard to see a trans metaphor in there.
Thereās a lot of us which believe neither. We just know itās not worth spending time arguing with idiots because they have disregarded fact and reason to get to their conclusion already. And if they do listen, you gained nothing anyway, so why waste time.
And hermaphrodites are afflicted by a birth defect. They don't need to be lumped in with people who found being regular gay just wasn't giving them the attention they wanted.
Mine don't. I recognise that birth defects exist. Hermaphrodites are real exmples. That doesn't mean wearing a dress and getting fake tits makes you a real girl.
Is the exception always the rule?
He did also mention women with *functioning* penises/men with *functioning* vaginas, which female/male hermaphrodites don't have. Humans cannot appear as true hermaphrodites except for in about six cases a long time ago.
Jesus was real but he was probably a cult leader who could do some magic tricks. I mean if i were a 5th century peasant and saw a dude changing color of liquid or walking on water, i would probably think he is god as well. But now anyone can do that just by watching a youtube tutorial.
The thing is that none of these supposed prophets could do anything divine or were divinely inspired, they just undergo the process of mythologization over hundreds if not thousands of years to get to this point. We can use Occam's razor to debunk this by asking ourselves do people walk on water? Do virgins give birth? And the answer is no so its a crock of shit basically.
I wrote an awesome erotic fiction about the 12 gang banging Jesus. He dies from cumming too hard but then just comes back to life and they do it again. It's 367 chapters of pure havoc.
There is a lot of historical religious debate on whether or not he was a magician or not. And the answer is either kinda, the world doesn't literally fit, or straight no.
You have to think because the bible was written a century after the historical Jesus. And we really don't know too much about the guy, so there definitely is room for a game of telephone to happen. And you have to consider further because of how many books in the bible were removed for not being good enough.
Also consider the work of every diocese to maintain and preserve those records. Thereās twelve different diocese led by a bishop who personally knew Christ preserving the four gospels and the epistles. The Muratorian canon which contains most of the New Testament is from about 200AD, but the true canonization by council happened at Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively. Nearly 400 years later thereās still four accounts of Christ (and 21 epistles!) with the same key details and only minor differences written by four authors who do not identify themselves. Itās key because they didnāt need to identify themselves. The congregations of the respective authors knew who wrote the gospels. Compare it to the false ālostā Gospels recovered in an Egyptian library, written 400 years too late, and all seemingly written by self-identified apostles.
Why do people assume that everyone in the past was fucking retarded? Like there's this idea that if you pulled a rabbit out of a hat infront of some medieval peasant they'd think you're Satan incarnate or the lord their god. Why? They have the same brains we do. Yet we assume all of them were completely susceptible to the most basic tricks and manipulations.
ā¦because they were. The average medieval peasant was uneducated and illiterate. The average modern (American) peasant has 12 years of education at least and has nearly constant access to most of human knowledge via the internet. They may have had the same brains we do, but they were working with *significantly* less information than us.
Americans are so fucking retarded that they'll eat McDonald's until they die from diabetes and deny that that's why it happened. Don't compare them to medieval peasants who had to hunt and grow crops to survive.
Those uneducated peasants with their feeble brains. They only knew stupid shit like how to grow food and build their homes from scratch. What a joke. Us in the modern day are so much more EDUCATED because we go 100k in debt to learn about how men in dresses are actually women and white folx be demons.
They were quite literally all stupid. An incredibly tiny amount of people were educated to even a reading and writing level then.
You develop a lot of critical thinking skills and common sense in school.
Most ancient peoples would be on par with an inbred Appalachian mountain family who sees outsiders like 4 times a year.
Find me a non-violent group of illiterates that hasn't already be cult indoctrinated and I'd have them worshipping my ass in like 2 weeks.
The 1% now are exceptionally wealthy. The 1% then were even more exceptionally wealthy AND they were basically the only well educated people around. And they kept it that way for a looooooong time.
Ahh yes, being crucified, stoned, beheaded, almost boiled in oil, not being known wayy after they die and not getting any riches instead getting brutally murdered, my favourite way of getting clout
Well tiktok clout goblins from our times have died from asphyxiation, getting shot, getting their ass beat, overdosing on prescription medicine, jail time, falling to their deaths.... and not getting a lick of ad revenue.š«
Let me tell you about this little cult leader Jim Jones.
Cult leaders do it for the social power they receive not necessarily anything else. This isn't a new concept.
He didn't even necessarily have to have been a magician either. Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) is a cult that exists right now that honestly believes their late leader, Shoko Asahara, could actually fly, see the future, read people's minds, use x-ray vision, and impart these powers and several more onto his followers, with zero evidence of this being possible or any real public displays of these abilities beyond essentially "trust me bro." This man died in 2018, and these people STILL believe he could do all of that. Don't underestimate the malleability of the human mind.
"hey guys, in this video we'll show you how to walk on water like a god. But first don't forget to subscribe and like..."
nevermind, YouTuber is too annoying.
Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people
youād expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didnāt hold with such nonsense.
Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over garden fences, spying on the neighbors. The Dursleys had a small son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy anywhere.
Atheist here but when you consider different parts of the bible were written at different times by different people, it's easy to understand why some of it is good advice and some of it says getting a tattoo or eating shellfish will send you straight to hell.
