this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
630 points (97.0% liked)
Eh Buddy Hoser
903 readers
7 users here now
Shitposting from Canada / Turtle Island.
Take off ya hoser!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i don’t think jesus ever actually existed
Neither did Frodo Baggins, but he wouldn’t want to be associated with America either.
The general scholarly consensus is that he did in fact exist. The only thing really up for debate is what he did or didn't do, and who he was or was not the son of.
Unlikely.
What is reasonably likely is that there was a person named Yeshwa ben Yosef, born a few years before 0CE, died somewhere around 30CE, who preached and started a Judaism-based cult and who might've been a carpenter. He most likely had a reputation for miracles, which is mentioned in non-Christian sources which have no reason to glorify him. (Do note that modern cult leaders and televangelists also often have such reputations.) He was also probably crucified, although probably not for the reasons given in the Bible.
Things like his conception without sex or him being a fish copying machine have no evidence. It's not even sure if he claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah; apparently he did probably have an end-times cult and did probably assume that he'd get to run the world after divine rule is instituted globally.
So yeah, he probably was some dude who started a cult (which wasn't even that unusual at the time), was good enough at preaching to get a major audience, and was probably executed because sooner important people considered him a political threat. His cult survived him and people started embellishing his life just a tiny little bit.
That is an incredibly appropriate username.
Afaik, scholars say, some dude named Jesus probably lived about 2000 years ago and did do some preaching and possibly was crucified. There is of course no evidence of divine relations or acts of magic. The evidence being him being mentioned briefly in non-christian (roman) writings of the time.
The main takeaway from Jesus is his message. It's important to note that people's beliefs form their own reality. For example when Jesus did the whole fishes and loaves thing, he probably didn't multiply all that food. But the people listening to him believed in him and found it in themselves to share their food with the people who didn't have any. So it seemed like a miracle. When Jesus "healed lepers" it's because he treated them like people. A lot of the homeless are literally crazy because people ignore them, but if you take the effort to treat them like real people, then they act like normal people.
However, I agree there isn't a way to explain the resurrection. But that's the difference between Christians and non-Christians. You don't have to believe in the resurrection and that's a perfectly valid standpoint. But I really think it's an injustice to treat Jesus as a magic man when he really just wanted everyone to love each other. The people around him believed he was really the son of God and maybe that's simply because they had never received the unconditional love and respect Jesus would show them.
that’s not true
The current consensus has a lot of concessions baked in. These don't exactly make it a purely secular stance. Such as the order of the gospels, the date of the earliest manuscript, and "non canon" manuscripts being dated as "later" just simply because that fits the Christian narrative. And in fact, this consensus is starting to change, or at least being challenged more frequently.
To say that a thing existed - oh, except all these other things attributed to the thing are just bullshit, so you can ignore them - really does preclude the actual existence of the thing. Nobody cares if Jesus of Nazareth, the prehistoric huckster but otherwise normal human "existed." So did Rudy of Nazareth, but he was a used chariot salesman, and he didn't get lionized into mythology.
Yeah obviously this extremely important religious leader who was famously executed existed—that's why we have exactly 0 written record from anyone who ever claimed to have met anyone who ever claimed to have met him. That's why practically all the documentation of his life and deeds comes from decades after his high profile execution. Because he very definitely existed.
It's a little more complicated. There were a bunch of messianic cults at the time so it's likely a bunch of stories about multiple leaders were eventually all attributed to Jesus. And while there isn't any definitive proof the man existed, there's enough reasonable evidence that a guy called Yeshua from Nazareth existed that led a messianic cult, and more there's nothing that disputes the evidence of a man existing. But that's like saying we have evidence a guy called Bob from Newport existed, it was a common name. Anyway it's more there's nothing disproving his existence so there's no reason to think a guy didn't exist.
The biblical jesus didn't exist. There's evidence that a Jesus existed, and was notable enough to piss off the Roman administration.
A lot of the biblical stories are older than jesus however, so he has a lot of existing "lore" tacked on to him. He was likely a nomadic wise/holy man who built up a bit of a following and was then crucified.
there’s one mention of a jesus that fits, in roman records. one time, one person, wrote a name down.
could that be a real person or maybe a story about a person?
not just biblical stories predated jesus, but the entire story is exactly the same as Zoroaster.
from the exact same region, exact same people, “first recorded in the mid-6th century BCE”.
some people just made a reboot of Zoroastrianism… probably the romans, on purpose, to make their combo-religion to govern all romans (catholicism)
jesus did not exist at all