Just here on Easter to remind you that Jesus was a real historical figure
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (54)
sorted by:
There are letters from Pilate to Caesar and various other documents that state EXACTLY what he looked like: rosy cheeks, blue/gray eyes, tall, built, dirty blonde hair, beard.
Jesus didnt look like a dirty Arab, he lived in the Levant in a time before the Arab invasion.
Also, anti-christians love to say "Jesus was a jew". Then if you point out do modern jews all look like dirty Arabs? They cant rectify the two statements, either way they are disingenuous
This is some retarded historical revisionism. Where the fuck do you think the Arabs are from? They spread from the fertile crescent, not the other way around.
Arabs are Ishmaelites. Jews came from his brother Isaac who was fair skinned.
Hi, last line is a rule 1 violation: attack the argument, not the person. Are you willing to edit?
There.
Thanks.
you think historic people of an area were never displaced at any point in history? You think Egyptians were always brown arabs too?
History 101, bud: Early Muslim Conquests
Is there anywhere I can read about those letters?
Yes, I love to bring that argument up. They are pressed between admitting Jesus was white or that modern day jews aren't of the Biblical tribes but are the 13 tribe.
So ignorant to still have this argument today..not only did he exists but we have his perfect teachings...
No one in history has changed mankind in a way than the Lord and Savior but the anti christs will deceive till the bitter end.
Its what they do starting with "the father of lies"
If the evidence was there then the "modern scholars" wouldn't need to "agree", and the issue wouldn't be "generally settled". duh.
This guy doesn't know how history works. Do you think you can go back and empirically verify if anything in the past occurred? I'll let you in a little secret - everything you know about the past that you didn't witness yourself, is based on conjecture and interpretation of circumstantial evidence and testimony.
So, what I stated was correct. Thanks for the support!
Not everything is proven the same way. No amount of evidence about the past will bring you to absolute truth in the mathematical (deduction) or even empirical (induction) sense. What you stated isn't correct because it suggests evidence isn't interpreted through a theoretical framework (paradigm) and could prove or disprove claims about the past on its own. There's no evidence outside of a theory (in philosophy of science this is known as theory ladennes).
There is no evidence of a historical Jesus. But, that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Maybe there were many Jesuses at different times in the history of mankind, when we needed someone to wake us up. Maybe instead of calling them Jesus we could just simply call them Awaken.
Lol his existence is not in dispute. His divinity is. That's such an ignorant statement, but what can you expect from low level hand shakes. You basically have to choose between believing in written history and his existence or not believing anything from written history and his existence.
What questions do you have that dispute His divinity?
You can believe anything you want to believe. I'm fine with that. But, I don't have to choose anything that you suggest.
By divinity you mean the Holy Trinity, that is... God is nothing and everything? isn't why emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325? to affirm the full divinity of Jesus, declaring him to be of the same homoousios as God, rather than a created being. To me Trinity means God is both real and not real. God is a symbol and reality itself. It is the weirdest idea I've ever come across in my life. btw, you can laugh all you wish, I don't care.
Some opposites are between something and nothing, like real and unreal. God is real and God is not unreal, God is all being and is not nothing.
Some opposites are between two poles that ultimately resolve, even if paradoxically. God is Father and God is Son, God is Reality and God is Symbol. In Greek, fathers and sons have the same "living" and "substance", referring to their estate; that's what bios and ousia mean.
If by "trinity" you want to mean that God is nothing or is unreal, that won't work. "Trinity" literally just means threeness but has come lately to mean triunity, three-in-oneness; it doesn't mean nothing or unreality.
So, you are another Christian apologist like Tertullian. If I'm not mistaken, it was Tertullian who became the first Christian author to adopt the term Trinity as a way of understanding the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus does not say “I am the Father” or “the Father and I am one.”. He says “the Father and I are [plural] one". I don't care if to you "Trinity" literally just means threeness, or triunity, or three-in-oneness... to me is extreme confusion.
I stick to God's Word revealed in the Bible; if that's an "apologist" sobeit.
If you accept "the Father and I are [plural] one" that implies that Father and Son have both diversity and unity. You, mind and body, have unity, and you, mind and body, have diversity. Pretty simple.