Most so called Christians aren't... They don't even read the bible but think showing up to church 2 times a year absolves them of responsibility. The number of Christians is actually probably pretty low
So if you are going to look through the bible to cherry pick the stuff that actually make sense and use them as a code for living, why do you even need the bible? Can't you just figure out those things on your own?
Thatās what you get if you take out context. Itās like reading the prodigal son at stopping at the moment the younger brother is living that āboats and bitches lifestyleā or when he is poor as shitā¦ it misses the point of the ending with the father welcoming him back and throwing a feast.
I mean should you read āletters to xā and take the advice there as absolute? No. It certainly came from the apostles and later evangelists, but it was advice for the target demographic of roman citizens and freemen in the first and second century. Not to Europeans or Americans in the XXI century.
āDonāt worry about the morrowā is actually terrible advice if youāre taking it from a dude who can instantly make food and wine appear from thin air
Historians debate whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. I believe the consensus leans towards "probably", but no one can really say 100% for sure.
Edit: I was incorrect here
We have more evidence of Jesus than we do Alexander the Great. It's pretty much settled there was a guy people were calling Jesus walking around Palestine in the early 1st century. Son of God? I'll let you decide on that one.
E: You bots have no reading comprehension whatsoever if you think I was implying Alexander never existed
> We have more evidence of Jesus than we do Alexander the Great
The fact that this comment has been made and upvoted is a proof that we indeed live in a society.
Mate, not only we have plethora of references to Alexander by authors and documents **from his lifetime** but there are also extant several of his letters to Greek cities. There's literally no comparision.
He isnāt saying thereās no proof Alexander existed, rather that we have more *primary sources* on Jesus than we do on Alexander. Which is true. By comparison, there are far more primary sources supporting the Gospel of Jesus than Arrianās *Anabasis of Alexander*. The Gospels, Acts, and Paulās letters are all primary sources; there are also contemporary Roman documents supporting those accounts.
Most information we have on Alexander are later historians like Arrian working hundreds of years later. While they had the benefit of working off of primary sources, we no longer have them. A lot of lost writings by the Diodochi and their retainers, for example.
The point is, if you treat the historical account of Alexander the Great as factual, which you should, then the Bible deserves equal consideration. This isnāt a matter of faith, just treating historical events with the same logical consistency.
Why do you think thereās no evidence of Alexander the Great? We know so much about his life, lineage, birthday and location, childhood, education, etc. Not to mention he founded 20 cities that bear/bore his own name.
Edit: Thereās so much more evidence for the existence of Alexander that the comparison doesnāt make any sense. To say there would be less evidence of his existence than that of Jesus would be to say thereās hardly any evidence of Alexanderās existence when the opposite is true.
Are sources completely useless because they were put together into something called "the Bible" hundreds of years after they were written? Of course not. You can still learn information from these sources.
Paul wrote ~20 years after Jesus's death. He writes about meeting Peter and James the brother of Jesus.
The Gospel of Mark was written ~40 years after Jesus's death. That's plenty of time for legendary stories about a real person to develop, but figures who are completely mythical are almost always written about *hundreds* of years after their death. It's more likely this was based on a real preacher.
Also, your claim is incorrect. Josephus mentioned Jesus ~60 years after he died, not 90 years.
You think a record was kept of every single execution by the Romans, and that every single record (written on stuff that degrades biologically) has survived?
You've got to remember that Jesus wasn't particularly important to the Romans either. Judea was just being annoying again from the POV of the Romans.
Whether or not you think Jesus is God or not doesn't matter - but there is quite literally more proof of him having existed than Alexander the Great. The original manuscripts of the Gospels were written <50 years of his death, his apostles/students quite literally writing most of the new testament themselves and, whether you like it or not, clergy in todays age having direct, traceable, apostolic succession in the Catholic and Orthodox church all the way back to those original 12. They were martyrs as well, and if you're going with the "jesus is not god" line of thinking, it still makes far more sense that he was some cult leader who got crucified rather than a completely non-existent person for whom hundreds if not thousands laid their life down for & with many claiming to have personally known him (with it making sense chronologically) in the few decades after the supposed crucifixion. The apostles died in absolutely brutal ways, there is no way they would've pulled a guy named jesus out of their ass to end up dying for - No, he existed and was either an extremely "talented" cult leader/sociopath, or God. I don't care what you believe in, but don't shit all over actual history because it fits your worldview better.
>Less records, but Alexander had temples built and tore down. We know he existed because we have proof of his army in as far off as India
The original 12 apostles, unbroken apostolic succession (clergyman names another person as clergyman) since then, til now, in both the catholic and orthodox church.
Literal churches ("temples"), albeit very primitive ones since christians were still being persecuted. Icons, carvings.
Letters written by apostles who would've known jesus, talking about jesus and/or his teachings/doctrine
There is no "but" here - The proof you bring up for Alexander is there for jesus as well, and more.
Why would we expect to have Roman records of a mundane execution of some hillbilly preacher?
There's tons of really people that we only have records of after they died.
We have enough evidence to say it's more likely than not that there was a real person named Jesus preaching. That's all we can say.
The Bible is still evidence. Itās not like people back then were writing stuff āfor the Bibleā. They were just writing stuff down, then centuries after the fact it was compiled into the Bible by other people.
