The historical Jesus was not a child refugee. He was from Nazareth, period. The stories of the family traveling to Bethlehem are not in the oldest gospel (Mark) and almost certainly got added in to explain why the messiah was not from Bethlehem when prophecy said he would be, the same home town as King David.
This is actually one of the best arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus I’ve heard - from the late Christopher Hitchens, actually. The only plausible reason someone would feel the need to invent the story of the family traveling to Bethlehem (the imperial decree is most probably completely made up and there are plenty of other plot holes) is because people already knew about a figure known as “Jesus from Nazareth” that needed to somehow be connected to Bethlehem in order to fulfil the messianic prophecies.
If Jesus was a completely made up figure (an idea that is implausible for other reasons) the writers of the gospels could just have made him come from Bethlehem and be done with it. But, since Jesus the Nazarene was already a known figure among their audience, they couldn’t do that.
The first generation of Christians were Jews and thus wouldn’t have had a Messiah coming from Bethlehem prophecy. The King David line was about 6 centuries old at that point, everyone could claim to be from it.
By casting him in Nazareth all evidence of him would be removed. Nazareth was nothing in the first century. Didn’t even appear on maps of the area. A total blackhole. No one was from there and no one had ever been there. James could say whatever bullshit he wanted and no one could investigate it.
Now your last argument that the Gospel writers could have just changed the text doesn’t work either. Since Paul mentions it.
Yeah I believe they are not entirely fabricated. There was a historical Jesus who had a following. A lot of the listed details are up for debate but the core of it is too hard to fabricate well enough to fool modern biblical scholars.
The Book of Daniel is from the 2nd century BC but it claims to be from the 6th century BC predicting events through to the 2nd century BC and beyond. One reason we can tell is the language usage and how the predictions are spookily accurate until the 2nd century BC and then they get way off. It was good enough to trick the people deciding the biblical canon so they included it even though it was written way later than all the other books, but not good enough to trick us in the 21st century AD.
There was a historical Jesus who had a following. A lot of the listed details are up for debate but the core of it is too hard to fabricate well enough to fool modern biblical scholars.
Go read some actual scholarship on it, I can mention a non-Christian account of Jesus and his brother in Josephus and the historical letters from the historical Paul and the value of the gospel (and non-Biblical Christian writings from the same time period) as history sources in their own right (they are still extremely old written sources, there is value even if you’re not saying they are 100% accurate). But I’m just some guy on Lemmy there’s no reason to listen to me.
It has been proven to the extent these things can be. If you are declaring the method wrong and everything faked you are being as ahistoric as the people declaring the miracles proven fact. Maybe you’re right, but that is not what the large majority of logical people come to while viewing a preponderance of the evidence.
Paul never saw anything he admits as much. He claims to have met James who claims to be in the brotherhood of Christ, from the Greek word christus or annoited ones.
Josphius has two passages of interest. The first one is a known forgery. It has him expressing Trinity ideas that didn’t exist at the time, it doesn’t fit in the context of the page, is not in his writing style, and doesn’t get mentioned to almost 3 centuries after publication. The second mention is also a very likely a forgery. If you read the entire section you can see that Josphius was talking about two different people one happened to be named James and the other happened to be named Jesus. It doesn’t fit the chronology (James would be like 70 years old) and it doesnt fit the culture since it would require James to be an orthodox pharisse. Meanwhile the same exact words used to describe him are the same used by Matthew.
The Gospels are even worse. John copied from Luke, Luke from Matthew, and Matthew from Mark, and Mark from Paul. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Each writer pushing their own agenda and willing to lie get it. There is maybe 4 or so sentences in Mark alone that can’t be traced back to the OT, Paul, and popular Greek literature of the time. The supposed oral tradition could fit on a single page. Even that is questionable since ~99% of Greek writings are lost to us we don’t know if the supposed oral tradition was part of that.
