...That we have writing from 2000 years ago...and nobody ever mentioned Jesus around that time?! Seems unbelievably odd...unless, of course, he didn't exist, which is my guess. The first known writings were 400 years after his supposed death...and even those just referred to stories (fairy tales) that they had heard from generations prior.
shareA Chinese Silk Road merchant did make a note of a great magician in his log book when he visited the area.
LOL!
shareIt was mentioned in this documentary. They found his log book at one of the trading posts.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024812
literally never happened.
shareJust watch the documentary. The bit about Jesus is in one of the later episodes.
shareand yet there is never any other sources I can find about the topic.
IF such a source even exists, they are likely referencing people who follow a religion that believes such a thing. again not evidence of Jesus.
[deleted]
[deleted]
or that no one remarked the dead rose form their graves....... or that no one is first or even second hand witnesses (except Paul) and even his story changes.
its almost like it was written by people telling a fairy tale
It seems more likely that he was real, but just a man. That story about how he got ticked off by people making money on the Passover by selling small animals that people needed to make their sacrifices and so went around turning over all the sellers' tables -- that just seems too real, especially as it doesn't really make him look good.
But note that even the bible says that after the resurrection he was rarely seen. Yeah, no kidding. What a giveaway.
A lot of his messages about how to treat others were very good though.
At the time there were tonnes of end job days preaching travelling rabbis
Jesus could have been an amalgamation of a few of them
the stories of Jesus become more and more and more ridiculous the later the gospel was written. almost like it was a fairly tale being exaggerated.
"But note that even the bible says that after the resurrection he was rarely seen. Yeah, no kidding. What a giveaway."
Perhaps a bigger giveaway is that the first Gospel written, Mark (which Matthew and Luke used as at least one source for their own Gospels) didn't even include a resurrection.
The earliest copies of this Gospel end with the women coming to an empty tomb and running away in fear. The end.
Verses 9 - 20 were added later.
Oops!
Yes! There are so many glaring problems like this.
shareThe first known writings were 400 years after his supposed death...
Scholars agree that St Paul of Tarsus was writing about Jesus from a few years after 50 AD some twenty years after Jesus was said to have been crucified.
The god of christianity was made in man's image but it's a continuing and evolving story. the origin story of just who exactly he was is not confirmed.
I personally believe that he was a Jewish revolutionary zealot who probably had a strong following and was eventually captured and executed by the Romans.
I could definitely buy something like this. This very well could have happened. I'd probably rank in 2nd in possibilities, though, behind the #1...that he never even existed.
shareThere are some other theories I have read about that there may have been a series of Jewish rebel leaders who proclaimed to be or were considered by their followers to be the Messiah, so after so many years and handed down oral stories the evolutionary story of Jesus could have been a combination of different men through a 200 year period.
shareIt's faith, the belief in something that makes no sense. If it makes people feel good, no problem, as long as they don't start using it for an excuse to blow people up. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus is just another myth.
shareMillions of people lived back then without a single surviving source having recorded their names for the future.
Jesus would at least have the four canonical gospels written about him.
That is proof enough that the man existed, even if you don't have to believe that everything in them is true.
And no, they were not written 400 years after his death. Geesh...
WRONG! There are a grand total of 0 - zero, none - contemporaries that ever wrote about Jesus. These contemporaries had writings. They wrote about the world. They wrote about people in the world. And, extremely oddly, they never wrote about a man names Jesus! All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased to say the least.
From the WashingtonPost, 2014:
The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?
Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved.
To me, the attempts to prove that Jesus never existed just comes across as a way to discredit Christianity.
I don't see why anybody would find it necessary otherwise.
According to one source "the population of Palestine in Jesus' day was approximately 500,000 to 600,000." That's not "millions" but a decent sized population.
To your claim that "Jesus would at least have the four canonical gospels written about him," well sure, if he performed the miracles written about him. Let alone the account in Matthew that has saints rising from the grave:
Matt. 27: 51-53: "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
But only Matthew wrote about this. This is incredible to me. That no one else was impressed by this event (had it actually occurred) and made mention of it. This is the result of people, anonymous people, who wrote their gospels years after Jesus died and felt free to invent stories. That purported event is hardly worth taking seriously, and casts doubt on other claims (some contradicted by the other Gospels) as well.
I agree with you that many want to "prove" Jesus never existed as "a way to discredit Christianity," but many of us are just curious to know the facts. At least as best as we can as we sort out the facts and guesses based on our current knowledge.
According to one source "the population of Palestine in Jesus' day was approximately 500,000 to 600,000." That's not "millions" but a decent sized population.
To your claim that "Jesus would at least have the four canonical gospels written about him," well sure, if he performed the miracles written about him. Let alone the account in Matthew that has saints rising from the grave.
I agree with you that many want to "prove" Jesus never existed as "a way to discredit Christianity," but many of us are just curious to know the facts. At least as best as we can as we sort out the facts and guesses based on our current knowledge.