What would be confusion is if someone said something is unity and diversity at the same time and in the same sense; that would be a contradiction instead of a resolvable paradox. But nobody says that. If you think people are saying something contradictory, just go a bit deeper to see the different things that different clauses refer to. You are one, mind and body are two, but you are yet mind and body, because you are not one in the same way that you are two. If you understand how that paradox works then there's no problem applying the same reasoning to All Being.
You say "united somehow", but Jesus also says "one" i.e. united somehow. If you're mindboggled it can be resolved simply by analyzing what you or others are saying; there's always a resolution. I apologize for the billions of Christians who have copped out and said it can't be understood. I've concluded anything can be understood.
Correct! Yet what else did Jesus's own disciples see in him? Omniscience ("you know all things"), omnipresence ("there I am in the midst of them"), omnipotence ("none can snatch them from my hand"), eternity ("before Abraham was, I am"), I have a list of 40 divine attributes around here somewhere.
Yeah, John 1. As Christians we accept the whole Bible as infallible in the original manuscripts. You haven't objected to that so if you have a problem with texts you might want to explain it so I know where you're coming from.
Yeah. There is one exception, which I already pointed out to you: when an opposite has two complementary poles, like father and son, or greater and lesser, God is both of them in his diversity (and God is the whole spectrum in his unity). The rest of the time, when the opposite of a thing is a nothing, God is the the thing (being all being). So Jesus is God in every respect in which the Father is God, except a very small number of respects in which Jesus and the Father are two diverse expressions of the same spectrum.
I looked at the development of these things and sought to be very considerate of antitrinitarian concerns. I found that the sincere antitrinitarians (not the reactionary ones) were willing to agree to uphold the whole text and then it's simply a matter of not forcing any propositions that aren't clear in the text. The development of the doctrines was not the problem, it was the adding of words that are very tenuously tied to the text (like Latin "person") that distances the doctrine from the text and allows mistakes in the minds of modern readers. I am very hopeful your sincere inquiry will get all your questions answered and confusions dispelled.
Not only did jesus exist, but there is more historical evidence that He rose from the dead than there is that George Washington EVEN EXISTED!!!!
And His Risen-ness was experienced by many people!
It's my opinion that your reliance on the Gospels as historical sources is flawed. Having said that, it is possible a real man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the first century, even if the religious details surrounding his life are legendary. It is also possible this person really understood the meaning of "Christ". Christ embodies the universal consciousness that transcends individual identity serving as the essence of spiritual enlightenment.
🥴🥴🥴🥴
Lol, "let me tell you the Gospel, the OT prophecies and the subsequent apostolic Church that kept the teachings and spread Christianity all over the Earth as prophesized are made up by my gnostic new age take I red by some random guy, writing about it 20c later while high on shrooms about "Christ consciousness" is totally real."
I look at it as the source of spiritual awakening for humanity. And if we choose to call this source Jesus, so be it. It's just a name, as long as we don't make it a idol. And then worship this idol.
There were Messiahs all over the place in those times. It's not like Jesus was walking around being the ONLY guy claiming to be the Messiah. It was a known hustle back then. Even today, in the US, at any given time, there are multiple people claiming to be the Messiah, a prophet, whatever. Nothing new.
And probably there are many today. But, It's not what I'm talking about.
Again, I'm pretty sure you are correct, but you are talking about something completely different.
Messiah is the Hebrew term mashiach, meaning "the anointed one," referring to a savior or liberator chosen by God to restore a group of people. This is something that the Jews have made up. And Christians adopted. In Christianity Jesus of Nazareth is believed to be the Messiah who fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. But, IMO this is just a made up story. God, and I happen to believe there is one, I call him pure consciousness, has never chosen anyone, an individual human being, and never will. This God has chosen to create Humanity, and for that purpose he chose all 8 billion of us. We're all his sons and daughters, whoever says otherwise is only trying to divide us. The divine spark is the portion of the true, transcendent God (pure consciousness) that resides within each human being, trapped within the material world we are born in.