Nice attempt to sneak in an argument from authority with an argument ad populism. Now if you got any good evidence let me know. The simplest explaination of the data we have is that James was running a mystery cult and Paul took it seriously. Jesus is as historical as Batman.
We know nothing about ‘the historical Jesus’ if there even was such a person because there was nothing written about him contemporary with his life. The earliest gospels were written down decades after the events described. Any of it or all of it could be a fiction.
What we have is plenty to say there was a historical Jesus (named Yeshua but whatever). There was nothing written contemporaneously about any of the illiterate builders and fishermen in the region, one became important enough that non-illiterate people started writing about him pretty soon after.
Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was probably written in the year 48, only 15ish years after Jesus died. Paul never met Jesus but it proves there were people talking about him pretty early. And he talks about meeting James the brother of Jesus in a later letter, and James’ execution was mentioned by Josephus in the year 94, Josephus being a non-Christian corroboration 30ish years after the fact.
People can make the case, but people can make the case that Constantine didn’t exist too. We only have so much corroboration possible so far back in history.
As for PARTS being fictional, haha yeah. Jesus only says he’s God in John, the last gospel. Pretty big thing to forget to mention for the earlier 3. Plus many stories between gospels that conflict or at least get changed which is a weird thing to happen if both stories are literally true. And that’s not to mention the conflicting Genesis stories etc.
My Bible knowledge is rusty, but didn’t the whole family flee to Egypt for a couple of years because Herodes Kind of wanted to murder that kid that was prophecized to displace him?
In Matthew, in Luke it was for the census. They can’t keep their story straight. Kinda how Starbuck was a man in the first BSG and a woman in next one.
The historical Jesus did not exist. The whole spin on Isaiah 53 didn’t happen until later, in time for Matthew. Just as well Mark wouldn’t have known what to do with that “fact” since it was important that Jesus became the son of god instead of being born the son of god.
The historical Jesus was not a child refugee. He was from Nazareth, period. The stories of the family traveling to Bethlehem are not in the oldest gospel (Mark) and almost certainly got added in to explain why the messiah was not from Bethlehem when prophecy said he would be, the same home town as King David.
This is actually one of the best arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus I’ve heard - from the late Christopher Hitchens, actually. The only plausible reason someone would feel the need to invent the story of the family traveling to Bethlehem (the imperial decree is most probably completely made up and there are plenty of other plot holes) is because people already knew about a figure known as “Jesus from Nazareth” that needed to somehow be connected to Bethlehem in order to fulfil the messianic prophecies.
If Jesus was a completely made up figure (an idea that is implausible for other reasons) the writers of the gospels could just have made him come from Bethlehem and be done with it. But, since Jesus the Nazarene was already a known figure among their audience, they couldn’t do that.
The first generation of Christians were Jews and thus wouldn’t have had a Messiah coming from Bethlehem prophecy. The King David line was about 6 centuries old at that point, everyone could claim to be from it.
By casting him in Nazareth all evidence of him would be removed. Nazareth was nothing in the first century. Didn’t even appear on maps of the area. A total blackhole. No one was from there and no one had ever been there. James could say whatever bullshit he wanted and no one could investigate it.
Now your last argument that the Gospel writers could have just changed the text doesn’t work either. Since Paul mentions it.
Um, I don’t think fundamentalists will want to talk to you after you tell them a part of their Bible was made up.
Haha you actually believe the things written in any of those books are real?
Yeah I believe they are not entirely fabricated. There was a historical Jesus who had a following. A lot of the listed details are up for debate but the core of it is too hard to fabricate well enough to fool modern biblical scholars.
The Book of Daniel is from the 2nd century BC but it claims to be from the 6th century BC predicting events through to the 2nd century BC and beyond. One reason we can tell is the language usage and how the predictions are spookily accurate until the 2nd century BC and then they get way off. It was good enough to trick the people deciding the biblical canon so they included it even though it was written way later than all the other books, but not good enough to trick us in the 21st century AD.
