Why don't contemporaries make mention of him?

>>2090181
They do - see the Gospels, Epistles of St Peter, St Jude, St James, etc.

File: Ivan+Kramskoy+-+Christ+in+the+Wilderness+1872.jpg (201KB, 1369x1200px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1369x1200px

>>2090181
Because he was a homeless rabbi in an irrelevant backwater of the Roman empire.

Why didn't contemporaries mention Hannibal or Boudicca or Vosenios or Celtillus

It's rare to find a contemporary mention of anyone in ancient or early medieval literature

>>2090215

Dude lol MAGIC is not evidence.

>>2090181
What do you think the New Testament is

>>2090619

See >>2090603

>>2090648
See >>2090619

>>2090181
Why would they? Contemporaries don't record everyone in the nation.

>>2090181
At the time he was just enough bumfuck provincial claiming to be a prophet. There were literally hundreds doing the same shit just in Judaea at that moment in time.

>>2090658
Cleansing of the Temple, sermon on the mountain didn't make it to the books?

File: 3f4c38fa94f17e561cbd4e82abef5af4.jpg (20KB, 345x342px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 345x342px

>>2090619

>>2090181
Josephus makes mention of him but some of the account was obviously doctored by early Christians. However, it is generally agreed that the initial account was genuine.

>>2090248
This pretty much. Not to mention, all of the disciples were actually adolescent boys and completely illiterate.

>>2090672

Why would it? It's not like either of those two were historical events from the point of view of contemporaries.

>>2090648
>>2090656

Shilbot 3000 Script Error [24:901][thread/2090181#p2090648]: Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier 'cuck' not found

>>2090672
Most of the Sermon of the Mount is lost. What we have left are artistic renditions of the general ideas he was conveying.

Also, him fucking things up at the Temple was considered a capital offense and is largely what got him executed, not for claiming to be the Messiah. You see, the Romans discovered that the kikes are very sensitive when people fuck with their Temple. When Herod put up a golden eagle near the entrance, some 50 odd youths and teachers similar to Jesus and Co. tore it down and hacked it up. They were executed with extreme prejudice. Jerusalem during Passover was a powder keg of religiosity and zealotry. The Roman garrison there was heavily outnumbered would have been unable to contain a full scale riot. Best policy was to nip it in the bud.

>>2090838
source pls

>>2090248
>backwater
>Pliny the Elder, writing of Herod's achievements, called Jerusalem "the most famous by far of the Eastern cities and not only the cities of Judea.

Why do people love to jump to extremes with history. It's either the center of the world or a backwater. Judea wasn't central nor was it a backwater like Gaul or Spain. Jerusalem had a population of about 200,000 at the time and about a million would make pilgrimage at passover. The number of Jews in the empire was between 10%-20% and it was a well known province and culture. Herod was the sponsor of the olympic games and other nobels from there were well known figures in the empire, Mariamne-I was bff with Cleopatra, Agrippa-I was Calligulas best body etc..

>>2090851
For which claim?

>>2090869
Tbh the only reason the Romans ever took Judea was to prevent sand nigs from sweeping down the Sinai and disrupting the grain supply from Egypt. It offers little else in the way of resources or trade goods.

>>2090869
>Judea wasn't central nor was it a backwater like Gaul or Spain

Sorry man, it was a backwater. Your figure for Jerusalem is straight up horrifically inaccurate. The only cities that had 200,000 people or more were Rome, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria etc. Gaul was not a backwater, becoming by the early Empire a pretty prosperous region due to the massive number of troops stationed there stimulating the local economy. Spain was very also very prosperous in the early Empire. Judea was pretty third rate and only had any strategic significance at all because of its proximity to the wealth of Egypt.

>Pliny the Elder, writing of Herod's achievements, called Jerusalem "the most famous by far of the Eastern cities and not only the cities of Judea.

Well unfortunately Pliny talks a whole heap of shit. I don't think Jerusalem was even the most important city in the tiny province, with Caesarea being more prominent.

