What’s the difference between Jesus and a hooker?

But we have historical evidence that Yeshua Benyoso of Nazareth was a real person. His divinity or lack thereof is debateable, yes, but Jesus himself actually existed.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Historical evidence: two dudes writing a generation after his death based on hearsay of hearsay.

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

If you're willing to discount that, I've got really bad news for you about literally all of ancient history...

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Try me. Do the emperors and Consuls of Rome.

[-]

I mean obviously there's going to be more historical documentation of the emperors of Rome than some random insurgent rabbi in Judea. But historical figures of minor significance in their own day like Jesus, the fact that he merits mention by Josephus and Tacitus (the two dudes I'm assuming you meant) years before the Way is really anywhere on Rome's radar as a threat makes it incredibly unlikely Jesus was a historical fabrication.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Read those accounts. They’re each basically saying “we heard there was a dude”. That really lends no credibility to there being a real person. Josephus was pretty clearly just paraphrasing as well.

I heard there was a dude named Frodo that people followed. Boom! REAL.

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

Read Roman history. That's literally what it is: recording oral history. The fact that Tacitus and Josephus heard enough about this Hebrew radical to write it down shifts the needle toward there actually having been at least somebody under the name Yeshua Ha-Nozri that was causing problems in an outlying Roman territory.

You also have to Occam's razor this a little bit. If Jesus was a historical fiction created to be the figurehead of a new religion, why would we start seeing writings about him within a generation of his supposed execution? People could just go ask their grandparents if they remember this guy. If you try to create a fictitious historical figure, you would place him sufficiently far in the past so that none of his contemporaries would still be alive. When Mark and Q were written, people could have just gone to Nazareth and asked, "Hey, you remember this kid?"

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Occam’s razor is a wonderful rhetorical tool if, and only if, you can pinpoint all possible explanations. The options of Jesus depicted in the Bible existed or did not exist are not the only two options here.

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

Woah hold up there. I'm taking it on good faith here that neither of us are arguing that the Jesus depicted in the new testament existed and/or did all the things recorded of him exactly as written. What I'm arguing is that it's more likely that a genuine historical figure who was at least known by the name Yeshua Ha-Nozri did exist, and his radical, anarcho-socialist rabbinical teachings inspired the movement that would originally be known as the Way, and eventually become known as Christianity. Given the timing of when historical mentions of him begin, there just isn't enough evidence to support the notion that he was made up for the movement.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

I never suggested you weren’t engaging in good faith. However, I’m pointing to a number of issues at play. One is the veracity of the Christian claim, the other is the possibility of zero, one, or many people who could serve the historical role of Jesus.

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

Fair. And I'm saying one or many is much, much more likely than zero, from a strictly historical context.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Okey dokey

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

Cool, cool, cool

So... got any plans tonight?

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Packing, getting ready for a much needed vacation. You?

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

Feeling cute. Might worship Satan later.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

I recommend sage scented candles. They’re very calming.

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

All bullshit aside, thanks for a civil conversation that was actually thoughtful. Have a great vacation, random internet stranger.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Yell at ya next time. ;)

[-]

Beta_Factor@reddit

Given the timing of when historical mentions of him begin, there just isn't enough evidence to support the notion that he was made up for the movement.

Really? How would it look like if that was the case then?

[-]

illinoishokie@reddit

That's what I was talking about in my earlier comment:

If Jesus was a historical fiction created to be the figurehead of a new religion, why would we start seeing writings about him within a generation of his supposed execution? People could just go ask their grandparents if they remember this guy. If you try to create a fictitious historical figure, you would place him sufficiently far in the past so that none of his contemporaries would still be alive. When Mark and Q were written, people could have just gone to Nazareth and asked, "Hey, you remember this kid?"

If you want to create a fake figurehead for your new religion, you set the stories about them at least a century in the past. Honestly more like two or three. Long enough ago that nobody would still be around to confirm or deny if they existed.

The gospels being written within 40 years of the crucifixion, there were still people in the area who would have met Jesus directly, especially in Nazareth. And as much as various authorities like the Roman empire and the Sanhedrin had in quelling the movement, if it could have been easily debunked, they would have done it.

[-]

ZevVeli@reddit

Yeah, that's kind of a good point. Like you have people arguing that "There is no historical evidence Jesus existed" who then turn around and try to determine which historical figure(s) inspired King Arthur?

The disconnect is real.

Plus, the other thing is, like, if it was just Christian scholars arguing for historic evidence of someone who inspired the religious icon, it would be one thing, and even if it was a combination of Islamic and Atheist scholars, there would still be room to doubt the validity of their claims for various reasons. But when you have Jewish scholars who would have a vested theological reason for disproving the existence of someone widely believed to be the fulfillment of one of their most ancient and sacred prophecies? It lends a bit more credibility to the claims of historical existence.

[-]

P0Rt1ng4Duty@reddit

Man, you ought to hear about this kid named Luke who spent most of his life farming moisture on a desert planet before a robot led him on a quest to destroy a whole empire...

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

…a long time ago….

It fits the bill. BOOM! Real.

[-]

ZevVeli@reddit

Translation: I am assuming all arguments for the historical validity of an individual is based on two specific religious texts and refuse to actually engage with historians who have done more in-depth studies on the subject than I have.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Go for it. Produce robust peer reviewed publications from historical scholars outside of christianity. I’d be happy to read and consider them.

[-]

ZevVeli@reddit

Einhorn, L. (2016). A Shift in Time: How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus.

[-]

False_Ad_5372@reddit

Ok, I’ll repeat it.

Produce robust peer reviewed publications from historical scholars outside of christianity.

This book does not meet that statement.

[-]

ZevVeli@reddit

Thank you for proving my initial gut instinct that you will immediately reject any and all publications and/or sources I submit which contradict your point. Have a wonderful day.

[-]