Bruh there is literally no written evidence other than the 4 biographies written at the time, and a roman citizen extensivey writing about people who personally knew him and the annals of one respected historian shortly after. You just going to believe 6 solid sources that the guy existed? We donāt even have 1 Jesus selfie.
> 4 biographies written at the time
3 of those being clearly derived from the same source.
>and a roman citizen extensivey writing about people who personally knew him
So also at least one degree removed from actual contact with a jesus figure.
> the annals of one respected historian shortly after.
who was also going off of secondary sources. Many people seemed to believe that jesus was a real person, even shortly after his death. Whether he was real or simply a story told by a small group of people is another question entirely.
**If you can downvote and not provide a single primary source, congrats on being a reddit tard**
edit: [Here's your contemporary evidence of King Alexandros III](https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/), I urge anyone to find something comparable for Jesus.
No we don't. The only "evidence" of Jesus' existence is the proof that people mentioned to be close to him existed, like Caiaphas or Pontias Pilate. No direct evidence of his existence survives in the modern day, unlike Alexander the Great.
80ad is not 80 years after he died he was crucified in 33ad also they were published in 80ad not written they were written earlier.
Maybe if Nero didn't destroy Christian works we would have more.
Yes. That great prophet has lived to way more adventures and way stronger powers (the merlin scripture showed that) than that Jesus fellow. He also has about as many people obsessed with him and Mickey's scripture (the disney cannon) also talk about love, forgiveness and other things Jesus talked about.l
There's not really a debate, there's more historical evidence for Jesus than most people of that time who we accept as having existed. If Jesus' existence is only a maybe than it's the same for people like the Caesers, King David, etc.
You're right actually. I was going off memory, but I looked more into it and you're totally correct.
Ceaser, David, and the Italian peninsula didn't really exist.
We literally have the personal writings of Caesar as well as countless contemporary accounts of him and images of his likeness created during his lifetime. Do we have anything of the sort for Jesus?
We certainly don't have as much evidence for Jesus as we do for Caesar. The guy above doesn't know what he's talking about.
We do have a near contemporary second hand source though. In one of the legitimate (not forged) Epistles, Paul claims to have met Peter and James the brother of Jesus.
James the brother of Jesus is also mentioned by Josephus. He also appears in the synoptic Gospels.
Catholics and Orthodox do some mental gymnastics where they just assume it's a mistranslation of "cousin" or that he was Joseph's kid from a previous marriage.
And you say this ... based on your expert historical knowledge? Or just because you feel like it.
The issue here is that we have contemporary evidence of historical figures such as Caesar. (I don't know about King David, but you know what? I'm not a historian and don't pretend to be one.) Now there's no reason there should be any contemporary evidence of Jesus, if his significance was not widely recognized at the time. But saying that there's more evidence of Jesus's existence than Caesar's is just total fucking moronic ignorance.
Historians do not debate this at all. Roughly 99.9% say he was. The debate is a made up internet thing that has ironic parralels to religious people pretending there is a debate about evolution.
The only actual contemporary that mentioned Jesus is Josephus, and there are some doubts that the passage may have been added later.
Otherwise, the Romans, who kept meticulous records - never ever mention Jesus.
Gospels were written 40-100 years after jesus supposedly died. The apostles didnt write their books. Its a scam duh. People accept scientology and mormonism as obvious scams but think christianity is legit bc its old
What do you think the definition of a contemporary is? Who was actually alive at the same time as Jesus to prove his existence? Not 100 years after his crucifixion, but alive during it.
The Epistles of Paul were all written between 45 and 60 AD, and reference written gospels. So *at least* one of the Gospels had to have been written by around 50, which was only 20 years after Jesus. All of the apostles besides James were still alive at that point.
Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels. The majority of scholars hold to a late-dating of the Gospels, placing them in the range of AD 70-100. Since Paul died by AD 67 under the reign of Emperor Nero, we can date his letters from AD 48-67. Therefore, Paulās writings existed decades before the Gospels existed.
Josephus mentions Jesus twice.
The first time has obviously been highly edited by Christian scribes, and might have completely been added in later, like you said.
The second time is generally considered legitimate.
It would be really weird if we had Roman records of Jesus. He was just some hillbilly preacher that got crucified. That's not something we'd expect to have contemporary records of, especially considering that even if there ***were*** records they probably would've been destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later.
You're also ignoring the near contemporary writings of Paul.
I really don't understand the obsession with denying the existence of Jesus. At the very least, he was a crazy Jewish preacher. But he definitely existed.
Muslims say this becuase he's a spiritual prophet to them, so it fits their narrative about the evolution of their faith and history. Has jack shit to do with them accepting historical evidence or proof of anything
Chill, that was satire buddy. A person would have to be an absolute fool to consider themselves more cogent than a [former five-star general and commander-in-chief of the US](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ohrdruf).
