All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
138 points (68.1% liked)
Atheist Memes
5577 readers
11 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There probably is, the irony is just that it's a document all churches will fight tooth and nail against recognizing as partially authoritative over their own records.
In general, I've found that the best evidence for a historical Jesus having existed is in the history of the "other versions of Jesus" Paul makes mention of in 2 Cor 11:4. A city where only decades later they deposed appointees from Rome in a schism.
The assumption that if a historical Jesus existed that the surviving tradition of that individual would be the one that succeeded against its rivals centuries later is grossly irresponsible, and yet a common scenario unexplored to avoid upsetting modern day believers in that version of the history.
The odds are much, much higher that the most accurate picture of a historical Jesus would be found among the competition. Particularly given the available evidence that the church's monetary fundraising practices were at odds with the earliest versions of Jesus.
What's more likely to survive the filter of the Roman empire?
A version of Jesus against dynastic rule and religious fundraising, or a version pro-fundraising and pro-dynastic monarchy?
Which version would be more likely to have the temple or Rome wanting to execute them?
Does no one think it odd Peter, the founder of the modern church, denies him three times around the time Jesus is brought to trial around three times, at least one of which Peter is allegedly seen firsthand being let by the guards back to where the trial was taking place?
Or that Paul, who never met him and was known to be actively persecuting Jesus's followers, shows up to areas he can't persecute in telling people he's one of them and to ignore other versions of Jesus?
People argue back and forth about a particular version of history when it comes to the Bible that's both less interesting and less likely than other options for historical events and people that just may have been less attractive to people in power when editorial choices are being made for the current collection and editions of them.
No. There probably isn’t. Romans were only meticulous in keeping records of their citizens. He was not a citizen, was if not uncomfortable still working class, but probably poor.
The Jewish authorities were far more interested in stamping out a heretical cult.
That’s the thing. There is no surviving records. What existed is pretty much all destroyed. Every account comes decades after the fact- and can only say that Christian’s existed and that they believed christ existed. There is no evidence that anyone named jeshua existed- and even if it did, it would be impossible to verify he was that particular jeshua.
If I’m wrong, drop the proof. But don’t make assumptions on hope. The good news (pun intended,) is that the lack of evidence goes both ways. Which is why I’m not saying he didn’t exist and only that there is no evidence of existence.
Make sense?
The inability to execute without Roman approval had nothing to do with citizenship.
The rights to capital punishment were taken away over a period in which Jesus was killed.
But the accounts of Jesus's death are extremely unusual given the other reports of messianic upstarts in Josephus who were killed by Roman forces without trial, immediately upon gathering, and where followers were killed too.
The allegation of it being at the Sanhedrin's urging would be extremely unusual if true. And Roman reluctance even more so.
One might even look to alternate charges that were publishable by death under Jewish law but accepted in Roman society for the kind of charge that might lead to such an outcome.
Such as the charge of homosexuality. So if there were reports of kissing or feeding a close male disciple food at dinner right around when Jesus is arrested, we might want to entertain the possibility a historical Jesus was killed by his own people for allegations related to that, which wouldn't have been an easy decision for a Roman authority given the rumours even the Emperor at the time was engaging in some behaviors.
Another might be rejection of intelligent design in favor of Roman philosophy, like Leucretius's "seeds of things" scattered randomly where only what survived reproduced, and the seed that fell by the wayside of the path did not. Those are all Leucretius's words, and yet it sounds very similar to a saying by Jesus which is offered up a secret explanation for its public utterance in canon. Whereas in the tradition of the document I think with greater connection to the historical origin, they believed that parable was about indivisible points which make up all things and were the originating cause of the universe (their words).
That document says things like:
In fact, the saying immediately before the parable in this work was:
So a tradition of Jesus that was engaged with the ideas in Leucretius's De Rerum Natura - the only extant work from antiquity to explicitly describe survival of the fittest - might also be a tradition that was deemed by the Sanhedrin to be 'heretical' but not one so easily dismissed by Roman authority in a time Leucretius's book was still quite popular across Rome.
It would be incredibly unusual for a made up tradition to have also made up a schism where their devout Jewish messiah figure was paraphrasing the brightest Roman mind on what was wildly transgressive at the time yet since proved to have been true. Or to have added in intimate moments with his supposed betrayer and public denials by his supposed successor.
But these are exactly the kind of details we might expect from a version of events contending with living witnesses of actual events that need to be addressed and spun in a different way.
It's a bit like Perseus and Medusa. The only way to spot what was really going on is in the reflection left behind by its opposition in the writings of the victors. But that reflection can actually reveal quite a lot.
You’re confusing the ability to do a thing… with the recording of said thing. Pilate might have made a note of it in his personal records, but it was never sent back to rome. Being a citizen entitled one to a full trial which comes with records of that trial.
As a non-citizen he would have never constituted more than a footnote.
As for the Sanhedrin…. They had a long history of having upstarts knifed by “loyal” mercenaries. Makes one wonder, right?
Of course this changes nothing- there are no records contemporaneous to jesus that survive today indicating the jesus-of-the-bible actually existed.
Again, there are leftover parts that very likely do remain, it's just their recognition is obstructed by the faithful.
For example, saying 81 in the Gospel of Thomas seems like it's pretty relevant to Tiberius's inheritance and then abandonment of the throne without passing power to another. And given the reinterpretation decades later where it is combined with saying 1 as appears to be referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 4:8, a letter with several overlaps with the work and a number of which are clearly referred to as present in Corinth pre-Paul.
That document wouldn't have survived to today if the church had its way, and modern analysis over the decades since has been mired by the church's influence. But luckily it was buried in a jar for nearly two millennia and publicly accessible.
Socrates didn't write anything. The oldest surviving fragment of Plato dates to the oldest fragment of the Gospel of Thomas and was found in the same place.
And yet I'd imagine you don't doubt that Socrates really existed, do you? In fact, we have a much more ancient full version of Thomas than we do any of Plato's works.
The question of whether content dating to a given person's life survived is a very different question from if actual physical media from that person's life survived.
Nice whataboutism.
I would agree with the statement no contemporary evidence exists for either Socrates or Plato as well. Though it does seem we have fragments of papyrus dating to the time of Plato…. And we have plenty of first hand accounts of Plato’s existence as well as people responding with criticism etc. not to mention, they’re from a time 300+ years before Jesus was purported to have been born.
You will note this conversation isn’t about them, however. I don’t worship them, either. And to be blunt, there are no works attributed directly to Jesus. The gospels all purport to be written by their namesakes, though that’s mostly rejected. The non canonical gospels like Thomas are well after Mark. And mark itself was not written by mark, and was written around or a couple years after Peter probably died. Keep in mind mark was supposed to be a translator for Peter.
Oh and the gospel of Thomas was written sometime between 60 and 250- kind of depends on who you ask. Even at the earliest, it would have been 30 years after the cruxifiction, give or take.
The point being, they’re complete hearsay about what happened. Second- and third- hand accounts at best, all pushed by people who have a reason to lie about it. Jesus himself has no writings that are directly attributed to him (or, “attributed”… early Christian’s have a problem with faking it for “authority”) and the earliest accounts of his life are 30 or so years after he died, and the only things they agree on are that the Roman’s killed him and John the Baptist baptized him.
Well said but small point. The first report of him being baptized by John the Baptist wasn't until 50 years later. Paul never mentions it, the Gospel of Thomas never mentions it, it wasn't until the Mark Gospel.