It seems it was so common, at that time and this place to publicly claim religious things, that it is quite unlikely there is not at least one guy that matches less or more the one of the texts… texts which are written far after…
Anyway, the author isn’t the main character. The writers wrote texts, but the author who foundate the religion by making the bible as it is, is the one who collected texts, selected some, decided the order, and supervised the translation. Who is it?
That consensus is knowingly based on the complete lack of any contemporary sources though. So the consensus is that he most likely existed, based on a wide variety of conjectural evidence, but there is no way to confirm with any certainty that he did.
Yea, but are the majority of scholars really free from bias with 3 major religions notorious for killing people over disagreements (and funding those that agree with them) all having a vested interest in perpetuation of the myth?
Every wikipedia source to the contrary is essentially an agrument to authority and didn’t even discuss the underlying “evidence” or points to sources long after the fact and calls on:
Multiple attestation across independent Gospel traditions (Yea, right, that can all be made up)
Criterion of embarrassment: (Once again, not evidence. Religions are not aways rational, or correct)
Tacitus (Annals 15.44, c. 116 CE): “Christus… suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” This is the key non-Christian corroboration. (And a hundred years later, press X to doubt)
To your first point, no one is free of bias, but it’s not the Middle Ages dude. People are free to not be Christian or to criticize or contradict Christianity, and they do all the time. Even non-Christian historians agree that Jesus likely existed.
Between the canonical and apocryphal gospels there are a good amount of people who wrote about Jesus for decades after his death. In my personal opinion as an armchair historian it just seems more likely that early Christian writers, intentionally or not, mythologized a real person that people already knew existed rather than invented one whole cloth.
Anyone claiming Jesus existed is chilling for Christianity. They try to use it as a fine pointed needle to try and wiggle their bullshit into the real world.
Simply put, you can’t separate the myth from any kind of grain of truth at this point, so any and all points of so called proofs are invalid. Once you mention Jesus, there is so much package it’s just over.
I think you’ll find pretty much all secular historians of the time and place will agree that there was personall probably an itinerant preacher by the name of Joshua going around in the area who was baptized by John, got in trouble with the local authorities, and got himself executed, but his followers eventually regrouped and built myths around him.
The gospels themselves, including the ones that didn’t make the cut in the Council of Rome, are a form of documentation, and Jesus is independently attested a several other times withina century of his death and not always kindly. It’s pretty decent documentation for a non-elite of that era, though.
Anyone who claims much more than that likely is shilling for Christianity, but it’s wishful or even conspiratorial thinking to insist that Jesus was completely made up. Better to attack the notion of his being divine, because that actually is sky-daddy nonsense.
Okay, but prove he existed
It seems it was so common, at that time and this place to publicly claim religious things, that it is quite unlikely there is not at least one guy that matches less or more the one of the texts… texts which are written far after…
Anyway, the author isn’t the main character. The writers wrote texts, but the author who foundate the religion by making the bible as it is, is the one who collected texts, selected some, decided the order, and supervised the translation. Who is it?
The scholarly consensus is that a real Jesus existed, and it’s actually a really fascinating topic to read about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus?wprov=sfla1
That consensus is knowingly based on the complete lack of any contemporary sources though. So the consensus is that he most likely existed, based on a wide variety of conjectural evidence, but there is no way to confirm with any certainty that he did.
Yea, but are the majority of scholars really free from bias with 3 major religions notorious for killing people over disagreements (and funding those that agree with them) all having a vested interest in perpetuation of the myth?
Every wikipedia source to the contrary is essentially an agrument to authority and didn’t even discuss the underlying “evidence” or points to sources long after the fact and calls on:
Multiple attestation across independent Gospel traditions (Yea, right, that can all be made up)
Criterion of embarrassment: (Once again, not evidence. Religions are not aways rational, or correct)
Tacitus (Annals 15.44, c. 116 CE): “Christus… suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” This is the key non-Christian corroboration. (And a hundred years later, press X to doubt)
So, I’m not impressed.
To your first point, no one is free of bias, but it’s not the Middle Ages dude. People are free to not be Christian or to criticize or contradict Christianity, and they do all the time. Even non-Christian historians agree that Jesus likely existed.
Between the canonical and apocryphal gospels there are a good amount of people who wrote about Jesus for decades after his death. In my personal opinion as an armchair historian it just seems more likely that early Christian writers, intentionally or not, mythologized a real person that people already knew existed rather than invented one whole cloth.
Scholars aren’t called historians for a reason.
Anyone claiming Jesus existed is chilling for Christianity. They try to use it as a fine pointed needle to try and wiggle their bullshit into the real world.
Simply put, you can’t separate the myth from any kind of grain of truth at this point, so any and all points of so called proofs are invalid. Once you mention Jesus, there is so much package it’s just over.
I think you’ll find pretty much all secular historians of the time and place will agree that there was personall probably an itinerant preacher by the name of Joshua going around in the area who was baptized by John, got in trouble with the local authorities, and got himself executed, but his followers eventually regrouped and built myths around him.
The gospels themselves, including the ones that didn’t make the cut in the Council of Rome, are a form of documentation, and Jesus is independently attested a several other times withina century of his death and not always kindly. It’s pretty decent documentation for a non-elite of that era, though.
Anyone who claims much more than that likely is shilling for Christianity, but it’s wishful or even conspiratorial thinking to insist that Jesus was completely made up. Better to attack the notion of his being divine, because that actually is sky-daddy nonsense.
That’s exactly what the shillers keep saying, but the evidence just doesn’t seem to be there.