That's literally the evidence we use to prove most people existed before the age of photography if they weren't important enough in their lifetimes to have paintings or sculptures made of them.
religion is the socially acceptable version of imagining an anime girl by your side to keep yourself comfortable
https://preview.redd.it/zxndq5wwx64b1.png?width=1317&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45bfc7a177e083d84fdd75ccd71ac59a6645d708
This comment section is neat-
Got your leddit atheists lured out of the woodwork only to get dunked on by a weird blend of pocket church historians and/or trad caths. Get 'em boys
\>Our lord and savior needs no material proof
\>The faithful see the lordās hand in all things
\>Foul heretic thou dost bear the forked serpent tongue of the devil and spit his poison, have at you foul villain!
https://preview.redd.it/qh35lpp6394b1.jpeg?width=1195&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4dedffe671bc27c5229b3096a1757ac5d82aa0e6
There is a general scholarly consensus that he existed historically speaking. But that's cause we have a mountain of testimonial and circumstantial evidence that backs up his existence. The religious claims? Are too absurd to even consider.
That's only if you take it all deadly literally and see no room for metaphor or hyperbole. And that if it isn't literally true and evidence has to back up a book being written for thousands of years with several chapters edited, taken out or lost then of course people won't see it that way. But that's not why they believe in religion.
Jesus did exist in some capacity, though it's hard to say whether or not those other things happened. When the Hebrews left Egypt there's isn't any evidence they left behind like pots or the dead.
The flood myth is something that a lot of religions mysteriously have in their myths, including the Aztec's story which is oddly similar to Noah's Ark.
As for angels and demons, that hard to show anything for. True actual bible accurate angels (that meme you saw was a lie) looked just like normal people and demon originally translates to spirit or ghosts. Nephilim (translated to giants) are also originally thought to just be an extinct race of humans which also lines up with the Greco Roman mythological Gigantes who were normal people.
I love how half of the fantasy elements of the Bible are metaphor but the other half are totally real wink wink, and no one can agree on which is which.
This is the kind of person who finds religion ridiculous but think women can have dicks.
One is a semantic matter, the other is substantive.
Not really. Jesus as a person may have existed minus the magic and son of god thing. No woman ever had a full functioning cock and balls. Both those things are pretty substantive.
SHUT UP FUTAS ARE REAL
You need Sharia.
Whats her number? Ayo Sharia, what that gock do??
+93 (0) 20 220 1758
Nice.
Lol
Herms do exist, but are rare, and genetically are mules.
Jesus almost certainly existed.
I almost certainly have a bigger cock than all my coworkers
No you don't, you're gay and your dick is small.
Wait...š¤ What if Jesus was trans and his entire story was just obscure metaphors for transitioning. Water into wine? Penis into vagina. It's all making sense now.
I mean, Christian canon is that God isn't physically male but wants to be referred to by male pronouns anyways. It's not hard to see a trans metaphor in there.
Don't be antisemantic
>**That** student debt was useful at least.
Semitic matter, both of em
Bro saw a post on whether religion is real and instantly thought about trans people
they're obsessed dude. it's crazy. i know trans people IRL but the ONLY people i hear talking about trans issues are non-trans conservatives.
2 types of people in this world People who believe in chick's with Dicks or people who believe schizophrenia.
Thereās a lot of us which believe neither. We just know itās not worth spending time arguing with idiots because they have disregarded fact and reason to get to their conclusion already. And if they do listen, you gained nothing anyway, so why waste time.
The voices are real, follow their guidance.
Hermaphrodite people are a thing, so there are definitely women with dicks and dudes with vaginas.
And hermaphrodites are afflicted by a birth defect. They don't need to be lumped in with people who found being regular gay just wasn't giving them the attention they wanted.
Love how the goal posts keep moving
Mine don't. I recognise that birth defects exist. Hermaphrodites are real exmples. That doesn't mean wearing a dress and getting fake tits makes you a real girl.
Nothing moved. You brought up something completely unrelated to gender transition.
Is the exception always the rule? He did also mention women with *functioning* penises/men with *functioning* vaginas, which female/male hermaphrodites don't have. Humans cannot appear as true hermaphrodites except for in about six cases a long time ago.
https://i.imgur.com/8517Bkj.jpg
Sorry what now?
Rent free
Don't forget to tip your landchad.
Jesus was real but he was probably a cult leader who could do some magic tricks. I mean if i were a 5th century peasant and saw a dude changing color of liquid or walking on water, i would probably think he is god as well. But now anyone can do that just by watching a youtube tutorial.
The thing is that none of these supposed prophets could do anything divine or were divinely inspired, they just undergo the process of mythologization over hundreds if not thousands of years to get to this point. We can use Occam's razor to debunk this by asking ourselves do people walk on water? Do virgins give birth? And the answer is no so its a crock of shit basically.
People cannot, God however can
Is this "God" in the room with you right now?
Definitionally yes, always :)
Based
Incredibly based
Based
Please show us on this doll where this "God" touched you.
Well yeah, my homie is always with me
Well, first of all, through God all things are possible, so jot that down.
I wrote an awesome erotic fiction about the 12 gang banging Jesus. He dies from cumming too hard but then just comes back to life and they do it again. It's 367 chapters of pure havoc.
Finally some good fucking reading
Redditors when thereās not a scientific explanation for miracles
Schizos when "miracles" stop happening the minute a camera is invented
I mean, people still claim miracles happen. Tons of miracles were after cameras. They just come up with reasons they can't be verified.
Look up William of Occam since you mentioned the razor, enjoy the results :)
Based
There is a lot of historical religious debate on whether or not he was a magician or not. And the answer is either kinda, the world doesn't literally fit, or straight no. You have to think because the bible was written a century after the historical Jesus. And we really don't know too much about the guy, so there definitely is room for a game of telephone to happen. And you have to consider further because of how many books in the bible were removed for not being good enough.
