Jesus was the original nepo baby
Where in the bible does it explicitly say Jesus was a virgin.
I’m not even sure I get the point this comic is trying to make.
It sounds vaguely like an impossible standards kind of thing, except, well, having a job, any job, is kind of a reasonable expectation. And if it’s specifically a commentary about standards held by women, since the only context clue we have on who these are is “Ladies”… it sounds like incel-ish complaining.
Jesus? The guy who was famously a carpenter?
Being a carpenter and being an employed carpenter are very different situations.
Jesus was a king first, carpenter second!
His dad was a carpenter so it was just his last name. Jesus Christ Carpenter. Like John Carpenter makes movies not shelves.
I will never understand why people talk of what’s akin to a Harry Potter character as if it was a real person.
There is no reliable historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
Considering the alleged feats of the character, that would be very unlikely, and even a minor figure like John the baptist, has better actual historical evidence than Jesus.
Occam’s razor suggest that Jesus was simply made up as an idea, and never really existed.
Much the same as the Greek demigods.There was a guy named Jesus, born in Nazareth and crucified by the romans. There’s no mystery about that and it’s historically accurate
The rest, however…
Based on what?
There is no evidence of either regarding the character Jesus Christ of the bible.Sorry - you’re wrong in this.
There are non-Biblical contemporary accounts of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, the travelling preacher who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It’s generally accepted that he was a real person.
As for the magical side things attributed to him - the immaculate conception, the miracles etc - well, that is a matter of faith.
To use another historical figure, look at William Wallace. There is contemporary evidence that he was a real person, but we don’t have much at all. Most of what we have is works created long after he died - legends and stories that have fashioned him into the person we think of. He was a real person, but Braveheart isn’t a true story.
If you want another example of how distorted things can get over time - just look at the current “American” version of Jesus.
The Biblical Jesus was a Jew who said people should look after the poor, love our neighbours, respect cultural differences, and that nothing God has made is unclean. He said pursuit of money is the root of all evil and, angered by the commercialisation of the temple, flipped over the tables of the money-changers.
The American Jesus is a white Christian who hates foreigners and their ways, hates gay people and hates atheists. Conversely, he loves billionaires, mega-churches and capitalism.
Historical Jesus is probably real, but that doesn’t mean the Bible is an accurate account.
There are non-Biblical contemporary accounts of a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
No there isn’t. Simply not true, you’ve been led to believe the bible is reliable, but even the bible description of Jesus is written a lifetime after the fact by third parties, based on hear say (or fantasy).
There is not a single verifiable or first hand historic evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, continuing to claim that doesn’t make it so.Well, I’m certainly glad that I wrote out all that, for you just to reply to the first paragraph!
Anyway, you’re wrong. Literally minimum effort required to dig these out, but I’ll do it for you anyway.
Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus
Annals by Tacitus
Antiquities has two mentions, along with a rather grim description of what Nero was doing to Christians. Annals has one mention.
And I think you’re fundamentaly mistaken about what the Bible is. It’s just a collection of works. The Old Testament is pretty much the same stuff as the Jewish Tanakh, and predates Jesus fairly significantly. The New Testament is composed of works created after Jesus’s death. This includes several letters by a guy named Paul.
“OK, and…”, I hear you say.
He was absolutely a contemporary of the historical Jesus, carried out missionary work after his conversion.
I’ll grant that there are no first-hand accounts - even Paul’s accounts were second-hand from people who actually knew Jesus. But it doesn’t mean anything - there are few first-hand accounts of anybody from before the early middle ages, let alone a commoner born 2000 years ago.
There are non-biblical sources
No there aren’t, you just believe the bible
???
Either way, I appreciate you providing those, it’s a fascinating topic. Frankly even if Jesus was just some guy running around deceiving people into thinking he was the Messiah, he had some good lessons and that’s gotta count for something.
Josephus:
I don’t really have to look up those, I’m very well aware of them, because as I wrote, there are excruciatingly little, even when counting things that aren’t really evidence.
