Jesus is a verified factual historical figure who was executed more or less according to Biblical tradition.
My understanding is that the Romans killed Jesus because they just wanted to avoid Jewish people rioting against Roman occupation. The Jewish priests framed Jesus so this would happen because he was speaking against specifically their religious power (He was not anti-rome).
I subscribe to the belief that some of Jesus’ disciples faked his resurrection and started a cult.
Much of the ‘historical Jesus’ movements especially since the 1970’s or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it’s fine.
FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line…evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It’s been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV’s for lolz.
Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.
He pops up in Marcion’s New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn’t really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since…the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone’s guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say “Most of our scholars agree xyz” instead of providing any evidence.
This seems like St Paul: why?
Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? 'cause he’s a bigger keyboard warrior than Marcion was
Good scholars often don’t comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of ‘the historical Jesus’ in NT scholarship here.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
You replied with “Just insulting you on your education level” and then deleted it, probably because someone else told you it was dumb. Then your “upgrade” from that reply is this? You’re hopeless.
It seems likely that he was an actual person. It is not verified, nor is it verifiable. This is the kind of shit Bible apologists like to whip out as if it confirms their beliefs. Almost to a person, people who refer to the Historicity of Jesus Wikipedia page use terms like “verified fact” in the same breath. If you’re not intending to be a Bible apologist, you should probably take a different tack.
Nobody (especially the apologist) gives a shit whether some rando Nazarine created a religious movement. They were a dime a dozen. And just because one did, doesn’t mean he is the Son of God, or that God even exists. There is literally no useful knowledge to be had in pointing out that Jesus was probably a real person, so the assumption will always be made that if you’re hell bent on making sure everybody knows he was so totally super-duper real guys, then you must have an agenda.
I’m sorry you’re so upset about people correcting misinformation.
PS: There’s one useful thing about telling people that Jesus existed: We don’t have to suffer smug atheists being like “haha Jesus is fake I’m so smart.”
Calling Jesus “verified fact” is the only misinformation in this thread buddy. I’m sorry you and all the morons like you believe in fairy tales. The world sucks because of it.
Jesus is a verified factual historical figure who was executed more or less according to Biblical tradition.
My understanding is that the Romans killed Jesus because they just wanted to avoid Jewish people rioting against Roman occupation. The Jewish priests framed Jesus so this would happen because he was speaking against specifically their religious power (He was not anti-rome).
I subscribe to the belief that some of Jesus’ disciples faked his resurrection and started a cult.
Much of the ‘historical Jesus’ movements especially since the 1970’s or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it’s fine.
FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line…evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It’s been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV’s for lolz.
Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.
He pops up in Marcion’s New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn’t really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since…the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone’s guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say “Most of our scholars agree xyz” instead of providing any evidence.
This seems like St Paul: why?
Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? 'cause he’s a bigger keyboard warrior than Marcion was
Good scholars often don’t comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of ‘the historical Jesus’ in NT scholarship here.
[Citation needed]
And what the fuck do you think they put that Wikipedia link for?
Harry Potter has a Wikipedia entry too.
Now find me one for the historicity of Harry Potter. “Evolution is just a theory”-ass moment.
Brain Pulse needed.
Like seriously so easy to find that for yourself unless you’re an AI slop consumer.
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Brain pulse? 😆 Breaking out the first grade insults that were thrown at you as a child is really incredibly pathetic.
Try opening a book other than just the one. Come back when you have an insult worth reading.
I have to insult you in a way you can understand or it’s pointless.
You should be thanking me since you weirdly enjoy this.
You replied with “Just insulting you on your education level” and then deleted it, probably because someone else told you it was dumb. Then your “upgrade” from that reply is this? You’re hopeless.
Faked resurrection?! Now I’ve heard everything!
It seems likely that he was an actual person. It is not verified, nor is it verifiable. This is the kind of shit Bible apologists like to whip out as if it confirms their beliefs. Almost to a person, people who refer to the Historicity of Jesus Wikipedia page use terms like “verified fact” in the same breath. If you’re not intending to be a Bible apologist, you should probably take a different tack.
Nobody (especially the apologist) gives a shit whether some rando Nazarine created a religious movement. They were a dime a dozen. And just because one did, doesn’t mean he is the Son of God, or that God even exists. There is literally no useful knowledge to be had in pointing out that Jesus was probably a real person, so the assumption will always be made that if you’re hell bent on making sure everybody knows he was so totally super-duper real guys, then you must have an agenda.
I’m sorry you’re so upset about people correcting misinformation.
PS: There’s one useful thing about telling people that Jesus existed: We don’t have to suffer smug atheists being like “haha Jesus is fake I’m so smart.”
Calling Jesus “verified fact” is the only misinformation in this thread buddy. I’m sorry you and all the morons like you believe in fairy tales. The world sucks because of it.
Well he’s attested in literary evidence with uncontested reliability, which makes him about as unverified as Julius Caesar.