>The number of Jews in the empire was between 10%-20%

Are you high or something? Or are you Jewish?

>>2091016
Not the other dude you replied to but I believe during the Passover holiday, the city swelled to those numbers, and then once the holiday was over, everyone went back home. The Temple was still a huge deal in the Judaism of late antiquity.

File: 1479875257134.png (201KB, 620x720px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 620x720px

Because he was a hobo in a largely illiterate society in a time from which little direct reference to anything survives.

There are evidence of Aramaic Gospels which may be precursors to the Synoptics, which aren't even that much later than Jesus themselves-the oldest parts of Mark dating from c.64 AD.

Pontius Pilate himself is only historically attested from one rock he dedicated, and he was the prefect of Judea.

The notion that Jesus as a man was fabricated is hilariously uninformed

>>2091032
Don't forget Philo and Josephus, who both thought he was a giant prick.

>>2091047
Christ Myth theorists will discard Philo and Josephus for being too far away, despite 60 years not really being that long.

They Christ myth theory is so bizarre in general, to an extent that I can't believe a historian could have come up with it.

Why make up Jesus-so you can be horribly ostracized for 300 years before an Emperor decides you were actually pretty cool? Talk about playing the long game,

>>2090181
Maybe he didn't exist.
Or if he did, not enough literate people gave enough of a shit about him.

>>2090215
All of those people were writing decades, if not centuries, after Christ's death.

Hell, Peter even makes it a point of pride in his writing that he never met the Messiah, but instead was contacted and told to spread his word, by God, through dreams and visions.
"I dreamed it" doesn't fly in modern history scholarship.

>>2090619
Scripture doesn't qualify as reliable historical sources.

>>2091084
>Hell, Peter even makes it a point of pride in his writing that he never met the Messiah, but instead was contacted and told to spread his word, by God, through dreams and visions."I dreamed it" doesn't fly in modern history scholarship.

Are you retarded, Peter was a Disciple.

Are you thinking of paul?

>>2091065
Very few people argue that Christ didn't really exist. Historians instead tend to argue that they don't know if he existed. This is a pretty subtle, but important, difference for a historian.

>>2091084
>he confused Peter with Paul
>he thinks a few decades casts significant doubt on writings describing events in late antiquity
>he adopts an authoritative tone while shitposting about a subject he has revealed himself to be ignorant about

Stop posting please.

>>2091084
>Scripture doesn't qualify as reliable historical sources

This is an antiquated 19th century notion, the kind of thing that claimed the Iliad and the Odyssey had no historical merit.

You're working off a modern bias where you inherently separate religion, tradition, and history where ancients wouldn't.

The plausible parts of the Gospels are likely a proper reflection of the times, with Mark probably being the most accurate life sketch of the Historical Jesus.

The Historical Jesus was, according to Mark: a miracle worker who came to prominence as a local preacher who went to Jerusalem, got arrested, and was executed under the roman prefect of Judea.

There's nothing inherently implausible or extraordinary in that, except the miracles.

It's important to remember that we still have "faith healers" today, so a person being called a miracle worker is not in itself extraordinary to the point of being fictional

File: 250px-Josephusbust[1].jpg (20KB, 250x374px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x374px

>>2091092
>>2091110
>>2091110
>>2091117
Ah shit my bad, I was thinking of Paul. My point still stands though.

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.

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.

People have mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. These are likely the only sources which have any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life.

And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

As others have said, he was an itinerant preacher from an uneducated backwater. The only time he ever spent in a metropolitan area (Jerusalem) was for less than a week, and during a time when the city was crowded with others like him. When it comes down to it, he was just one of many wandering apocalyptic preachers of the time that had a small following of illiterates. There really wasn't much remarkable about him, considering the historical circumstances.

There really isn't much reason to doubt he existed. He had a common name, was part of a popular religious trend, and preached in an area where someone like him wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Just because people came along later and added elements similar to earlier savior cult traditions doesn't mean there's anything implausible about the historical facts of his life.

>>2091117
and then later there were tons of saints who were said to have magic powers like christ. so why is jesus special?

