Good book on Jesus’ historicity, analysing not just every argument on the historical Christ but also giving a holistic assessment on how Christianity likely came to be, with a vigorous reference section. If you don’t want to buy it on Amazon, it’s available at z-library (link not given to avoid piracy charges).
Inb4:
>Muh Adam Green>Muh Bart Ehrman>Muh consensus>Muh ChristophobiaYadda yadda, I know who Adam Green is, about the Ehrman talking point, and how this subject can be touchy to both Christcuck and e-crusader secularised midwits here, so I’ll be blunt here:
- Adam Green’s background doesn’t invalidate his broader points on Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus Christ’s existence
- The “consensus” doesn’t mean much since it’s mostly made up of Christians and Christian-sympathisers who engage in confirmation bias and gatekeeping to discourage any critical opinion on the historical Christ theory. Given that Ehrman himself relies on this very unreliable consensus for his book on Jesus’ historicity
- Not believing in Jesus’ existence as a historical figure isn’t anti-Christian as many non-mainstream Christian sects like the early Church-era marcionites and gnostics assert the notion of a mythical non-physical Christ. On the top of that, much of Judaism (and by extension Zionism) rests on the notion of the Old Testament as being 100% true and historically accurate text, whilst Islamic doctrine holds the existence of a historical Christ. So by negating the existence of a historical Christ, and by extension undermining the value of the Old Testament as a historical text, Christianity and Islam and Judaism are effectively undermined
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.>>1236> Gives a scribble from an era where mass illiteracy was abundantok goy
>Muh crucifixionNever happened since Jesus never really existed. I love how you use weasel words and yet never try to back up your claims. We’ve gone through this, and none of the non-Christian sources allegedly about Jesus were contemporary to him nor were actual eyewitness testimonies, instead being repetitions of hearsay among Judeans written centuries after Christ’s agreed date of death.
Going back specifically to the crucifixion:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KOm47lKllQ4You uyghas are really desperate to believe in Christ. Curious that. Are you a Christian or one of those atheistic “culturally Christian” LARPers?
>>1216Jesus: A life in Class Conflict by Crossley is better
Christianity is fake and zionist, and Jesus never existed. All Christcucks should be put in gulags
>>1317>Cites books that pushes the myth that Jesus was a real figureOk boomer
This sort of thing always makes me think of an old Soviet joke that goes like this:
Radio Yerevan was asked: "Is it true that comrade cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was given a car in Moscow during the celebrations?"
The Armenian Radio answers: "In principle yes, but it was not in Moscow, rather in Kiev, and it was not a car, but a bike, and it was not comrade cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, but comrade highschool teacher Gagarin and his first name was not Yuri, but Leonid…and it was not given to him, but stolen from him…but in principle, yes."
This is what I think about when people talk about "Was Jesus a historical figure?" Well, in principle, yes. But he wasn't born when he was supposed to be born, and he didn't do most of the things that are attributed to him, and his name was not Jesus, but apart from being different in every particular…in principle, yes he existed."
And of course you can do this with way more people than just Jesus. Was King Arthur a historical figure? In principle, yes. Now his name wasn't Arthur and he wasn't english and he lived in a different castle and he wasn't king of the britons and he was actually a conglomeration of different warlords from different eras and areas…but apart from that, yes, Arthur was real.