But, the Bible says he died at age 34.
Also, no one fucking knows. At all. It’s all stories written long after the facts, and the “facts” were as likely just fiction.
It’s all bullshit.
Adapted along the time to please the people in power
Nah, he walked over water and everything and it was great. I guess you had to be there.
The fuck they put in that water, makes people think they can see other people walking on it
He may have died in reality, but can a man this swole really die?
man was turning water into whey
The guy in the bible who talked to a bush probably just did a bunch of mushrooms lmao
I once knew a guy who did that and he wasn’t even able to save himself, nor was he very big on “peace”, “love thy neighbour” or “turn the othet cheek” stuff. He would stab you in dark alley if you crossed him.
How did Jesus die? I mean after he died and came back to life? He resurrected and so did tons of people in a nearby graveyard and they all walked through the nearest town (yes this is very literally what’s written about the resurrection in the bible) then what? He just went to a hill and floated away? What happens after that to him? Seems like a huge plot hole
He allegedly basically went “vwoop” straight up to heaven, also so did his mom for some reason.
All it takes is a bit of searching to get your answer…
It’s just really weird to recite the biblical account of the resurrection and then just ignore that it also accounts for his ascension.
You can disagree with it and mock it, but it’s certainly not a plot hole. You can find other plot holes to argue about, but the bible clearly says he flew up to heaven…
Some say he continues to walk around to this day… that would kinda suck
It’s one of the black-and-white irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. The gospel traditionally attributed to Matthew puts Jesus birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. The gospel traditionally attributed to Luke puts Jesus birth during the census of Quirinius. Quirinius wasn’t Herod’s successor, he was Herod’s successor’s successor, and his reign didn’t begin until around 6 CE. The other canonical gospels don’t have nativity accounts.
It’s an early form of a 419 scammer’s typo-riddled email or letter. Filter out anyone who pays attention to inconsistencies and you can squeeze some easy money from the gullible leftovers.
There’s also a lot of stuff that’s not meant to be taken literally. The text is full of similes and metaphors that are a lot less clear today than they were at time of writing. For example, many numbers in there are just used to convey a vague
servesense of size. Sometimes concrete numbers just mean “many”, which was well-understood back then.On top of that we have later edits for various reasons and assorted other sources of imprecision. The Bible makes a lot more sense as a book that’s not meant to be taken literally in it’s entirety. Of course figuring out what’s really meant isn’t very easy all this time later.
Plus what you pointed out. That’s also in there, probably especially by means of edits.
I wouldn’t say it is a contradiction in the bible because the bible doesn’t say e.g [Romans 67:420, ‘And henceforth ye shall keep a calendar of AD and the Datum between AD and BC shall be Jesus’ Birth/Jesus’ death. So speaks God’] - what I’m saying is it was a stylistic decision by the Roman Catholic state a good while after Jesus’ death.
(Unless someone can correct me on that.)
Luke I’m Your Fatha… sorry wrong fake story.
He was probably an amalgamation of many mystics and prophets.
What’s more likely? That his story is historically factually written, decades after his death, by a myriad collection of sources, people that also wrote “Holy books” during the same period that were rejected by Christianity as a whole? (like the apocrypha and Gnosticism).
Or that he’s a loose combination of many different holy men, which were pretty common at the time?
Or that He was the super-powered son of God, and there was a total eclipse for hours after His crucifixion that nobody else noticed, and He promised that He would come back in His apostle’s lifetime, but then He forgot for 2,000 years?
Oh, and a fun story about the crucifixion darkness.
So in Luke, the easiest copies described as the sun being eclipsed. Which was a huge controversy. Origen claimed it was the work of “agents of Satan.”
Why? Because the Passover occurs on a full moon and solar eclipses cannot happen at those times.
What can happen are lunar eclipses. In fact they are pretty common on Passover. And those actually match a lot of the details. Last for hours and not minutes. Seen around the world vs a small band.
The problem is that this was in the middle of the day, so it would not have been visible in the area.
What a lot of people don’t know is that at the time this was written, people knew how to calculate eclipses in the same Saros cycle. The Greeks even built a clockwork computer centuries earlier that did so.
As well, at the time the leading explanation was the (correct) one that lunar eclipses occurred because the Earth eclipsed the sun. Lucretius in 50 BCE wrote that it was so common it was basically presumed and he was encouraging keeping a more open mind for alternative explanations.