File: hqdefault.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

tfw God makes it hard to believe in him but sends you to hell forever if you don't.

File: t3_19w6xt.jpg (123KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x600px

If Jesus was a ghost to history, then may he not as well have never existed?

>>2091122
This thread isn't about being special, it's about existing.

>>2091119
[shitposting heavily intensifies]

>>2090181
Because he was marginal, it was Peter who made him famous post mortem. And later Constantine who used the faith to unify the Empire again making Christianity one of the dominant religions of the world.

Jesus was a marginal guy when alive.

>>2091133
A shitpost. How wonderful.

>>2091138
>still hung up on one silly mistake
>shitposts about it because he's frustrated and angry that he can't make a counter argument

Stop posting please.

>>2091133
Sure, I guess, but there's no point in arguing for that unless you have evidence for his fabrication.

If you're going to argue for something like that, then why not also argue for the Cartesian Evil Genius?

>>2091147
>expects people to take him seriously when he can't get foundational facts right
>is probably jewish himself

stop posting please

>>2090672
>>2091133
Why is the cleansing of the temple supposed to be special? It happened during Passover, when the temple was full of people and lots of shit was going on. Jesus came in, shouted a bunch of apocalyptic stuff, got in people's faces, turned over a few tables, and left (according to Mark). It wasn't a big event, just a person getting out of hand during a gathering. Does ever bar fight get recorded on the national news?

>>2090181
>Why don't contemporaries make mention of him?
They do. They Apostles, Roman records, for starters.

>>2091153
>unless you have evidence for his fabrication.

My proof is that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>2091164
That's great bud.
Let me know when you make any sort of rebuttal or argument for this >>2091119, otherwise, you're going to just keep shitposting and I'm going to start ignoring you, as you seem to have nothing to say beyond "HAHA HE CONFUSED THE NAMES ONCE"

>>2091171
>>2091171
Okay, bud, pick any of his miracles then.

>>2091179
Well, that puts you at odds with the greatest bulk of Historical minds everywhere, but okay.

That's also an easy claim to make when everything that traditionally constitutes evidence is not evidence

>>2091172

>Roman Records
>written in 90AD

>>2091172
>Apostles
>eager to spread Christianity
>never really identify themselves
>no qualifications as historians
>never even identify or show criticism of their own sources
>let's take the mythical and magical things they espouse as legitimate historic sources

I don't think so friend.

>>2091195

Look. There are no records that Mongolia was once ruled by a giant goat, doesn't mean there isn't any reason to assume so.

>>2091189
Most of Jesus' miracles are minor things that hokey Faith Healers get away with TODAY.

The big things like the transfiguration and the calming of the sea happen when no one is around aside from the apostles.

The most significant public miracle Jesus performs is the multiplication of the loaves, and that may be false too.

No historian is claiming that the whole of the Gospels is fact. In fact, most historians trim the life of the Historical Jesus down to the Baptism of Christ and the Crucifixion, with everything else being various degrees of uncertainty.

>>2091189
What are you talking about? People brought up the cleansing of the temlple's absence in records as a reason to doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. I point out that it was a minor scuffle in a crowded place which probably wouldn't have warranted notice.

Miracles have nothing to do with this. We're talking about whether a historical figure existed or not, and why mentions of him are sparse. It's entirely possible to think Jesus existed, but didn't perform miracles; the cleansing (especially as recorded by Mark) isn't even a miraculous event, Just Jesus yelling and turning over a few tables.

>>2091214
Now you're resorting to Family Guy tier argumentation

>>2091197
This was still far from the period where Christianity would become popular enough for imperial acceptance. This is around the time when learned people actually start to convert, rather than just poor dirt farmers.

>>2091211
Paul mentions the disciples and James the Brother of the Lord in the genuine epistles. He specifically states that he had come to an irreconcilable disagreement with them about church doctrine. Why would someone write about dissent in the early church, especially if it disagrees with the people who received the gospel directly from Jesus?