First Josephus wrote that way after the fact, and they are NOT first person experiences (as you admitted), so even if truly written by him, it does not constitute reliable historic evidence.
In fact the entry was allegedly written a decade AFTER the oldest book in the Bible describing the life of Jesus. So clearly more likely faked by himself to seem more complete, or by a fraudster to create evidence, maybe to increase the value, or to please his church.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
Scholars usually agree on the authenticity
Actual meaning they don̈́t agree.
the first one is considered to be authentic, but to have been subjected to Christian interpolation.
How is it both authentic and subjected to Christian interpolation.
Annals by Tacitus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
Notice not a single mention of Jesus until near the end with this comment:
its mention of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a spurious interjection, added later, and not written by Tacitus.
It must be embarrassing to have to quote those as “evidence”, for what billions consider the most significant event in the history of mankind, when both reek of having been manipulated.
The fact that you really believe I was unaware of these, just show your own ignorance. Because these are parroted over and over again by Christians, exactly because they don’t have any historically reliable evidence.
This despite huge efforts to find this evidence, financed by Churches through 2000 years, combined using by far more resources than any other investigation into the history of anything.
Investigating the pyramids have been peanuts by comparison, yet we know several Pharaoh that are thousands of years before the story of Jesus Christ. Just Cleopatra which were slightly earlier than the fantasy figure Jesus Christ, But Cleopatra is an indisputable historic character, despite the Roman empire was way more notorious in cataloging everything.But that’s because Cleopatra and Pharaohs actually existed, and despite being way less significant, than if Jesus Christ had actually founded Christianity. Even without the miracles of the Bible being true!!!
If you think about it critically and regard the context and compare to the evidence of other historical events, it becomes pretty clear that Jesus Christ never existed as an actual person.
The claim about Tacitus not writing on Jesus comes from one “source” in the pop culture section. That source is a fictional character in a novel (one who’s obviously portrayed as highly biased on this issue, ironically…) it gets even more embarassing when you look up what that novel is about…
There’s also this which mentions that his writings on Jesus are pretty much agreed to be authentic. The Roman empire was indeed very good at keeping records, that’s why Tacitus is considered such a reliable source…
You’re making a lot of claims about the motivations of people, with no actual evidence to show for it, and using that to dismiss them as sources. This is painfully ironic. Not everything is a Catholic conspiracy, it’s okay for the world to be nuanced.
The only verifiable fact is that the Romans were into crucifying people AND there were rebel sects in Judea.
The rest is just really good story telling
That’s like saying that trains stations are a verifiable fact of Harry Potter.
Actually they made movies and we have the original text of Harry Potter so … it’s a less credulous statement than that.
Lots of folks getting their panties in a bunch about something they don’t understand, it’s not OUR fault no contemporary peers wrote of this “Jesus” fellow but instead we got tales of a rebel leader inflated over the years.
He’s just John Henry with a couple thousand years to simmer.
I gave you sources, just take the time to read them. Check out refercence g from the wikipedia page
And last but not least, if historians and scholars overwhelmingly agree that a guy named Jesus existed in Judea during the first century, who am I (but also, who are you) to assert otherwise ?
(Remember that proving the absence of a thing requires some finesse, make sure you have that)
Show me a single piece of evidence that document the existence of Jesus is true, You can’t just point me to a page flooded with multiple false Christian propaganda.
I have read lots and lots of so called “evidence” of which there are 3 pieces claimed to be the major pieces of evidence, and they are all highly unreliable, and considering the alleged importance of Jesus Christ at his time, 3 pieces of faked evidence is way less than what we could reasonably expect, even if they were somewhat trustworthy.Here’s a link to “the internet” read and lean. https://www.google.com/ /sarcasm on your link that I have already read years ago. What they call evidence is not actually valid historical evidence.
I’m no expert whatsoever, because frankly it makes no difference to me, but last I heard it was accepted that Jesus the person existed.