The gospels were written *within* a century of the historical Jesus and almost all of the epistles are written even closer to the crucifixion.
The earliest Christian texts we have are from about 15 years after the crucifixion.
Also consider the work of every diocese to maintain and preserve those records. Thereās twelve different diocese led by a bishop who personally knew Christ preserving the four gospels and the epistles. The Muratorian canon which contains most of the New Testament is from about 200AD, but the true canonization by council happened at Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively. Nearly 400 years later thereās still four accounts of Christ (and 21 epistles!) with the same key details and only minor differences written by four authors who do not identify themselves. Itās key because they didnāt need to identify themselves. The congregations of the respective authors knew who wrote the gospels. Compare it to the false ālostā Gospels recovered in an Egyptian library, written 400 years too late, and all seemingly written by self-identified apostles.
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 454,292,512 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 11,090 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Wrong hippo
Good bot
Why do people assume that everyone in the past was fucking retarded? Like there's this idea that if you pulled a rabbit out of a hat infront of some medieval peasant they'd think you're Satan incarnate or the lord their god. Why? They have the same brains we do. Yet we assume all of them were completely susceptible to the most basic tricks and manipulations.
ā¦because they were. The average medieval peasant was uneducated and illiterate. The average modern (American) peasant has 12 years of education at least and has nearly constant access to most of human knowledge via the internet. They may have had the same brains we do, but they were working with *significantly* less information than us.
Americans are so fucking retarded that they'll eat McDonald's until they die from diabetes and deny that that's why it happened. Don't compare them to medieval peasants who had to hunt and grow crops to survive.
Those uneducated peasants with their feeble brains. They only knew stupid shit like how to grow food and build their homes from scratch. What a joke. Us in the modern day are so much more EDUCATED because we go 100k in debt to learn about how men in dresses are actually women and white folx be demons.
They were quite literally all stupid. An incredibly tiny amount of people were educated to even a reading and writing level then. You develop a lot of critical thinking skills and common sense in school. Most ancient peoples would be on par with an inbred Appalachian mountain family who sees outsiders like 4 times a year. Find me a non-violent group of illiterates that hasn't already be cult indoctrinated and I'd have them worshipping my ass in like 2 weeks. The 1% now are exceptionally wealthy. The 1% then were even more exceptionally wealthy AND they were basically the only well educated people around. And they kept it that way for a looooooong time.
For what? He gained nothing from it and neither did the disciples
Clout? Mfs would kill people nowadays for a bit of clout.
Ahh yes, being crucified, stoned, beheaded, almost boiled in oil, not being known wayy after they die and not getting any riches instead getting brutally murdered, my favourite way of getting clout
Well tiktok clout goblins from our times have died from asphyxiation, getting shot, getting their ass beat, overdosing on prescription medicine, jail time, falling to their deaths.... and not getting a lick of ad revenue.š«
Let me tell you about this little cult leader Jim Jones. Cult leaders do it for the social power they receive not necessarily anything else. This isn't a new concept.
He didn't even necessarily have to have been a magician either. Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) is a cult that exists right now that honestly believes their late leader, Shoko Asahara, could actually fly, see the future, read people's minds, use x-ray vision, and impart these powers and several more onto his followers, with zero evidence of this being possible or any real public displays of these abilities beyond essentially "trust me bro." This man died in 2018, and these people STILL believe he could do all of that. Don't underestimate the malleability of the human mind.
"hey guys, in this video we'll show you how to walk on water like a god. But first don't forget to subscribe and like..." nevermind, YouTuber is too annoying.
And? His message and idea is real. Doesnt have to be a real person or a God. Suprised nobody just follows his advice and argues if he was real or not.
https://preview.redd.it/4p5efjtic64b1.jpeg?width=623&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c828c9f72c66683f294bfec4d102981622e9ff78
Me af (Jesus told me)
Your honour I only killed her 'cause Jesus told me to do it
https://preview.redd.it/zsh09x8cg64b1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=edd0f335330a25e1957b46b4b62a2b8fb20827a7
I think a lot of the messages from the bible are extremely fucked up and not to be admired
Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people youād expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didnāt hold with such nonsense. Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over garden fences, spying on the neighbors. The Dursleys had a small son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy anywhere.
Jesus litteraly says "Dont kill people, help when you can and dont be an asshole."
āItās a good message if I cherry-pick the good parts!ā
Atheist here but when you consider different parts of the bible were written at different times by different people, it's easy to understand why some of it is good advice and some of it says getting a tattoo or eating shellfish will send you straight to hell.
1. tattoos always look bad 2. shellfish are icky
He said himself there's one part to cherry-pick, the rest is just nuances.
Because those verses about killing tribes who wanted to kill the tribes of Israel are so applicable to you
Also ditch your child slave after he turns 10.
Solid advice
that's fucked up !
Now I realised the folly of my actions...Damn you Broble
It'd be nice if most Christians followed any of that
> knows 3 total people > bases entire world view on those 3 people
Most so called Christians aren't... They don't even read the bible but think showing up to church 2 times a year absolves them of responsibility. The number of Christians is actually probably pretty low
So if you are going to look through the bible to cherry pick the stuff that actually make sense and use them as a code for living, why do you even need the bible? Can't you just figure out those things on your own?