File: good.jpg (68KB, 640x460px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x460px

>>2091119
>and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them
>mfw they're now the most reliable sources Christians have

You can't make this shit up.

>>2091184
There's no argument it's just you dismissing the Gospels out of hand because they don't meet your absurd criteria for historicity. Can you point to any biographies from late antiquity where the authors "describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources?" But hey, even if you want to double down on the necessity for an author to describe their qualifications in order to be credible here's John doing precisely that:

>That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

- 1 John 1:1

Now can skip the part where you find some excuse to discredit this and jump to the part where you stop shitposting? Please and thank you.

>>2091220

Actually, I believe he was probably real. If he was fake then why didn't the authors completely write it as they saw fit? Why write some convoluted story about how he connects to Bethlehem, why not just have the whole story take place there? My point is he's a ghost, good luck finding anything about him.

In scripture he's a literary vehicle for the views of the authors.

>>2091084
You're dumb and you should feel dumb.

>>2091119
Wouldn't this logic also call into question the existence of Muhammad, Moses, and even a bunch of other historical events/people/etc that have been written about?

>>2091254
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think you're missing the point.
>absurd criteria for historicity
That is literally the point of much of historic studies in academia. Historians decide what to believe, and what not to believe, based on strict criteria like that.
And under that criterea, you can't prove (or disprove, infact) the existence of Christ. That's the point. Not that he didn't exist, but that we don't know if he did or not.
And you're quoting John when it's been said, over and over again, that the words of the Apostles cannot be interpreted as proof.

>>2091254
>There's no argument it's just you dismissing the Gospels out of hand because they don't meet your absurd criteria for historicity. Can you point to any biographies from late antiquity where the authors "describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources?" But hey, even if you want to double down on the necessity for an author to describe their qualifications in order to be credible here's John doing precisely that:

Not him, but we can verify the authors and their credentials of many historic texts, we cannot conclusively do the same with the gospels, which also have a clear agenda for representing events and people as they do.

File: 5eb.jpg (26KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x750px

>>2091084
Le "The Bible™ is a single source and everything in it can be dismissed as a fairy tale" meme

He was a jew who said he was the messiah and then got executed in one of the shittiest Roman regions.

Why would they record it?

Also can you people imagine how many people there were who said they were some sort of messiah or prophet? Probably a few in every region, all throughout Roman history. They would have about as much incentive to record Jesus as some random preacher in Gaul with 20 followers.

File: 1478848528221.jpg (102KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x1024px

>>2091308
>Wouldn't this logic also call into question the existence of Muhammad, Moses, and even a bunch of other historical events/people/etc that have been written about?

Yes. You can make the exact same arguments about alot of things, but with Jesus this gains more attention because, well, its Jesus.

But infact, the life of Christ is even better documented than the life of Muhammad.

Trying to decipher what is nonsense and what is real is what alot of historians try to do.

>>2091334
We would call that meme the academic study of history.

>>2091276
>Why write some convoluted story about how he connects to Bethlehem
That is an example of the authors writing it as they saw fit, though. It's fairly unlikely that Jesus had anything to do with Bethlehem, since no one really mentions it outside of the nativity accounts that are missing from half of the gospels, and he's always referred to as coming from Nazareth.

That posed a problem for the authors of Matthew and Luke who wanted to make Jesus the messiah, but needed to connect his to Bethlehem. So they came up with reasons to explain why, even though everyone knew he was from Nazareth, he had a connection to Bethlehem. The accounts contradict each other (and contain elements that are mutually exclusive), and contain elements of history which are false. If anything in the gospels can be seen as being made up, it's the nativity stories, since they don't make a lot of sense and were clearly added for a symbolic purpose.

>>2091334
The bible isn't dismissed out of hand in academia, it's just subject to scrutiny, criticism, and verification. This is part of what the tradition of textual criticism is about.

>>2091308
>>2091324
The point is that secularists suddenly become significantly more rigorous about what is acceptable evidence for the historicity of Jesus than they are about other historical figures. For example, no one disputes that Siddartha Hannibal or Confucius were historical despite the lack of contemporary sources mentioning them but of course Jesus doesn't get the same treatment and his lack of contemporary references casts "serious doubt" about Jesus' historicity.

