Jesus was Myth

[Sha'irullah]

Even the whole "getting killed by the Romans" part doesn't make any sense. Why would the Romans care about killing a man who claimed to be the Jewish messiah? They certainly wouldn't release a murderer in favor of executing a blasphemer against a religion they didn't follow.

The "Jesus" spoken of may have been a small political figure perhaps . I have no clue nor does anyone else truly as to who or what Jesus was. But all insignificant events can be pushed into a state of glory and splendor despite their insignificance.

Rumors spread and they spread fast. The very fact that any person claiming to be the "King of the Jews" is an assault to any sensible empire as declaring authority over a territory which is subjugated is not exactly an ideal thing to do.
Jesus's actions could have been perceived as an act of aggression against the Roman empire perhaps?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The "Jesus" spoken of may have been a small political figure perhaps . I have no clue nor does anyone else truly as to who or what Jesus was. But all insignificant events can be pushed into a state of glory and splendor despite their insignificance.

Rumors spread and they spread fast. The very fact that any person claiming to be the "King of the Jews" is an assault to any sensible empire as declaring authority over a territory which is subjugated is not exactly an ideal thing to do.
Jesus's actions could have been perceived as an act of aggression against the Roman empire perhaps?

I highly doubt that. Would we execute a bum in the subway for saying he's the president? I think if the Romans saw some filthy hippy on a donkey claiming to be the king of the Jews, they'd encourage him for entertainment.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I highly doubt that. Would we execute a bum in the subway for saying he's the president? I think if the Romans saw some filthy hippy on a donkey claiming to be the king of the Jews, they'd encourage him for entertainment.

But what if this bum had a following? Obviously this man Jesus was important enough to have a whole religion built around him. Even crazy bums can create chaos if they have a significant enough of a following.

I am not saying this happened but obviously somebody(Jesus) was important enough to have the most abundant religion based off himself.
Do not forget that in this era of civilization it was not hard for a deluded person to be declared holy or divine. All you had to do was do the right trick which was not overly complicated for us modern men

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

But what if this bum had a following? Obviously this man Jesus was important enough to have a whole religion built around him. Even crazy bums can create chaos if they have a significant enough of a following.

I am not saying this happened but obviously somebody(Jesus) was important enough to have the most abundant religion based off himself.
Do not forget that in this era of civilization it was not hard for a deluded person to be declared holy or divine. All you had to do was do the right trick which was not overly complicated for us modern men

Jesus didn't exactly have mobs of supporters in the beginning (assuming he existed and the stories were true). From what the Bible says, he only had a small, tight-knit group of supporters and everyone else figured him for a blasphemer and hated him. People didn't really start supporting him in mass numbers until a few years after his execution. A bum with 12 friends is still just a bum...

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jesus didn't exactly have mobs of supporters in the beginning (assuming he existed and the stories were true). From what the Bible says, he only had a small, tight-knit group of supporters and everyone else figured him for a blasphemer and hated him. People didn't really start supporting him in mass numbers until a few years after his execution. A bum with 12 friends is still just a bum...

Well I do not exactly take Biblical "history" as real history. if 12 of these men were sane then that is a threat. It does not mean Jesus was strung on a cross. He was probably just killed by the sword to shut him up. It most likely was not that dramatic at all.

The dramatic execution of crucifixion is something added on later to the story. To make him be a martyr would seem appropriate. This sort of thing occurred often in dictatorships and other authoritarian states. Any minor upheaval like this would have been threatening.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Well I do not exactly take Biblical "history" as real history. if 12 of these men were sane then that is a threat. It does not mean Jesus was strung on a cross. He was probably just killed by the sword to shut him up. It most likely was not that dramatic at all.

The dramatic execution of crucifixion is something added on later to the story. To make him be a martyr would seem appropriate. This sort of thing occurred often in dictatorships and other authoritarian states. Any minor upheaval like this would have been threatening.

I don't think anyone that believes a bum when he says he's a king can be accused of possessing a sane mind...

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't think anyone that believes a bum when he says he's a king can be accused of possessing a sane mind...

Well if declaring kingship professes one's insanity I shall hastily do so.

In all seriousness I believe Jesus had to have been somebody of some minor importance. I am not sure if he was killed or died of natural causes but his existence was propagated and intertwined with mythos for some sort of importance he had.

