Jesus as a historical figure wasn’t a conman tho. He was a man fighting the corrupt institution that religion had already become during his time. A bit culty, yes, but his intentions were to spread compassion and the love of others
Your historical Jesus seems to be a very upstanding individual. Where can I go to find out more about him? The Jesus that I know about split up families and perpetrated lies about an imaginary afterlife to recruit people to continue his fantasy that has been a detriment to the growth of society.
As far as I’m aware Jesus didn’t split up any families. There are plenty of papers that study the concept of Jesus and what he would have looked like, but if you are interested in just a simple overview you can just simply read the evangelions. I’m not able to recommend a particular translation, and I know the one used in english is a bit fishy, but it will be enough to get a rough understanding.
But in any case, I’m not talking about Jesus as a religious leader, I’m discussing the character and the impact it had in cultures at the time, the same way one might talk about Homer, who most likely didn’t exist either.
But if you want to get into theology, Jesus himself was against the structure and corruption present in the church at the time, and would likely be against the institutionalization of the modern day catholic church as well. So he would definitely repude a lot of the attitudes of the north American evangelical church if that’s what you mean
Luke 14:26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life!”
Mark: ignore the James community, Paul is where it is at.
Matthew: ok Paul is still where it is at, but you know James was pretty cool as well. Please Jews that the Romans didn’t kill, like all five of you, come join us.
Luke: you know what? Paul and James are basically equals.
John: James is amazing but have you heard of my man the beloved disciple?
Early Church: the beloved disciple is fine, but I am on Team Mary
2nd Century Church: Mary? Sure she was there, but the Holy Ghost was the one doing the job.
It is like Kanye West microphone stealing.
Luke was copying Matthew in that passage and the important thing for Matthew was to salvage the damage Mark had done to the reputation of the James community. So he makes Jesus disdain the family. Meaning James gets the job based on merit/faith not based on nepotism.
Even if there was a historical Jesus he is very unlikely to have said anything like that. No one is that much of a narcissist and even if they were it wouldn’t work among the strong tribe-family loyalty of that time and place.
Once you get that the entire NT is propaganda it makes sense.
Jesus was very likely a historical fiction. Evidence for his existence that should be there is missing and what evidence we have is inconsistent. There is nothing you can say about the man that isn’t contradicted by some other writer. No historical figure exists this way, however fabeled ones do.
He may very well be historical fiction, I don’t deny that. But I disagree with the rest. When I say historical figure, I’m talking about him in the same way one might talk about Homer. It’s a character that has a presence in both contemporary work and ancient ones, no matter if he was real or not he is a historical figure in that sense.
And we do have texts dated from the first century (the Pauline epistles) that talk about Jesus, so even if he didn’t exist per se, we at least know for certain the myth is old.
There are plenty of theologians and historians that believe jesus existed as person (obviously not as the son of a god, but as a regular human whose actions made an impact in the society he live). There are also those who believe a person existed in which the myth of Jesus was built around. In regards to your last point, yes, a lot of fabled people have contradictory history surrounding them, that’s a quirk of the way we keep track of things and something historiography studies. (Historiography is the science that studies the way we retell history)
Sure we have the Pauline Epistles. Where he admits that he never saw Jesus and that what he was saying about him was from visions not from eyewitnesses or historical record. “I did not get these revelations from man”.
Meanwhile every writer that came after him is just using his letters and other writings in wide circulation through the empire.
You are arguing with me that he for sure didn’t exist. We’re not arguing the same point, and I already said he very well might be historical fiction. The myth of Jesus, however, exists. And the fact we have letters from the first century that specifically talk about him makes him an historical figure.
Also, and this is my opinion, it’s not that far fetched that a person lived in the middle east 2 thousand years ago, started a cult of personality and the regurgitated stories about him passed from generation to generation. We also can’t deny that by the 3rd century the Roman empire was full of his followers (Catholicism was made the official religion in 381, so the spread has to have started earlier), and as with everything in our planet, the jesus fandom has to have started somewhere sometime. Using Occam’s razor, the most simple solution is a man in the middle east gets popular doing populist things, he gains followers doing this and after becoming ubiquitous, his followings get institutionalized by one of the most influencial empires in human history and now he’s become universal. You can make a religion out of this.