Really makes you think.

>>2090181
Ever read the new testament?

>>2091351
I don't know if you're just writing this to be contrarian. That was the point of his post. Why bother writing a convoluted nativity for a person who is fictional? You can just have the dude be born in Bethlehem and stay in Bethlehem and not write anything at all about the shitty, economically depressed hamlet of Nazareth.

>>2091387
>Siddartha Hannibal or Confucius

Didn't all those big guys write things?

>>2091387
Hannibal is accepted because his existence is more or less required for Roman history (which is well-documented) to make sense. But Siddhartha and Confucius are both highly debated. Would you quit with the fucking victim complex already? Jesus gets more attention for two reasons the first is that Christianity is more prevalent in the west (what with there being a core of people that can't shut up about it because they're ideologically required to spread the "good news") and two there are actual ramifications to his existence. Whether Confucius or Siddhartha existed has no impact on their message, the same cannot be said for Jesus.

>>2091396
Fuck, I didn't read it carefully. Maybe I'm too used to Christian shitposting on this forum. I've seen people here make similar statements as proof that the narrative is historically accurate (I guess because it not making sense is proof that people wouldn't make it up?). My bad.

>>2091398
Nope.

>>2091396

Hmm... OP here. This point has changed my mind. This deduction is very sound, I do accept that he was real, but he may as well have been a spook. It would be like to try to write a biography about a guy who's only record is a birth certificate.

>>2091351
>If anything in the gospels can be seen as being made up, it's the nativity stories, since they don't make a lot of sense and were clearly added for a symbolic purpose

Which is also why they're only in the least historically important Gospels.

Mark and John both lack the Birth Narrative, despite John being very spiritual.

Mark even cuts off at the Empty Tomb

>>2091387
>secularists suddenly become significantly more rigorous about what is acceptable evidence for the historicity of Jesus than they are about other historical figures

That is not true at all.
See: >>2091344
You can make this argument about alot of shit in history, and indeed, you should. Sources, verification, evidence, etc, are all heavily scrutinized regardless of whether you were writing about ancient Egyptian basket weaving or Jesus Christ.

This one in particular just attracts more attention because its about Jesus.

>>2091403
>confucius
>highly debated

KEK

>>2091434
Yeah, all the Chinese philosophers of that time without hard details about their existence have their existences called into question. You see it with Lao Tzu and Lieh Tzu as well, just as examples.

>>2091084
>Hi, I'm anon, I just read Bart Ehrman I saw him on >the Daily Show on Youtube. I read his book, now >I'm an expert Jesus historian.

Even Ehrman, no friend of Christian apologists admits the guy lived.

He lived anon, whether or not he is your Messiah is a matter of religion.

As a matter of history, he existed, by all standards applied to any other historical figure of the time.

http://www.strangenotions.com/skeptic-bart-ehrman-on-whether-jesus-really-existed/

>>2091403
>Siddhartha and Confucius are both highly debated

Lol yeah I must've missed all those documentaries like "the Buddha who wasn't there" or the "sage myth" movement in academia.

>>2091447
Let's not make absolute statements.
He admits that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Yeshua ben Yusef was a real person.

>>2090720
>but some of the account was obviously doctored by early Christians.

Right, because the earliest Christians, who would have been the most devout, completely forged a secular affirmation of their messiah. Dan Brown get out.

>>2091448
That's because you've never bothered to actually go looking.

Another example would be Homer and his epics, where there was constant debate over their nature and authorship, and the nature of Homer himself.

Chuang Tzu springs to mind. Being one of the few ancient Chinese philosophers whose existence can be somewhat verified; the actual authorship of the philosophical texts attributed to him goes under considerable scrutiny (as in which ones were actually him, and which ones were other authors attributing their own works to him).

As I said, Jesus gets more attention because there's a lot of people who refuse to shut the fuck up about the guy and because his existence, and the authorship of the texts associated with him has actual ramifications to their validity.

