• VirtualOdour
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is one of those silly arguments that only makes sense before you think about any detail of it. When you actually look at events in the narrative you start having to throw things out one at time until there’s almost nothing left - no trial. no last supper.no temple whipping, No feeding the 5000. No census…

    1% Jesus isn’t Jesus, but if what you mean is that a real person inspired the foundation of the church then what you’re saying is they were able to make up a completely fictional account of every detail of a popular characters life - if they can do that then they why not just make him up entirely?

    • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Because he was a real person, who was an apocalyptic preacher, was unexpected killed while Pontius Pilot was Governor of Judaea, and whose followers though they had visions of him after his death.

      Supernatural things obviously aren’t real. But the historicity of this preacher we call Jesus of Nazareth, whose life inspired Paul to start what much later became the Catholic and Greek churches isn’t up for debate by anybody other than morons online.

      Obviously essentially no details of any gospel is true. But that doesn’t mean the man did not exist, nor that the gospels aren’t interesting insofar as they elucidate aspects of the development of the early church and early Christian theology.

      • VirtualOdour
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        You can pretend it’s not up for debate but that’s not reality, there are plenty of very credible academics doubt the existence of a physical person as the inspiration.

        Paul doesn’t even pretend to know anything about the real person so there’s no reason to imagine he needed a real person to have existed. For such a significant person don’t you think that the people who actually knew him would be prominent in the early church rather than totally vanishing from existence? There’s only Peter that has any claim of knowing Jesus and as soon as you start to look into that you start seeing red flags.

        Early church history is fascinating and you’re doing yourself a great disservice to ignore the interesting side of things like where it all came from because you want to believe an easy fiction.