• @frog_brawler
    link
    8
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I mean, there’s zero evidence that he was even real.

    I’m saying if you read the Bible, Jesus’s teachings align with socialism.

    • @MothmanDelorian
      link
      1
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      The consensus of scholars that focus on academic history of that time agree that it is extremely likely that some guy named Yeshua lived around that time and place and tried to reform Judaism as others were doing at the time (the Pharisees were the reformers that ended up being successful).

      There’s a whole FAQ about this on reddit’s askhistorians that goes into detail but essentially if you argue Yeshua of Galilee never existed you cannot then accept that most historical figures were real as we have similar evidence for the existence of many people.

      And Im saying they might be more anarchistic beliefs than socialist beliefs as the NT isn’t pushing a pro-governance view.

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        27 minutes ago

        I’m sure a guy named yesua may have existed

        I’m also sure he was just another guy spouting religious beliefs, he was not magical or supernatural, because none of that exists

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 hour ago

        if you argue Yeshua of Galilee never existed you cannot then accept that most historical figures were real as we have similar evidence for the existence of many people.

        What evidence exists? I mean, we have literally multiple accounts and writings by Aristotle… Or Eratosthenes… Who would be, by and large, contemporaries, at this scale…

        Yet for Yeshua? We don’t even have birth records, which would have been meticulous, especially since a census happened at the same time. We can’t even confirm most of the documented events that were claimed.

        In fact, all writings that state he existed weren’t even written until about 70 years after he purportedly died (Which we have no Roman records of the time, indicating even a scenario as described, which is kinda shocking).

        In all likelihood, he is an amalgamation of several radical figures, as most of his story was cribbed from earlier, already extant, savior mythology.

        • @MothmanDelorian
          link
          11 hour ago

          Bo we have writings we believe were written by Aristotle because other people from around that time say he did. We have similar things for jesus such as the writings of people who recorded the existence of people who followed a guy named Jesus a few decades after his death. It would ge really odd for people around the Mediterranean to all follow the teachings of a guy who they call by the same name who never existed.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            52 minutes ago

            We have similar things for jesus such as the writings of people who recorded the existence of people who followed a guy named Jesus a few decades after his death.

            Yes, we have contempory, verified sources of Aristotle’s lectures, and writings.

            We have no such thing for Yeshua. The earliest is, as you say, “a few decades”, aka 70 years. That’s two entire generations. Nothing contemporary, and in fact, contemporary documents actually contradict much of what was written.

            It would ge really odd for people around the Mediterranean to all follow the teachings of a guy who they call by the same name who never existed.

            And yet, here were are, writing about a mystical man in the sky… Who never existed, as far as any evidence tells us. And, in fact, whatever evidence we DO find, contradicts the claims made by adherents to that mythology.

            Hell, how many Romans wrote about how awesome on the field of battle Hercules was… Pretty certain a demigod never existed by the name of Hercules.

            BTW, from your link:

            “There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him”

            • @MothmanDelorian
              link
              15 minutes ago

              We have things that other people who may or may not have known Aristotle claim Aristotle wrote. If you believe Aristotle and Plato were real people then you should accept that Jesus was based on somebody even if the message he was spreading isn’t the same as the faith maintains now.

              Why not try reading the link rather than expounding upon a false understanding? For example the earliest writings are from around 70CE which is 37-40 years later. You shoildn’t be making any claims when you are making mistakes this simple because you clearly aren’t coming from an educated perspective.

              I’m not saying Jesus Christ in the Bible is a historical figure. I am saying there was a real human being that was a basis for the faith.

              And again all of this is based on what actual academic historians maintain not religious figures. What is your take based upon other than conjecture?

      • Every source of evidence I have heard of concerning Jesus having actually existed is either from the Bible or from religious relics like the shroud of Turin, that also aren’t even real.

        • @MothmanDelorian
          link
          12 hours ago

          So you look at biased non-academic resources and then conclude that the belief is not academic? Do you not get the problem is the resources you are using?

          I mentioned a very specific source to start with which is Reddit’s askhistorians FAQ. Try looking at that because it is entirely constructed off of academic history.

          You can choose to believe whatever you want but the consensus of historians focused on this is that he had to exist in some fashion albeit not as a messiah.