And there was a historical lunar eclipse on Passover in 33 CE, which would not have been visible in Judea. But importantly, this eclipse was in the same Saros cycle as visible lunar eclipses before and after.
It is not all that implausible that people, particularly Greek or Chaldean astronomers, would have known that there was a several hour long eclipse of the sun during the day on Passover in 33 CE.
My guess is that knowledge of a calculated lunar eclipse ended up incorporated into the early Synoptic circles (potentially even by the author of Luke given the mention of the Joel blood moon prophecy in Acts) and then further mythologized having lost the original context as if an eyewitness event like in Matthew where the author added earthquakes and zombies.
TL;DR: There probably was a daytime lunar eclipse on a Passover around that time which would have been fairly trivially calculable as having occurred given its earlier and later 51 CE visible occurrences in the cycle.
Edit: Some relevant links.
- NASA lunar eclipses 1st century table
- Antikythera mechanism
- Lucretius book 5 (it’s right at line 750)
This is very interesting, thank you. Any links would be appreciated, I love this kind of weirdness.
Added links!
Thank you! Learn something new every day
They aren’t binary options.
For example, it’s also possible that there was a real person, but that then a lot of biographical details were added in and made up.
But it’s quite unlikely that the entire story is made up, in large part because of how much of the narrative is dealing with trying to claim that other people are wrong about it.
The earliest records are from a guy known to his audience as persecuting Jesus’s followers. Who then complains that his audience has accepted a different version of Jesus.
The earliest canonical narratives in Peter’s own tradition are trying to explain why he was present in the area where a trial that required bringing witnesses before the accused where two or more needed to agree for testimony to be considered was reportedly denying him there.
You simply don’t see details like that with made up supernatural narratives. Where’s the story about Mithras keeping his status secret and only making claims of being a promised savior in private? In the story where Dionysus is captured by pirates is there a weird line about someone running down the street butt naked?
The earliest texts in the Christian corpus have very odd nuances compared to pretty much all other fully fictional traditions we’re aware of, but those nuances are in line with what we see with more modern cults around a figure who ends up dead or imprisoned where there’s then competing splits thereafter.
It is very, very unlikely the accounts are 100% true, even in matters separate from the magic stuff. They are even outright at odds with each other. For example, John 18:20 makes a claim nothing was said in secret but the Synoptics all have secret explanations for at least the sower parable.
But the idea there was no historical individual at the kernel of it all is quite unlikely as well. There’s too much evidence the first century tradition is battling over the details of a record regarding a real centralizing figure that does not occur with synecretized or fabricated mythos.
Just because L Ron Hubbard was not a great war hero as Scientology claims does not imply there was no historical person named L Ron Hubbard founding the tradition that later made stuff up about him.
For example, it’s also possible that there was a real person, but that then a lot of biographical details were added in and made up.
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, I’m sure there were real people. I just don’t see why anyone would insist it’s one person, this being quite common at the time (in name and deeds and prophecy).
Do I think that they (or one of them) had real powers to raise the dead and heal the sick? No. I also don’t think that the moon was cut in half by Mohamed, or that Moses parted the Red Sea; I don’t think any of these Abrahamic tales are real actual events…
But I would love to see any evidence to the contrary, and am always trying to learn more.
Well some of the mythos is almost certainly pulling things in from elsewhere. Even just the way the canonical gospels (likely) add events to fulfill old testament prophecy, such as the dividing of clothes.
But I’d be fairly surprised if the tradition conflicts were regarding multiple different Jesuses vs a single Jesus that was being fought over.
For example, the Jesus ben Panthera vs Jesus ben Joseph vs Jesus ben Stada conflict seems very much to be disputes over the ancestral lineage of a single figure than accounts of totally different figures. Notably, a son of a Roman soldier (ben Panthera) or an unfaithful woman (ben Stada) does not have a claim on being the messiah. Complicating that debate is that Joseph is never even mentioned in Mark, which has the claim of being the messiah only said in secret not in public.
If Jesus didnt exist as the son of god then what does it matter? Santa isnt Saint Nicholas and Jesus Christ isnt whatever historical julio you want to project onto why are we even entertaining this bullshit? There is no historical Jesus because there is no Jesus Christ, it’s not more complicated than that.
Could be both tbh. He is literally described as man and God at the same time.
He is literally described as man and God
So were thousands of other historical figures.
And who are we to say they’re all wrong, or any of them are?