All you have to do is recognize the portion of God that resides within each one of us (within yourself), the inner divine spark, and connect. Once you do that then you become a Christ, or a Messiah, which is nothing more than a title. Jesus is just a name, just like yours may be Michael or John, but it's not who he or you are. You are a divine spark (a small portion of the infinite consciousness) temporarily housed in a material body. I hope you now understand what I meant by "many Jesuses".
So universalism? Sympathy for the devil? Where do you put this forum's favorite despots and tyrants when they die, are they Jesuses?
I appreciate your saying it's your opinion because I have relative respect for universalists who don't insist on everyone else agreeing with them. (Kinda defeats the argument of universalism to believe that some argument is necessary to get others to agree with you if you believe they will already.)
I wouldn't call myself a universalist, but I can see where you're coming from. And you're not wrong. And likewise I'm fine with other people having a different opinion. I do hold the belief that every person will ultimately enter heaven, e.g. achieve Christ consciousness. It may take thousands of lifetimes, but that's end result. I'm sure a loving God would not condemn anyone to eternal torment.
No idea what you mean by this.
Thanks Critical.
If there are sentient spirit beings, will they too enter heaven, even if they're as bad as the Biblical devil?
Will the worst tyrants turn into perfect people in time, so that in a million years you might laugh in the heavens with someone who literally killed 10 million people (or billions over many lifetimes) about how (s)he doesn't deserve any punishment for that (and what does that mean for morality today)?
If you believe in reincarnation, have you considered the differences between gilgul, metempsychosis, and transmigration, and come down on a definitive position of the interim time, the nature of memory and amnesia, and the relationship of souls and oversouls?
Is there perhaps a time when a person's freewill has the power to "lock in" the desire to reject good and morality forever, or is a person not free to lock that desire in because such desire will always be thwarted sooner or later?
Things to think about.
I don't and I won't. But, if you choose to think about, then good on you.
No, I haven't... and don't plan to consider it in the future. I choose to focus on my own journey and how to connect with pure consciousness. If you wish to call me selfish I wouldn't be upset with you.
Maybe you think too much. But, again if that's want you want to do, by all means do it.
Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?
Add: The mods here will be very interested in the most recent several handshake accounts (at least four). Welcome back.
Ralph Ellis is a good read.
If Jesus was a real historical figure how come we don't have any records. First author who mentions Jesus is the Apostle Paul and he's writing in the 50s. Jesus died around the year 30. So, the first time we have Jesus mentioned in any source is about 20 years after his death.
Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?
Do you know that most historical figures of the era are not mentioned by authors for hundreds of years after their death?
Do you know that most scholars agree 1 Cor. 15:3-4 indicates an oral creed circulating about Jesus 3-5 years after his death in 33?
Do you know that Jesus is better historically attested than most other people who lived in that era?
Do you know that if Jesus didn't exist as a person, it would take a person as great as Jesus to be able to invent and propagate such a complicated origin narrative?
False on every count.
The Gospels claim things that would be impossible to ignore.
Like a massive number of zombies rising from graves and coming to Jerusalem.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:52-53&version=NIV
Yet no one outside the Gospels noticed...
Yeah, there were lots of people outside the Gospels in the 1st and 2nd century that said Jesus raised the dead. None of them gave this particular detail that Matthew gives, but it's not significant compared to Jesus himself coming back, which is the core claim that either is completely true or is so amazing that it would take a Jesus to invent it fresh. It wasn't a "massive" number, probably a dozen or so would suffice. And the Talmud demonstrates that the Jews are constantly expecting, and mythologizing, that their fathers are often returning to them bodily to give advice, so all those testimonies also reflect the Matthaean event.
There was no party among the seven or eight Jewish political divisions and many subdivisions that had incentive to popularize these particular "Elijah sightings" as opposed to any others more in line with the emerging Pharisee consensus. Except the new completely unfunded movement, the Messianics (the Way). So it's natural that the Messianics are the only ones to be specific about that resurrection. But about healing, raising the dead, and doing wonders in general, there are many such contemporary testimonies, starting with Tacitus, listed in the link I gave.
You call me "false on every count" and then provide no proof, even though all I did was ask questions. This is an inquiry board but you seem to have your mind made up. Feel free to give evidence rather than circumstantial inference about something I didn't say.
