this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
245 points (87.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12344 readers
550 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 94 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Interesting. I thought it was fairly well established that Jesus existed in some capacity but the debate was about who he actually was and (from a religious standpoint) if he did any of the things the Bible claims he did. It's interesting to read that non-jewish people of the time seemed to have no knowledge of his existence.

At the same time though, I wonder if it's possible that most people just ignored him, which is why there's apparently very few accounts of him until after he supposedly died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. Kinda like a street preacher in Times Square, NYC. How many people actually acknowledge street preachers on social media, and how many of them actually know the preachers by name? Then think about how social media didn't exist yet, so the bar to be recorded in history by uninterested third parties (even just as a letter to a friend about that "annoying Jesus guy") is probably a lot higher.

Not saying he existed, just that it's interesting to think that he could have existed but the lack of evidence is just because no one gave a fuck.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How much of the gospels have to be true for you to be comfortable jesus existed? On one end you've got a dude named Jesus (0%) to every non-magical account at 100%.

Even the non-mystical stuff should have left a mark, but it doesn't seem like it really did.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That’s the thing. Personally I’d need an individual who fits the nonmagical description moderately well and made the majority of the claims he’s said to have made. Namely I need most of his major teachings coming from the same individual. A parable or two here or there is one thing, but the beatitudes, the greatest commandment, turn the other cheek, etc that’s important to the claim that this individual existed. If it was just some dude who got executed named Jesus who wandered around clarifying the Torah that’s not the historical Jesus

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I am always struck in the reading by how Jesus basically just sounds like every other two-bit cult leader. Everything is put in very grand terms as though he were greatly respected and doing everything for a captivated public but these could actually be just have been very commonplace interactions.

Like just look at how the Mormons mythologized Joseph Smith. He was literally just a "rock in a hat" grifter and dowser of the type was reasonably common who when his life is placed in appropriate historical context was not really super notable. He just got popular. There are a metric fuckton of cults at any given point who just never make superstar notoriety and die out largely uncommented on even in our news and propriety obsessed modernity. Their internal writings however are always self centered and bombastic. Cults elevate the mundane into hyperbole when you are inside them but from the outside they retain their mundanity. There's a lot of people who just slip through historical cracks the further back you go because their contemporaries didn't record things they didn't think was notable or was just the water they swum in. Hard records generally tend to be beaurcratic and stories evolve dramatically to gain staying power.

We don't treat "Christ" as the job title it is. It isn't applied to other people but it could be. We say "Christ-like figure" but they could just be Christs. There are plenty of failed Christs out there. You generally dunno which ones have staying power until past the general limits of a human lifetime.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I've read some stuff suggesting pretty much that -- a cult that he started, ditched when it got out of hand and they killed his brother, but then he rejoined to reign it back in. Far from low-born, far from celibate, far from magical. He's buried in northern Spain and was survived by three children.

[–] LazerDickMcCheese@sh.itjust.works 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

Dave down the Red Lion

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

It's a novel take for me, as well. I'd have assumed the Pharisees would have surely written about him as they hated him so much...

But I'm still trying to wrap my little head around mythologised history and historicised mythology!

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Some version of Jesus absolutely existed, since is was a pretty common name. Street preachers were not uncommon either, so it's very possible that there was one named Jesus.

The real debate about whether Jesus existed is whether any of the biblical stories are at all accurate. There is No reason to think they are.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Also he was supposedly very prominent but apparently no historian or political writer back then recorded anything about him.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Weird, I read that jesus was not a common name at the time and that it would have been something like yusuf in reality if he was real

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago

"Jesus" is a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua so, yes, "Jesus" wasn't literally a common name in Israel. It was actually Yeshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ,) that was a common name.

[–] uienia@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

absolutely existed

vs

it's very possible

are two wildly different claims which cannot co-exist.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago

Except they were two different claims. "Some guy named Jesus existed", and "Some guy named Jesus was a street preacher".