We just have to square ourselves with the fact that every religious text written by our long dead ancestors is literal truth and that some malevolent super being has the power to write time and space the way we might write a grocery list.
And so am i
Sure
deleted by creator
Okay, but prove he existed
The scholarly consensus is that a real Jesus existed, and it’s actually a really fascinating topic to read about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus?wprov=sfla1
Yea, but are the majority of scholars really free from bias with 3 major religions notorious for killing people over disagreements (and funding those that agree with them) all having a vested interest in perpetuation of the myth?
Every wikipedia source to the contrary is essentially an agrument to authority and didn’t even discuss the underlying “evidence” or points to sources long after the fact and calls on:
Multiple attestation across independent Gospel traditions (Yea, right, that can all be made up)
Criterion of embarrassment: (Once again, not evidence. Religions are not aways rational, or correct)
Tacitus (Annals 15.44, c. 116 CE): “Christus… suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” This is the key non-Christian corroboration. (And a hundred years later, press X to doubt)
So, I’m not impressed.
To your first point, no one is free of bias, but it’s not the Middle Ages dude. People are free to not be Christian or to criticize or contradict Christianity, and they do all the time. Even non-Christian historians agree that Jesus likely existed.
Between the canonical and apocryphal gospels there are a good amount of people who wrote about Jesus for decades after his death. In my personal opinion as an armchair historian it just seems more likely that early Christian writers, intentionally or not, mythologized a real person that people already knew existed rather than invented one whole cloth.
It seems it was so common, at that time and this place to publicly claim religious things, that it is quite unlikely there is not at least one guy that matches less or more the one of the texts… texts which are written far after…
Anyway, the author isn’t the main character. The writers wrote texts, but the author who foundate the religion by making the bible as it is, is the one who collected texts, selected some, decided the order, and supervised the translation. Who is it?
7-4 BC? So 3 BC?
He was so ahead of his time he was born before Christ.
That’s a long labour! Did Mary at least get an epidural?
Wouldn’t it be funny if somebody went backin time and found our that he was just some toothless guy from Northern India.
How would a white guy have ended up in Northern India at the time?
Not a huge margin of error given how long after the events the Bible was written.
A cult leader that supposedly started off as a carpenter, that was born from a virgin birth and “performed miracles.” You know what the real thing is, it’s the, “Well what if he is?,” feeling. I’m guessing that’s what scared the shit out of everyone back then too and throughout Christianity’s existence. That one fuckin’ feeling.
'Cause being scared, hopeless, in shambles or something of the sort is when people turn to religion or drugs… Or both…
It’s just comfort shit though and I don’t hate on it, it’s just something that I have no ability to truly put belief into.
Who asked?
Ok. Is that Steve Buschemi?
Put a trucker hat with a random saying and it’s Judah Friedlander.
Edit: no, the eyes aren’t right.
I thought it was like 33 BCE, which counted down to 0, which is when Jesus died…and then waited 2000 years to come back as Y2K, but we stopped that from happening by updating all the computers before they caused the apocalypse. So instead we got hats that counted down to another year.
Then a year and 9 months later 9/11 happened. And nobody cared anymore about bearded arabic guys from the middle east. I can’t speak for other countries, but here in America people went full racist mode. Sept 10th 2001, if you asked an average white guy what they thought of arabs, he’d probably just shrug. Sept 12th? He’s calling for death.
So I guess the real question isn’t whether he was born in 33 BCE, or 7 BCE or 0 AD. The real question is "What the fuck are we even doing on this planet, if it’s nothing more then a revolving door or racism? Who’s going to be the next target? Black people? The Irish? Mexicans? Jews? Arabs? The Dutch? Oh who can keep up anymore…It’s all one big pile of “FUCK ALL OF THIS SHIT!!!”
Always another day. Always another group to hate. Never an answer to the question “Why can’t we all just get along on a planet together?”
Looks like Adam Driver after a rough night.
deleted by creator
Now, to be clear, I’m not really religious anymore and have my own belief system now. But I was raised Christian, and it annoys me how much of a voice “uneducated” Christians have for the narrative. One of the important things taught was: “regardless of the influence god had on bible writers, they were still human, so the bible is not a perfect record.” And for the four gospel writers, they still had different personalities and thought different details were more important than others. And really, it makes sense that it wouldn’t be 100% accurate at all times. I don’t expect any biography or memoir to be such. There would absolutely be embellishments and inferences, if not straight lies.
I had never thought of the Bible as Jesus’ memoir but that is a great way to put it