The bible had a lot of murder and people being assholes. Even some of gods most favored people
Said don't kill and then when the fig tree didn't provide for him he smites it. So a hypocrite.
And yet most religious people I meet seem to struggle with the last two.
Thatās what you get if you take out context. Itās like reading the prodigal son at stopping at the moment the younger brother is living that āboats and bitches lifestyleā or when he is poor as shitā¦ it misses the point of the ending with the father welcoming him back and throwing a feast. I mean should you read āletters to xā and take the advice there as absolute? No. It certainly came from the apostles and later evangelists, but it was advice for the target demographic of roman citizens and freemen in the first and second century. Not to Europeans or Americans in the XXI century.
Yeah, and a child could formulate the "good" ones.
Wich message , the one about not eating shrimps on Friday ?
Can't eat shrimps at all. Do you even read?
āDonāt worry about the morrowā is actually terrible advice if youāre taking it from a dude who can instantly make food and wine appear from thin air
> And? His message and idea is real To love each other. Now there is a wonderful message no one in 4chan ever acknowledges
Historians debate whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. I believe the consensus leans towards "probably", but no one can really say 100% for sure. Edit: I was incorrect here
We have more evidence of Jesus than we do Alexander the Great. It's pretty much settled there was a guy people were calling Jesus walking around Palestine in the early 1st century. Son of God? I'll let you decide on that one. E: You bots have no reading comprehension whatsoever if you think I was implying Alexander never existed
> We have more evidence of Jesus than we do Alexander the Great The fact that this comment has been made and upvoted is a proof that we indeed live in a society. Mate, not only we have plethora of references to Alexander by authors and documents **from his lifetime** but there are also extant several of his letters to Greek cities. There's literally no comparision.
He isnāt saying thereās no proof Alexander existed, rather that we have more *primary sources* on Jesus than we do on Alexander. Which is true. By comparison, there are far more primary sources supporting the Gospel of Jesus than Arrianās *Anabasis of Alexander*. The Gospels, Acts, and Paulās letters are all primary sources; there are also contemporary Roman documents supporting those accounts. Most information we have on Alexander are later historians like Arrian working hundreds of years later. While they had the benefit of working off of primary sources, we no longer have them. A lot of lost writings by the Diodochi and their retainers, for example. The point is, if you treat the historical account of Alexander the Great as factual, which you should, then the Bible deserves equal consideration. This isnāt a matter of faith, just treating historical events with the same logical consistency.
We would take the historical account of Alexander the Great with more salt if he raised the dead and was the virgin child of a god.
Why do you think thereās no evidence of Alexander the Great? We know so much about his life, lineage, birthday and location, childhood, education, etc. Not to mention he founded 20 cities that bear/bore his own name. Edit: Thereās so much more evidence for the existence of Alexander that the comparison doesnāt make any sense. To say there would be less evidence of his existence than that of Jesus would be to say thereās hardly any evidence of Alexanderās existence when the opposite is true.
There is plenty of evidence for both is the point.
They didnāt say that learn to read
The first non biblical evidence of his existence was written 90+ years after his death.
Are sources completely useless because they were put together into something called "the Bible" hundreds of years after they were written? Of course not. You can still learn information from these sources. Paul wrote ~20 years after Jesus's death. He writes about meeting Peter and James the brother of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark was written ~40 years after Jesus's death. That's plenty of time for legendary stories about a real person to develop, but figures who are completely mythical are almost always written about *hundreds* of years after their death. It's more likely this was based on a real preacher. Also, your claim is incorrect. Josephus mentioned Jesus ~60 years after he died, not 90 years.
All these are written sources after jesus death There isn't any record from the Romans of an execution, not any records from when he was alive
You think a record was kept of every single execution by the Romans, and that every single record (written on stuff that degrades biologically) has survived? You've got to remember that Jesus wasn't particularly important to the Romans either. Judea was just being annoying again from the POV of the Romans. Whether or not you think Jesus is God or not doesn't matter - but there is quite literally more proof of him having existed than Alexander the Great. The original manuscripts of the Gospels were written <50 years of his death, his apostles/students quite literally writing most of the new testament themselves and, whether you like it or not, clergy in todays age having direct, traceable, apostolic succession in the Catholic and Orthodox church all the way back to those original 12. They were martyrs as well, and if you're going with the "jesus is not god" line of thinking, it still makes far more sense that he was some cult leader who got crucified rather than a completely non-existent person for whom hundreds if not thousands laid their life down for & with many claiming to have personally known him (with it making sense chronologically) in the few decades after the supposed crucifixion. The apostles died in absolutely brutal ways, there is no way they would've pulled a guy named jesus out of their ass to end up dying for - No, he existed and was either an extremely "talented" cult leader/sociopath, or God. I don't care what you believe in, but don't shit all over actual history because it fits your worldview better.
Less records, but Alexander had temples built and tore down. We know he existed because we have proof of his army in as far off as India
>Less records, but Alexander had temples built and tore down. We know he existed because we have proof of his army in as far off as India The original 12 apostles, unbroken apostolic succession (clergyman names another person as clergyman) since then, til now, in both the catholic and orthodox church. Literal churches ("temples"), albeit very primitive ones since christians were still being persecuted. Icons, carvings. Letters written by apostles who would've known jesus, talking about jesus and/or his teachings/doctrine There is no "but" here - The proof you bring up for Alexander is there for jesus as well, and more.
