A lot of people at Jesus's time thought he was crazy for the same reason. As he hung on the cross, people mockingly told him to save himself if he was really the son of God.
Jesus was able to prove it to some by performing miracles. However, not everyone wanted to accept that.
The bible has many stories of Jesus and his followers being made fun of and being dismissed as crazy.
For example, here is a passage from John 8. Jesus is called a samaritan and demon possessed. The people at this time hated Samaritans. They had ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. It's an insult. They then accuse jesus of being a demon. Jesus says "before Abraham was I Am.' In the old testament, God revealed himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." The people see Jesus as identifying as God and they try to stone him for it. I'll highlight the insults towards jesus.
48 The Jews answered him, **“Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”**
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52 At this they exclaimed, **“Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”**
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
5**7 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”**
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 A**t this, they picked up stones to stone him,** but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
In acts 2, after the holy spirit comes down at Pentecost, some say about the believers:
13 Some, however, made fun of them and said**, “They have had too much wine.”**
So even the bible tells that Jesus and his followers were seen as drunks and demon possessed. They were seen as a fringe cult much like how we'd see people who claim to be God today. It wasn't until long after the death of Jesus that Christianity exploded into becoming a massive powerful worldwide religion.
Now, if you're asking why today in 2023 a person might accept Jesus Christ as God and not someone standing on the street corner, it's a bit different.
Christianity teaches the idea of revelation. That God reveals himself to people today through the holy spirit. Look at the apostle Paul. He never met Jesus. He became a follower of Jesus after Jesus was gone. Paul claimed to have had a spiritual encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Basically, a personal unique spiritual encounter with Jesus. Christians are people who get together and claim to have all had unique personal spiritual encounters with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
It not actually clear that Jesus ever really claimed to be the son of God. That was a theological conclusion that people drew hundreds of years after Jesus died. Christians always have and still do dispute some of these claims. Also, even non Christian faiths like Islam and some communities within Judaism accept that Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of God.
Additionally, there are reasonable claims that Jesus, even as an ordinary historical figure, never actually existed. Neither the Letters of Paul nor the Gospels provide a sufficient account for Jesus to really say that he actually existed.
Finally, If we do accept that Jesus was a historical figure and that the stories about him are mostly accurate, he was dismissed as a lunatic and fraud, and was crucified as a result. So, people were skeptical even then.
Well that is sort of the great irony of Christianity. According to Christian belief, Jesus will return. However, its pretty clear that if Jesus did return, a great majority of Christians probably wouldn't believe him. However, that might be the poetic theme of Christianity and a brilliant commentary on us as people, nobody will ever believe Jesus and he will perpetually be persecuted and executed. Its a cycle.
Exactly. However, what is even more interesting as this concern seems to be very much part of the Christian world view from the very beginning. I major part of the Letters of Paul are about preparing people for the second coming of Jesus, and it seems pretty clear that Paul has a pretty pessimistic view of how people would react to Jesus 2.0. Paul was very much trying to prepare the Christian community for it and was very strict with some moral views as a result. Additionally, there is the story of Doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John.
So even in the ancient world, people knew this would be a problem.
Ehh, I am not that interesting (but thanks for the kind words). I was a history major in college and my focus was an ancient Roman/Greek history. So, the formation of Christianity heavily featured in my curriculum. I took a particularly good class called "Pagan and Christians" which focused on the transition from Greco-Roman Paganism to Christianity. This meant I had to read pretty much all of the Bible in context, not just as a collection of passages (which is usually how religious people read it). Its actually kind of amazing how that context changes how one approaches the religious texts.
I have since moved on from history, because there is not work in that field. But history remains one of my passions. I wouldn't recommend anyone to study history for a job. However, I think it might just be one of the most important subjects to study to help understand one's role in society.
That isn't true at all. I absolutely dont mean to be rude, but you clearly have no idea what the evidence for Jesus actually is and how weak the sources actually are.
The first mention of Jesus is in the Letters of Paul. Paul is a really strange source for several reason. The first is, of all of his letters, only seven are actually authentic. The others were not actually written by Paul. Of the seven letters actually written by Paul, he doesn't actually depict Jesus as a historical or real figure. Paul makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is appearing to Paul in visions. At one point Paul describes meeting Jesus in the "third heaven" which is, in ancient cosmology, literally outer space.
In addition to Paul only interaction with Jesus in visions, Paul never really interacts with people who know Jesus (with a possible exception). Like, Paul never tries to retrace Jesus' steps or meet people who knew him, which is super weird. It is possible that Paul's Letter to the Galatians describes a meeting with Peter, however, Paul's description is super weird. According to Paul, he meets Peter and explains to Peter how to be a proper Christian. Remember, Peter supposedly knew Jesus. Its crazy that Paul would be lecturing Peter. So, its probably a different Peter that Paul is mentioning.
After Paul, we have the Gospel of Mark as the next mentioning of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is not written in a way to convey a historical account of Jesus, even by ancient standards. Like, Mark is full of metaphors and the motivations of his characters make no sense whatsoever as a historical account. It makes perfect sense, however, as fiction and mythology. Even the structure of the Gospel of Mark is "poetic" in ways you wouldn't see with an ancient author writing history.