Prove it.
Go read some actual scholarship on it, I can mention a non-Christian account of Jesus and his brother in Josephus and the historical letters from the historical Paul and the value of the gospel (and non-Biblical Christian writings from the same time period) as history sources in their own right (they are still extremely old written sources, there is value even if you’re not saying they are 100% accurate). But I’m just some guy on Lemmy there’s no reason to listen to me.
It has been proven to the extent these things can be. If you are declaring the method wrong and everything faked you are being as ahistoric as the people declaring the miracles proven fact. Maybe you’re right, but that is not what the large majority of logical people come to while viewing a preponderance of the evidence.
Oh let’s do this.
Paul never saw anything he admits as much. He claims to have met James who claims to be in the brotherhood of Christ, from the Greek word christus or annoited ones.
Josphius has two passages of interest. The first one is a known forgery. It has him expressing Trinity ideas that didn’t exist at the time, it doesn’t fit in the context of the page, is not in his writing style, and doesn’t get mentioned to almost 3 centuries after publication. The second mention is also a very likely a forgery. If you read the entire section you can see that Josphius was talking about two different people one happened to be named James and the other happened to be named Jesus. It doesn’t fit the chronology (James would be like 70 years old) and it doesnt fit the culture since it would require James to be an orthodox pharisse. Meanwhile the same exact words used to describe him are the same used by Matthew.
The Gospels are even worse. John copied from Luke, Luke from Matthew, and Matthew from Mark, and Mark from Paul. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Each writer pushing their own agenda and willing to lie get it. There is maybe 4 or so sentences in Mark alone that can’t be traced back to the OT, Paul, and popular Greek literature of the time. The supposed oral tradition could fit on a single page. Even that is questionable since ~99% of Greek writings are lost to us we don’t know if the supposed oral tradition was part of that.
Nice attempt to sneak in an argument from authority with an argument ad populism. Now if you got any good evidence let me know. The simplest explaination of the data we have is that James was running a mystery cult and Paul took it seriously. Jesus is as historical as Batman.
We know nothing about ‘the historical Jesus’ if there even was such a person because there was nothing written about him contemporary with his life. The earliest gospels were written down decades after the events described. Any of it or all of it could be a fiction.
What we have is plenty to say there was a historical Jesus (named Yeshua but whatever). There was nothing written contemporaneously about any of the illiterate builders and fishermen in the region, one became important enough that non-illiterate people started writing about him pretty soon after.
Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was probably written in the year 48, only 15ish years after Jesus died. Paul never met Jesus but it proves there were people talking about him pretty early. And he talks about meeting James the brother of Jesus in a later letter, and James’ execution was mentioned by Josephus in the year 94, Josephus being a non-Christian corroboration 30ish years after the fact.
People can make the case, but people can make the case that Constantine didn’t exist too. We only have so much corroboration possible so far back in history.
As for PARTS being fictional, haha yeah. Jesus only says he’s God in John, the last gospel. Pretty big thing to forget to mention for the earlier 3. Plus many stories between gospels that conflict or at least get changed which is a weird thing to happen if both stories are literally true. And that’s not to mention the conflicting Genesis stories etc.
My Bible knowledge is rusty, but didn’t the whole family flee to Egypt for a couple of years because Herodes Kind of wanted to murder that kid that was prophecized to displace him?
Weirdly that happens in Matthew and not in Luke, and neither Mark nor John have a birth story.
It happens in Matthew because the author wanted to reimagined Moses as Jesus.
In Matthew, in Luke it was for the census. They can’t keep their story straight. Kinda how Starbuck was a man in the first BSG and a woman in next one.
The historical Jesus did not exist. The whole spin on Isaiah 53 didn’t happen until later, in time for Matthew. Just as well Mark wouldn’t have known what to do with that “fact” since it was important that Jesus became the son of god instead of being born the son of god.