>>2091443
Confucius is not one of the philosophers "without hard details" by any stretch of the imagination. They even identified the DNA shared by his descendants.

>>2091470
It's pretty much standard consensus in academia that some of the account of Josephus is a later interpolation. People don't stop being people just because they're religious.

>>2091447
>Even Ehrman
So what? There are plenty of historians who would agree with him, plenty who would disagree with him, and even more than the two groups combined who say its not proven one way or the other.

>whether or not he is your Messiah is a matter of religion.
My religious beliefs never once mattered in how I view this.
I have no incentive to make you doubt Christ, or affirm your belief in him.

>>2091479
My mistake. Regardless you do see this kind of debate with most historical figures.

>>2091475
Would you please link me 1 (one) academic paper denying Confucius' existence?

>>2091496
Nah, I'm gonna have to admit my mistake here. I actually don't know much about Confucius, he's relatively well documented apparently. I was just assuming his existence was debated because most philosophers that I've encountered of the era are subject to such scrutiny.

Regardless my point is simply that this kind of scrutiny is not exclusive to Jesus and the apostles.

Why did docetism arise in Ignatius' time?

Wouldn't Jesus' historical foorptint be a bit more pronounced in c. 35 – c. 108?

>>2091470
The language of the interpolated Testimonium Flavianum does not sound like Josephus at all and the odd bits of flattery for an illiterate street preacher just don't sit right with most people familiar with his work. Never mind it is bears striking similarities to Luke.

How come no one has mentioned the possibility that more historical accounts of Jesus did exist but were expunged from history by some political authority whose interests contradicted those espoused by Christianity?

>>2091510
Actually you've just proven that this level of scrutiny is indeed unique to Jesus.

>no contemporary sources for Confucius
>eh it's fine he's pretty well attributed after the fact so he existed

>no contemporary sources for Jesus
>we need to be responsible objective historians and remain skeptical about whether this "Jesus" character ever existed and we need to be very suspicious about those sources after the fact because they may have been tampered with or the authors are unreliable or they could be forgeries or they might be talking about several different people who later became known as a singular "Jesus" or they might be talking about a ghost who only looked like a man... et cetera et cetera.

>>2091548
>Actually you've just proven that this level of scrutiny is indeed unique to Jesus.

Not really. See >>2091475 and other previous posts, which brought up examples such as Lao Tzu and Lieh Tzu.

Seriously, end the victim complex.

In the case of Confucius, we have his remains and his descendants.

>>2091533
Because that's pure speculation.

The documents, if they existed, from the time of the seventy apostles could have been destroyed as heresy, or by persecutors, or not kept because the Gospels were deemed sufficient.

It could have been anything; there's little use speculating on theories why documents are missing.

>>2091533
Because Jesus was actually that unimportant to the literati. Does the New York Times write articles about that bum on Canal Street?

>>2091548
I'd actually say Confucius is a unique case. The Kong family has maintained extensive family records and they've been famous since OG Kong. They have a documented lineage with proof from dozens of Emperors over thousands of years granting them special privileges and letters of patent.

>>2091533
>How come no one has mentioned the possibility that more historical accounts of Jesus did exist but were expunged from history by some political authority whose interests contradicted those espoused by Christianity?

Because aside from the sporadic, patchy and minor persecutions (which early Christian authors like to present as a systematic and targeted shoah) prior to Constantine in the 4th century, Christianity has always been dominant in the Mediterranean world.

>>2091119
Maybe because the Gospels aren't about them? They are extremely humble, regardless.

>>2091573
>>2091548
A better example would be Socrates or Diogenes.

China has always been good at keeping old shit

>>2091561
Yes really. There is an entire industry of Jesus' denying scholarship which has no equivalent for those other figures.

>>2091573
But anon, we can't trust those family records because they aren't written by a neutral and objective third party. It's the same reason that the Gospels are suspect right? I mean for all we know those Kongs were just inventing the character of Confucius to increase their own prestige! You really ought to be more scholarly about this and maintain your skepticism anon geez louise.