What about all that Jewish "great" kings? :) Where is any historical records of existence of Saul, David, Solomon and others? Where is any historical records of existense of so called "Israel kingdom"? There is no any contemporary third-party historical documents that could independently prove any existence of Israel or Judea at the time. :) First mention of any Jewish settlement in that area dated only by ~850BC by Assirians. Long past all that "kings" and "kingdoms". Assirians was there thousand years before and never mentioned any Jewish state in their writings. None of Ancient Egyptians, Babilonians, Phinikians, Philistinians, Greeks and other developed nations of the time ever mentioned any Jewish state at the time. That biblical ancient "Israel kingdom" exists only in texts written by Jews long after the events.
There is also no any historical records of any founders of so called "12 tribes of Israel". There is also no any historical proof that Jews are descendants of biblical Jacob.
As for Jesus Christ, there is independent historical record about Him. Tacitus, Ancient Rome senator and later consul, official person of Rome and established historian wrote directly about fact that under Tiberius, procurator Pilat executed a person named Christ. (Tacitus, "Annals" XV:44) So, unlike with all that Jewish "superheroes" (supervillains, really, if you will use your brain when reading Old Testament) from Old Testament we have independent third-party historical record about the existence of a real person named Christ who was executed by Pilat, and who started a Christian movement. Tacitus in no way was Christian and even named Christianity "superstition". So he definitely have no interest in inventing something that was not a historical fact about Christ.
All missing. There is also no historical Abraham, Moses, or Joshua. Many scholars agree on that.
That's what I came up with as well. Historically the 12 Tribes of Israel are closer to the 12 Tribes of Yemen. Stories from all over put together in what we now call the OT and the NT. It's all made up as best as I can see.
Most likely there was a person named Jesus, or Yeshua/Iesous, of Nazareth. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth. And “Yeshua” was among the most popular male names in the 1st-century Palestine. Jesus didn't have a last name and people used "Jesus(Yeshua) of Nazareth" or "Jesus(Yeshua) the Nazarene" the common way to differentiate him. This referred to his place of origin, Nazareth, a small town in the region of Galilee.
"Christ" is not his last name that's just a title. According to scholars the word "Christ" comes from the verb “anoint” and typically refers to someone who has just had a rubdown (with oil). “Christ” was a title in Jewish circles, however, as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “messiah”.
The question I have then... why would they choose a real person to make up a story. A wonderful story no doubt about that, but still a made-up story. Jesus came from a poor Jewish family. His parents were Galilean peasants. What if this person, Jesus, decided to tell the truth about the Jews and the Romans and what this cabal were doing at that time, killing innocent people left and right. Just like they're doing today, same cabal... same genocide, but now in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. They couldn't use antisemitism (or whatever it was called then) to discredit him, he was Jewish. They could only kill him, which is what they ended up doing trying hard not to make him a martyr. But, that didn't work out too well, Jesus had a very large following. So, they killed him and then decided to write a story and a narrative they (the Empire) could control. "never let a good crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff, 2008
There is not much story in New Testament. We don't even know what Jesus do as a God in human flesh for decades, except that he could be a carpenter as His foster father. So, for a made-up story it is too specific and Gospels looks exactly like journalist reports by different journalists about event, not a story about person Himself.
The Empire didn't control the "story" at all. At first, Romans account followers of the "story" as a strange bu harmless small community, then as a threat to Empire and tried to exterminate all of them, and finally Rome itself fall into the "story". That's not how controlled narrative work.
Apart from theology, New Testament is basically is an opposite to the Old Testament story that glorified a single tribe and justified their crimes against humanity. Both parts become a perfect example and severe warning for all humanity of why and how to not become Jews.
It is not hard to imagine that Jews will always try to undermine such manual, creatung "new translations" and "new interpretations". And if you add a theology, then it become obvious why Jews always tried to create a narrative that Christianity is something weak, boring and controlled.
Israel and Yahweh both have a few historical citations prior to 1000 BC, and David has a few by name shortly after. Shoshenq I left records in Byblos, Megiddo, and Karnak of his conquest of named cities of Israel in 925 BC, exactly the time at which the Bible chronology says he (under the name Shishak) attacked Solomon's son Rehoboam. But Israel was generally recognized as similar to other Semitic tribes, i.e. they were Hyksos and Aamu; Abisha the Hyksos was drawn for a hieroglyphic display at around the time Abraham's family kept visiting pharaohs like Sesostris.