It’s hard to find trustworthy sources when I’m being lazy and so many people are trying push very biased views, but this is something, I guess. There’s also a Wikipedia article about it, but I’m tired and it’s dry.
The problem is that when you look at the non christian sources like josephus their sources are christian or each other so its sorta a circle jerk. There is no written roman record from the census that bible mentioned that was so important his dad had to go back to Bethlehem. Then also somehow the mass slaughter of little boys is not mentioned. So josephus basically says the chrisitans say there was this guy jesus christ who was crucified. That was his source. He does a detailed life of herod including some fucked up things he did like killing a wife and sons and in a law but never mentions a slaughter of children.
but last I heard it was accepted that Jesus the person existed.
2000 years of massive Christian propaganda without evidence. There are plenty historical people from that time that have actual historical evidence, and even people from thousands of years earlier. Just because a lot of people are delusional, doesn’t make their delusions true. And without evidence there is no reason the rest of us should believe their delusions.
The claim that historians don’t believe Jesus Christ is a made up character is itself suspect, the entire western world has been brainwashed to believe Jesus was an actual figure, were those historians from the same universities that feature theology as a valid study? Granting Christianity absolutely undeserved authority.
Imagine a university having an entire branch of study of Harry Potter that was equal to Physics, Math, history and so on! Based on a 2000 year old tradition of often fanatically believing and trying to prove the existence of Harry Potter, and with 90% of Philosophers through the centuries believing the stories to be true, exclusively based on faith with no evidence.
ALL the Theological and Philosophical “evidence” from centuries of trying to claim the bible is true has been disproved. And even today Christians continue to use those old already disproved ideas, because average people aren’t aware the arguments have been proved to be invalid.It would be laughably moronic if it wasn’t so sad and destructive.
Well again, it doesn’t actually matter to me. I’m not trying to have a debate, I’m just saying that’s what I’ve heard and I tend to trust experts on their own fields. You can make up your own mind about what you believe, makes no difference to me.
I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal if he was a real person or not, it doesn’t say anything about the validity of religion one way or the other. Plus I don’t think it’s really that far fetched that someone could have amassed a bunch of followers and birthed a new religion. It still happens in the modern world.
Edit: I read how you’ve responded to everyone else. Take a break friend, people are just having a discussion with you, disagreing isn’t an attack.
It’s fine if you personally think the evidence isn’t reliable, but calling everyone delusional and shouting down frankly well supported arguments as fake with no way to back it up all while refusing to read and engage with them isn’t a good look. If you can legitimately explain why people are wrong, I’m sure they would appreciate the discussion and potentially learning something.
If you can’t, then I’d suggest reflecting on why this is so upsetting to you. Believe me I absolutely understand what it’s like to hate religion and to be filled with an intense desire to want it to all be wrong and evil, but that shouldn’t affect how you treat people.
I tend to trust experts on their own fields.
I do too, but most historians throughout time that have studied Christian historicity have been Christians themselves, meaning these are not unbiased scientists, but more likely to be Christian fanatics desperately seeking evidence for their belief.
Plus I don’t think it’s really that far fetched that someone could have amassed a bunch of followers and birthed a new religion.
I agree it’s not far fetched, there is just no evidence of it, which is weird, since shortly after it becomes the official religion of the Roman empire!
A movement that big with such a charismatic leader and no evidence?Again Occam’s razor indicate the story was made up by followers of Jesus Christ, an idealized concept that existed before they personified him in stories that are now included in the bible. Christianity did not start with the writings of the scripture in the bible.
This is something widely accepted by secular historians, it’s widely accepted by atheists too.
Occam’s razor does not work like that. It would actually suggest that Jesus did exist, given that it requires a single person to have existed instead of requiring a mountain of very valid evidence to be a conspiracy while a whole group people, who’s entire profession revolves around determining the trustworthiness of such evidence, to suddenly all be very bad at their job on this one specific issue etc.
I think that was a part of the joke: some people are so picky that even a made up personage who was intended to be good all around is not good enough for them.
I think you are right.