I believe he may have been more political then religious truly.

 

[steeltoes]

But what if this bum had a following? Obviously this man Jesus was important enough to have a whole religion built around him. Even crazy bums can create chaos if they have a significant enough of a following.

I am not saying this happened but obviously somebody(Jesus) was important enough to have the most abundant religion based off himself.
Do not forget that in this era of civilization it was not hard for a deluded person to be declared holy or divine. All you had to do was do the right trick which was not overly complicated for us modern men

The religion appears to have been built upon a gospel story that caught on in the late second century.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The religion appears to have been built upon a gospel story that caught on in the late second century.

I am aware of this but the issue is the validity of the Gospel's subject matter(Jesus). Was there any shred of truth that a man inspired the Gospels and the story of Jeebus.

 

[steeltoes]

I am aware of this but the issue is the validity of the Gospel's subject matter(Jesus). Was there any shred of truth that a man inspired the Gospels and the story of Jeebus.

I don't know because apparently a given number of PhD's are required to answer that question along with fluency in a number of ancient and dead languages.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

In my personal opinion I find it pretty obvious that no such man existed. I know it's debatable, but I have yet to hear any good evidence that he did.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my personal opinion I find it pretty obvious that no such man existed. I know it's debatable, but I have yet to hear any good evidence that he did.

Given that a great many scholars disagree, is it possible that you do not have the skill set or knowledge base to properly judge the evidence at hand?

 

[steeltoes]

Given that a great many scholars disagree, is it possible that you do not have the skill set or knowledge base to properly judge the evidence at hand?

Most of us are just too efing stupid to make a valid judgement, we get that already.

 

[sojourner]

Most of the people that support a historical Jesus believe in creationism. So there's that lol

That's not the case in my experience.

 

[sojourner]

What about a good old American name like Herman? Herman.... Now that's a messiah...

Herman is German. But Skippy! Now that's an American name. Or Booger. Booger Christ.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Given that a great many scholars disagree, is it possible that you do not have the skill set or knowledge base to properly judge the evidence at hand?

What of the great many scholars that are not Christians? I don't know if you are a christian or not but lets examine something else. Muhammad. What do Christians believe about Muhammad? Was he a crazy guy who got a following far more powerful than Jesus did in his lifetime and a powerful 2nd most influential religion in the world today? In fact the main reason Islam is not a larger religion than Christianity has a lot to do with wars and a few "Christian" Kings managed to win territory.

The point of the video is not to say that no one ever existed and Jesus is a fairy tail but rather the claims of Jesus now are exaggerated at best.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't know because apparently a given number of PhD's are required to answer that question along with fluency in a number of ancient and dead languages.

Many individuals are trying to appear to be that smart but really just the basic outlining of the textual occurrences in history and literary works in comparison to culture is plentiful to come to a rough conclusion.

The issue is people get confused as tot he lack of evidence for Jesus and the lack of evidence for the man who inspired the story of Jesus

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Herman is German. But Skippy! Now that's an American name. Or Booger. Booger Christ.

Skippy's an awesome name for a Christ

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Given that a great many scholars disagree, is it possible that you do not have the skill set or knowledge base to properly judge the evidence at hand?

Nobody that disagrees with you possesses knowledge...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know because apparently a given number of PhD's are required to answer that question along with fluency in a number of ancient and dead languages.

Not at all. You could decide not to be hypocritical and stop masquerading as some sort of unbiased judge who has weighed the evidence we have for Jesus against, well, anything from antiquity. Instead, you assume things are true of antiquity to say we don't have evidence about Jesus.

People who actually want to learn what experts think can do what almost everybody always does: they buy books written for the layperson and trust that whether it is about the history of logic, the life of Shakespeare, or Jesus. It's history.

Massive research is for PhDs. In depth research is for people who have the time, inclination, and resources. Casual acquaintance is for those who are genuinely interested but do not want to read a dozen massive volumes but merely a few books. Trolling the web for answers and selective use of sources combined with challenges about this bias the pervades research they've never read is for mythicists, as is all the other ad hoc responses to why they are the unbiased ones when they haven't done research yet refuse to consider actual evidence because that would require knowing what ancient historical evidence is (knowing how real historians approach the evidence we actually have from an informed position would be too much work).