I'm pretty confident that the pig-free settlements go back to ca. 1200 BC, that being the primary marker of the Israelites seeing as such nomads left very few other traces.
[Assyrian] "Sennacherib's third campaign, directed against the kingdoms and city-states in the Levant, is very well-documented compared to many other events in the ancient Near East and is the best-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sennacherib&oldid=1345345960
You suggest the Philistinians should have left records about a Jewish state. Did the Peleset people leave any records about anything at all?
You say "There is also no any historical proof that Jews are descendants of biblical Jacob." Why are they called "Jews" then if they don't come from Judah? What would be wrong with identifying the founder of the tribe by that name and the founder of the Levites among them as Judah's brother Levi?
Thank you for supporting Jesus, I appreciate your views generally and am not speaking or asking antagonistically. All records of Jesus indicate that he believed literally in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, Levi, Judah, Moses, David, and Solomon. Was he wrong?
Using jewish-controlled pedowikia as a source of knowledge, especially historical is a sign of dementia. Pedowikia have very biased approach to so called "reliable sources". They account even CNN and ADL as "reliable sources", so there is no way they have different approach for historical ones.
Philistinians had their own language and script. Script is Cypro-Minoan, language is Indo-European. There are many ancient still undeciphered writings on clay tablets found on Cyprus and on the Eastern coast of Midterranean Sea. Attempts to study and decipher Philistinian tablets for some reason was made mostly by Soviet archeologists, with partial success, it was enough to determine language is Indo-European, and get some clue about the topics of writings on artifacts, but definitely not enough to create full dictionary and decipher everything. There are dozens if not hundreds of Philistinian tablets in Nicosia museum on Cyprus (looks like https://history.eco/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/kipr-min-1705130_600.jpg) and many in hands of archeologists in other countries. However, for "some" reason, much rare, smaller and more cryptic Etruscans writings attract much more interest in the Western archeology than anything connected with Philistinians. Guess why. :)
As for Jesus and His references to the Jewish historical characters - He obviously had to rely on cultural references of the people who already have own legends and beliefs in attempt to bring the Jews to senses.
If I will try to explain something for American buddy using in examples some references to Superman, Huckleberry Finn and Forrest Gump to make my arguments more clear for one who have completely different cultural background, that will not make all that fictional characters real.
If even I understand that it is wise to talk to people in terms and language they understand, then Jesus definitely understand that too. His references to Jewish legend's characters in no way a proof of their existence or non-existense,
"If something happened 2000 years ago, how come there are no surviving records to our day but the only records we have date back to 1970 years ago?"
This is the entirety of your argument. Do you find it compelling?
Meanwhile Plato's earliest manuscripts date back to 14c after his death but no sane person would dare say Plato didn't exist.
Real implies "response to all"; historical implies "storing within all"...storage burdens response.
Notice that history is shared from being to being...not delivered from nature to being. Few use the label "history" to describe BEFORE to many, which tricks many to ignore nature FORE(warding) BE(ing).
Before (fake) represents the inversion of forebe (real).
This is bullshit.
Some historical Jewish hippie named Josh does not make Jesus.
To prove it was Jesus you have to prove the miracles happened, which you can't.
tips fedora
Read the link you replied to separately and tell me a better explanation for the suddenness of a complete resurrection narrative (now believed by 2.5 billion people) arising from an otherwise defeated cluster (like any of a half-dozen other circles built around dead messiahs known historically of the era, like Theudas), i.e. something better than a very imaginative, compelling, and wholly consistent moral-spiritual narrative arising around a historical Jewish hippie named Josh.
What was Josh executed for if not miracle?
He would have been black if he was real
Silly take.
At most, a "sand nigger" but not black.
Not silly. Read. "From Hebrews to negroes" for an actual Anthropologic, researched argument.
Middle east was black and white. They made brown recently...in past 2000 years. Sorry, history is fake, especially about Egypt
Next thing you know, you'll tell me Cleopatra was black too.
Unlike some people here, I don't make shit up or believe things that aren't backed by serious research/evidence