Jesus as a historical figure wasn’t a conman tho. He was a man fighting the corrupt institution that religion had already become during his time. A bit culty, yes, but his intentions were to spread compassion and the love of others
Your historical Jesus seems to be a very upstanding individual. Where can I go to find out more about him? The Jesus that I know about split up families and perpetrated lies about an imaginary afterlife to recruit people to continue his fantasy that has been a detriment to the growth of society.
As far as I’m aware Jesus didn’t split up any families. There are plenty of papers that study the concept of Jesus and what he would have looked like, but if you are interested in just a simple overview you can just simply read the evangelions. I’m not able to recommend a particular translation, and I know the one used in english is a bit fishy, but it will be enough to get a rough understanding. But in any case, I’m not talking about Jesus as a religious leader, I’m discussing the character and the impact it had in cultures at the time, the same way one might talk about Homer, who most likely didn’t exist either. But if you want to get into theology, Jesus himself was against the structure and corruption present in the church at the time, and would likely be against the institutionalization of the modern day catholic church as well. So he would definitely repude a lot of the attitudes of the north American evangelical church if that’s what you mean
Luke 14:26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life!”
And James was supposedly his brother.
Mark: ignore the James community, Paul is where it is at.
Matthew: ok Paul is still where it is at, but you know James was pretty cool as well. Please Jews that the Romans didn’t kill, like all five of you, come join us.
Luke: you know what? Paul and James are basically equals.
John: James is amazing but have you heard of my man the beloved disciple?
Early Church: the beloved disciple is fine, but I am on Team Mary
2nd Century Church: Mary? Sure she was there, but the Holy Ghost was the one doing the job.
It is like Kanye West microphone stealing.
Luke was copying Matthew in that passage and the important thing for Matthew was to salvage the damage Mark had done to the reputation of the James community. So he makes Jesus disdain the family. Meaning James gets the job based on merit/faith not based on nepotism.
Even if there was a historical Jesus he is very unlikely to have said anything like that. No one is that much of a narcissist and even if they were it wouldn’t work among the strong tribe-family loyalty of that time and place.
Once you get that the entire NT is propaganda it makes sense.
Jesus was very likely a historical fiction. Evidence for his existence that should be there is missing and what evidence we have is inconsistent. There is nothing you can say about the man that isn’t contradicted by some other writer. No historical figure exists this way, however fabeled ones do.
He may very well be historical fiction, I don’t deny that. But I disagree with the rest. When I say historical figure, I’m talking about him in the same way one might talk about Homer. It’s a character that has a presence in both contemporary work and ancient ones, no matter if he was real or not he is a historical figure in that sense. And we do have texts dated from the first century (the Pauline epistles) that talk about Jesus, so even if he didn’t exist per se, we at least know for certain the myth is old. There are plenty of theologians and historians that believe jesus existed as person (obviously not as the son of a god, but as a regular human whose actions made an impact in the society he live). There are also those who believe a person existed in which the myth of Jesus was built around. In regards to your last point, yes, a lot of fabled people have contradictory history surrounding them, that’s a quirk of the way we keep track of things and something historiography studies. (Historiography is the science that studies the way we retell history)
Sure we have the Pauline Epistles. Where he admits that he never saw Jesus and that what he was saying about him was from visions not from eyewitnesses or historical record. “I did not get these revelations from man”.
Meanwhile every writer that came after him is just using his letters and other writings in wide circulation through the empire.
You are arguing with me that he for sure didn’t exist. We’re not arguing the same point, and I already said he very well might be historical fiction. The myth of Jesus, however, exists. And the fact we have letters from the first century that specifically talk about him makes him an historical figure. Also, and this is my opinion, it’s not that far fetched that a person lived in the middle east 2 thousand years ago, started a cult of personality and the regurgitated stories about him passed from generation to generation. We also can’t deny that by the 3rd century the Roman empire was full of his followers (Catholicism was made the official religion in 381, so the spread has to have started earlier), and as with everything in our planet, the jesus fandom has to have started somewhere sometime. Using Occam’s razor, the most simple solution is a man in the middle east gets popular doing populist things, he gains followers doing this and after becoming ubiquitous, his followings get institutionalized by one of the most influencial empires in human history and now he’s become universal. You can make a religion out of this.
Right so your argument is you need a charismatic leader with a lot of energy and brains. Have you heard of St. Paul? The guy who was exactly that.
James was running a mystery cult. The province was full of them. Paul encountered them and saw potential. The rest is history.
This is why he doesn’t seem to know anything about the ministry, there was no ministry.
As historical as Harry Potter or Superman.