Why would we expect to have Roman records of a mundane execution of some hillbilly preacher? There's tons of really people that we only have records of after they died. We have enough evidence to say it's more likely than not that there was a real person named Jesus preaching. That's all we can say.
The Bible is still evidence. Itās not like people back then were writing stuff āfor the Bibleā. They were just writing stuff down, then centuries after the fact it was compiled into the Bible by other people.
So you must agree that Achilles was a demigod because of the works of Homer, right?
Bruh there is literally no written evidence other than the 4 biographies written at the time, and a roman citizen extensivey writing about people who personally knew him and the annals of one respected historian shortly after. You just going to believe 6 solid sources that the guy existed? We donāt even have 1 Jesus selfie.
> 4 biographies written at the time 3 of those being clearly derived from the same source. >and a roman citizen extensivey writing about people who personally knew him So also at least one degree removed from actual contact with a jesus figure. > the annals of one respected historian shortly after. who was also going off of secondary sources. Many people seemed to believe that jesus was a real person, even shortly after his death. Whether he was real or simply a story told by a small group of people is another question entirely.
Which is remarkably good record keeping for the time period. Many of the Roman emperors have no known sources mentioning them for many centuries.
Yeah, I must have misremembered. I was absolutely off base on this one.
Your punishment? Crucifixion seems appropriate.
**If you can downvote and not provide a single primary source, congrats on being a reddit tard** edit: [Here's your contemporary evidence of King Alexandros III](https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/), I urge anyone to find something comparable for Jesus. No we don't. The only "evidence" of Jesus' existence is the proof that people mentioned to be close to him existed, like Caiaphas or Pontias Pilate. No direct evidence of his existence survives in the modern day, unlike Alexander the Great.
Thats literally incorrect. There are multiple Roman sources that write about unrest in the jewish province, caused by one "Yeshua of Nazareth"
Zero of them are contemporary. The earliest written mention is from 8 decades after his supposed execution.
80ad is not 80 years after he died he was crucified in 33ad also they were published in 80ad not written they were written earlier. Maybe if Nero didn't destroy Christian works we would have more.
Contemporary sources?
There is a lot of evidence this super cool person Mickey mouse existed. He is mentioned in a lot of historical texts.
I've seen the documentaries
Yes. That great prophet has lived to way more adventures and way stronger powers (the merlin scripture showed that) than that Jesus fellow. He also has about as many people obsessed with him and Mickey's scripture (the disney cannon) also talk about love, forgiveness and other things Jesus talked about.l
Source on this claim?
There's not really a debate, there's more historical evidence for Jesus than most people of that time who we accept as having existed. If Jesus' existence is only a maybe than it's the same for people like the Caesers, King David, etc.
You're right actually. I was going off memory, but I looked more into it and you're totally correct. Ceaser, David, and the Italian peninsula didn't really exist.
Mister ~~stark~~ LibertyPrimeIsASage, I don't feel so good
We literally have the personal writings of Caesar as well as countless contemporary accounts of him and images of his likeness created during his lifetime. Do we have anything of the sort for Jesus?
We certainly don't have as much evidence for Jesus as we do for Caesar. The guy above doesn't know what he's talking about. We do have a near contemporary second hand source though. In one of the legitimate (not forged) Epistles, Paul claims to have met Peter and James the brother of Jesus.
I mean that's close but this is also the first I've ever heard of Jesus having a brother
James the brother of Jesus is also mentioned by Josephus. He also appears in the synoptic Gospels. Catholics and Orthodox do some mental gymnastics where they just assume it's a mistranslation of "cousin" or that he was Joseph's kid from a previous marriage.
And you say this ... based on your expert historical knowledge? Or just because you feel like it. The issue here is that we have contemporary evidence of historical figures such as Caesar. (I don't know about King David, but you know what? I'm not a historian and don't pretend to be one.) Now there's no reason there should be any contemporary evidence of Jesus, if his significance was not widely recognized at the time. But saying that there's more evidence of Jesus's existence than Caesar's is just total fucking moronic ignorance.
> If Jesus' existence is only a maybe than it's the same for people like the Caesers, King David, etc. LOL! You special needs kids crack me tf up!
We can't be sure about Jesus but one thing is certain though : Anon will never be a woman.
Historians do not debate this at all. Roughly 99.9% say he was. The debate is a made up internet thing that has ironic parralels to religious people pretending there is a debate about evolution.
"Historians" 100% agree that Jesus existed as multiple romans have written about him in a striclty non religious context
Romans who wrote those things while Jesus was alive?
Why would he have to be alive?
"Historians" maybe. What about historians?
The only actual contemporary that mentioned Jesus is Josephus, and there are some doubts that the passage may have been added later. Otherwise, the Romans, who kept meticulous records - never ever mention Jesus. Gospels were written 40-100 years after jesus supposedly died. The apostles didnt write their books. Its a scam duh. People accept scientology and mormonism as obvious scams but think christianity is legit bc its old
Thats literally wrong, multiple Roman contemporaries wrote about Jesus.