>>2091575
Comprehension, mate, he was talking about Christians destroying Christian documents, which happened all the time.

Who were the writers of the gospels anyway? its strange that no one knows anything about them.

>>2091601
>Yes really. There is an entire industry of Jesus' denying scholarship which has no equivalent for those other figures.

Actually, it's pretty much standard consensus that he did exist, and we've explained repeatedly why he gets more attention. If there were a core of people that could never shut up about how believing that Lao Tzu totally burned Confucius silly when he made fun of him, you can bet he'd get the same attention.

Is there some sort of requirement that you possess a victim complex? I mean you've already got a billion followers internationally, but no that, isn't enough, you must never be criticized either.

>>2091607

No I wasn't, I had in mind any political authority - mainly the Romans or their clients like Herod.

>>2091610
The author of John claims to be an apostle, specifically the one Jesus Loved.

That's not as implausible as it sounds, since John is the Gospel which most accurately reflects the physical geography of Jerusalem.

Johnian priority is beginning to meme itself now, but it's believed that it may come from the School of John, not from him itself.

As for Mark, it probably comes from the Apostolic school and the old Aramaic Gospels.

>>2091615
Oh, well, I guess I better buff up on my comprehension then

>>2091610
Is it strange?
>be early Christcuck, heard a good story about Jesus
>our leader received the Gospel from Mark himself
>write a gospel
>Be later Christcuck, hear another story similar but different to the first niggas
>I don't really know what happened either so I'm just plagiarize a tiny bit...
>here's what really happened
>Repeat 2 more times
>Fuck me, none of this makes sense together
>Who is the right one? Fuck it, just put it all in there and let everyone else decide.

>Be Paul
>"FUCK YOUR COUCH"

File: it's called the common era now goy.jpg (42KB, 764x688px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 764x688px

>>2091612
>scholarly papers, popular books and movies come out denying the historicity of Christ
>point out that this is ridiculous because other historical figures with comparable evidence do not provoke the same level of controversy
>SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR VICTIM COMPLEX!!1!1!

>>2091630

How did the authors behind the Quran get it right?

>>2091610
They were probably random leaders of churches in gentile communities. No one knows much about them because they didn't identify themselves (the attested authorships are all later tradition), so not much really can be known about them. All they actually did was write accounts (or expand on early accounts), which happened to be copied more and regarded as more authoritative than others floating around. .

File: Le NT.jpg (571KB, 1139x877px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1139x877px

>>2091630
#memes

>>2091642
>fringe movement denies the historicity of Christ
>standard historical process to question the details of historical figures (Homer, Socrates, Lao Tzu, etc.)
>Jesus is probably the single most talked about historical figure in western society
>BUT WHY WONT YOU LEAVE JESUS ALONE?!

Yep, that's pretty much a victim complex. You're trying to make yourself out to be a victim of a perfectly normal process in historical study that's taken exactly proportional to how much this figure is generally talked about in our society and how significant his existence or non-existence is.

What would you have us do? Just take everything the Bible says about him at face value? Oh wait, of course you would, that's what you've done.

>>2091646
the Quran was written while Mohammed's comrades during his campaigns were still alive and kicking, but their numbers dwindled dramatically after a battle shortly after his death. The first Caliph decided to compile all known sayings of Mohammed while the people who knew him in life could still remember them.
They are actually sourced directly from people who talked to Mohammed

>>2090869
10-20% of the entire Empire was Jewish? Is that right? Seems too high desu

>>2091646
Because the Koran never had to be compiled in a hostile, disperse environment.

Uthman got everyone together who knew Muhammad and heard his teachings first or second hand, and compiled it there.

He, or a council, then parsed through all the shit and decided what was and wasn't a proper Muhammadism
The Gospels are 2 different schools compiled together later, with John being included solely because an Apostle claims to be its author right in the text.