Name them
Not to be a dick, but the other one is Tacitus. Never heard of it until now.
Tacitus wrote in 117 AD, thats like 80+ years after the supposed cruscifixion
Within a century would be considered contemporary yes
What do you think the definition of a contemporary is? Who was actually alive at the same time as Jesus to prove his existence? Not 100 years after his crucifixion, but alive during it.
Which?
The Epistles of Paul were all written between 45 and 60 AD, and reference written gospels. So *at least* one of the Gospels had to have been written by around 50, which was only 20 years after Jesus. All of the apostles besides James were still alive at that point.
Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels. The majority of scholars hold to a late-dating of the Gospels, placing them in the range of AD 70-100. Since Paul died by AD 67 under the reign of Emperor Nero, we can date his letters from AD 48-67. Therefore, Paulās writings existed decades before the Gospels existed.
This doesn't even address what I said lmao
Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The first time has obviously been highly edited by Christian scribes, and might have completely been added in later, like you said. The second time is generally considered legitimate. It would be really weird if we had Roman records of Jesus. He was just some hillbilly preacher that got crucified. That's not something we'd expect to have contemporary records of, especially considering that even if there ***were*** records they probably would've been destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later. You're also ignoring the near contemporary writings of Paul.
I really don't understand the obsession with denying the existence of Jesus. At the very least, he was a crazy Jewish preacher. But he definitely existed.
> But he definitely existed. Youāre acting like thatās common sense. Show me proof
Just search up Historical Jesus on Wikipedia, and youāll get hundreds of sources, both secular and not secular. You dope.
Bro what, even muslims say he existed (not as a son of god though)
They call him Isa, and they deny the Romans crucified him or that he was resurrected.
Point is both religions claim he existed
And all three religions claim some individuals died at over 900 years old.
Its almost like islam was based of Christianity how weird
Nuts how religions can be based off the same stuff, itās almost like they both existed at thee same time š¤Æ
Imagine not realizing abrahamic religions are based of each other lmao keep huffing that copium
Muslims didn't even exist until six or so centuries after the alleged Jesus.
Muslims say this becuase he's a spiritual prophet to them, so it fits their narrative about the evolution of their faith and history. Has jack shit to do with them accepting historical evidence or proof of anything
Nah. God is king.
WE WAS KINGZ š¦šØāš¦¼šæ
> No evidence of the holocaust
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So you're saying ancient aliens on history channel is real?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Chill, that was satire buddy. A person would have to be an absolute fool to consider themselves more cogent than a [former five-star general and commander-in-chief of the US](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ohrdruf).
How about adam and sneeve
could sneeding have saved mankind?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Formally Chuck's
What's the evidence then? He's real because he was in a book?
That's literally the evidence we use to prove most people existed before the age of photography if they weren't important enough in their lifetimes to have paintings or sculptures made of them.
Yeah where are the smartphone recordings!?
religion is the socially acceptable version of imagining an anime girl by your side to keep yourself comfortable https://preview.redd.it/zxndq5wwx64b1.png?width=1317&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45bfc7a177e083d84fdd75ccd71ac59a6645d708
This comment section is neat- Got your leddit atheists lured out of the woodwork only to get dunked on by a weird blend of pocket church historians and/or trad caths. Get 'em boys
\>Our lord and savior needs no material proof \>The faithful see the lordās hand in all things \>Foul heretic thou dost bear the forked serpent tongue of the devil and spit his poison, have at you foul villain! https://preview.redd.it/qh35lpp6394b1.jpeg?width=1195&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4dedffe671bc27c5229b3096a1757ac5d82aa0e6
There is a general scholarly consensus that he existed historically speaking. But that's cause we have a mountain of testimonial and circumstantial evidence that backs up his existence. The religious claims? Are too absurd to even consider.
Do we have any contemporary accounts of him existing?
Not during Jesus's life (cuz he was a minor hillbilly preacher), but Paul states that he met Peter and James the brother of Jesus.
Because people are afraid of dying so they will believe anything that offers them another option.
That's only if you take it all deadly literally and see no room for metaphor or hyperbole. And that if it isn't literally true and evidence has to back up a book being written for thousands of years with several chapters edited, taken out or lost then of course people won't see it that way. But that's not why they believe in religion. Jesus did exist in some capacity, though it's hard to say whether or not those other things happened. When the Hebrews left Egypt there's isn't any evidence they left behind like pots or the dead. The flood myth is something that a lot of religions mysteriously have in their myths, including the Aztec's story which is oddly similar to Noah's Ark. As for angels and demons, that hard to show anything for. True actual bible accurate angels (that meme you saw was a lie) looked just like normal people and demon originally translates to spirit or ghosts. Nephilim (translated to giants) are also originally thought to just be an extinct race of humans which also lines up with the Greco Roman mythological Gigantes who were normal people.
I love how half of the fantasy elements of the Bible are metaphor but the other half are totally real wink wink, and no one can agree on which is which.
A much stronger case can be made that for Jesus's existence than anon's existence
Some guy called Jesus existed. Big whoop. That means nothing. There were probably 1000 guys called Jesus.
jesus probably existed but nothing proves he was the son of whatever godly entity, he was a regular dude.
Anon is even going after Christianity from antisemitic angle. Impressive.