>>2091659
This particular discussion relates to Christ's historicity specifically and not "everything the Bible says about him." Furthermore if the Christ myth hypothesis is fringe right now it is definitely gaining ground because I've encountered plenty of otherwise regular people who confidently dismiss Jesus' historicity because of the narrative that is currently being promoted in academia. If pushing back against this narrative means people will think I have a victim complex then so be it.

>>2091666
It's cause he's completely talking out of his ass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire
Population of the Empire around Jesus's adolescence was 45+ million.

>>2091684
>This particular discussion relates to Christ's historicity specifically and not "everything the Bible says about him."

This discussion has branched into discussion about the historicity about details of his life and the authorship of the gospels.

>Furthermore if the Christ myth hypothesis is fringe right now it is definitely gaining ground because I've encountered plenty of otherwise regular people who confidently dismiss Jesus' historicity because of the narrative that is currently being promoted in academia.

So you think because uneducated normies think something, that it must have ground in academia? I guess academia must think Hitler was out to conquer the entire world and populate it with people that had only blue eyes and blond hair.

>If pushing back against this narrative means people will think I have a victim complex then so be it.

Oh you're so brave, fighting this injustice! Just like those brave SJWs fighting the oppression of the heteronormative white-cis patriarchy!

>>2091700
>I guess academia must think Hitler was out to conquer the entire world and populate it with people that had only blue eyes and blond hair.

That sounds like something a sociology professor would say to be perfectly honest with you lad mate.

>>2091707
But not a historian.

>>2091718
Here's a historian who denies Jesus' historicity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

>>2091099
Yeah, but you can say the same thing about just about any other figure in antiquity.

>>2091403
>Hannibal is accepted because his existence is more or less required for Roman history (which is well-documented) to make sense.
Yeah, but according the mythicists, history making sense afterwards isn't a requirement. In fact, the uncomfortable fact that Roman History doesn't make sense without a figure with no contemporaneous documentation, casts doubt on Roman History.

What do you lads make of Reza Aslan's take on the matter at hand?

File: hqdefault.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>2091723
Lol no one in the field of Near East studies takes ANYTHING he says seriously. He's a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens tier meme.

>>2091684
>I've encountered plenty of otherwise regular people who confidently dismiss Jesus' historicity
Because the mythicist hypothesis is popular enough to be easily accessible, and it's a really easy jump to make for people who want to attack Christianity. In my experience, most people who seem to deny that Jesus existed are ex-Christian atheists who are just try to discredit the religion. It's not really a historical question for them, it's a move to shame a social force.

>>2091735
Saracens gonna saracen.

>>2091740
Those are big memes.

>>2091758
For you.

>>2091758

For you

>>2091740
>>2091723
Sort of this. Carrier is a legit historian, but he's also an atheist activist (he also regularly gives talks about how god doesn't exist and religion is delusion) who clearly has a dog in the fight. He makes some good points (and some questionable ones), but his conclusions are obviously informed by his bias.

He's also one of very few actual academics that's a mythicist. The reason he's the person everyone brings up as an example of mythicism in academia, is because he's the only one most people will heave heard of. He's definitely not in the mainstream.

Isn't the topic of Jesus's historicity irrelevant? if he existed and rose from the dead, then he is interesting. if he existed and was just a regular human, who cares? he exists in the minds of billions of people anyway; it doesnt really matter if he was a historical figure or not.

>>2091735
It's a decent summary of the mainstream academic view of Jesus as a historical figure. The book is basically just him summing up things people have been arguing for years. It's not perfect, and kind of sensationalist, but there's nothing in his book that's seriously really at odds with mainstream academic views.

>>2090890
All of them

>>2091846

1.
http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/rlst/rlst152/transcript07.html

2.
http://0-www.pbs.org.librus.hccs.edu/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html

>>2091119
> 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

>>2091779

It's fairly important for Christians, but yes for most people it's completely irrelevant. It's like asking if Herakles was real, sure there may have been some schmuck the legends are based on, and SOMEONE founded the cult of the Olympian Gods, why not call that guy "Herakles" and be done with it?

>>2091779
The impression I've gotten is that historians don't even want to touch the subject of the Resurrection.