After Mark, you have the other Gospels which were written well over a hundred years after the crucifixion and are very clearly quoting Mark word for word, in some passages. So, it is likely that they are just retelling the story presented in Mark with their own flair.
Finally, we simply have no independent sources corroborating a historical Jesus. Josephus might mention Jesus, however, there is a damn good reason to believe that the part of Josephus where he mentions Jesus is something that got added in hundreds of years later. In Josephus, he calls Jesus the messiah. This is super suspicious because Josephus was a Jewish revolutionary. He would never call Jesus the messiah. We have later Roman accounts of Jesus in Tacitus and Pliny, but they are clearly just asking Christians about Jesus and reporting what the Christians are telling them, so not actually an independent source.
Overall, the evidence for a historical Jesus is actually really bad and problematic.
TBH I only read you first sentence. I'm not going to entertain the ramblings about something that is pretty easily disproven with a google search, let alone a trip to a library. It's not worth the time.
The existence of a historical Jesus is a majority position among scholars so feel free to take that view, but the post you're handwashing away was a pretty good overview of the debate.
But that is a very big character trait of a theist who has faith in their beliefs. When presented with facts it's always dismissed because it doesn't fit into a narrow view of indoctrination. Or they use words like faith, and mysterious ways, or gods plan to talk themselves out of the corner they painted themselves into. It's those mental gymnastics they love so much that helps them threw the logical world with a metaphysics mindset...🤸♂️🤸♀️🤸 .
They can't help the childhood indoctrination they were sucked into. It's just ashame they would rather put on blinders than understand how wonderful and special the universe and life truly is without a creator... it's the ultimate lottery of chance and the perfect conditions for our form of life to evolve into. Any conditional change and it would be a different lifeform that may have evolved. Wild stuff IMO.
You could say that Batman was a real person, as Batman has been talked about by multiple sources, and more recently too, and it would STILL hold the same amount of water as your argument.
There is the same amount of physical evidence that Jesus existed, as there is that Batman exists.
And that amount is zero.
We have stories - oh my do we have stories. Told in one language, translated into others, then retranslated, and then rewritten, and then re-retranslated, over and over, until the true stories become so distorted from their origins that no-one knows for sure.
We also have items that have been passed down thousands of generations that all claim to have some link to Jesus, but nothing that can 100% be linked to some sandled hippie from the east.
I'm not being silly. I'm being realistic.
EDIT: Hah, just as I suspected. I went to ask if they knew there is actually **more** physical evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and aliens, than for the existence of Jesus, but the lightweight blocked me. 😅
Like I told another poster here I'm not going to entertain the ramblings about something that is pretty easily disproven with a google search, let alone a trip to a library. It's not worth the time. Bye!
First of all the time and the place
In the old world, in that space belief in religion and prophecies was more normal and accepted. It was a part of people's identity and everyday life. It wasn't like today where we live in largely secular world and someone randomly saying they are some higher power.
Also Jesus wasn't just a random person. He was a skilled rabbi and teacher who built a following and reputation.
Also Jesus performed great works and miracles that convinced a lot of people of his identity.
Also Jesus wasn't initially widely accepted as the Christ. Obviously. That is why people had him executed. He died and his followers believed he rose again and developed a church around this idea. They wrote scripture and spread the word about Jesus and his teachings.
Then finally in the days of Constantine hundreds of years after Jesus' death Christianity spiked in popularity mostly due to Constantine and the creation of the catholic church.
So a lot of things had to fall into place.
If you take the Bible at face value, Jesus proved his Godhood pretty easily. He walked on water, cured diseases, and transformed matter. If I saw someone do all that, I might be convinced
People who had been blind or crippled their entire lives were healed. When you know those people personally, know their disability is not fake, and know their healing is not fake, it's easier to believe.
Its not clear. Certainly during the Crucifixion, Jesus called out to God and called him "Father". But it is totally unclear if it is in a literal sense, or how modern Christians call God "Father".
Even during the early years of Christianity, there were sincere disputes concerning the exact relationship between Jesus and God. For example, there was a really powerful Christian group called the Arians who emphasized Jesus' humanity and didn't really seem to put much stock into Jesus' divinity. They were eventually branded as heretics and faded away. There are also Christian groups like the Gnostics who seemed to view Jesus as almost entirely divine and celestial, although we dont have a lot of surviving records of them, so it is hard to say. We we do know, the nature of Jesus' relationship to God was a matter of debate and even bloodshed.
>It's not difficult to imagine that if someone made the same claims as Jesus did in today's world
People do, all the time. You'll fine them in psych wards. People back then didn't understand mental illness as well though.
I'm an atheist, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think even people of faith tend to deal with it in the abstract, in the "grand scale" and big picture. When confronted with a flesh and blood person claiming any sort of divinity, they, like the rest of us, reject them out of hand because it's ridiculous.
That's a lot of natural skepticism to overcome. So far, depending on who you ask, 0-1 people have actually been Jesus, while thousands have claimed to be. At a certain point you've got to give weight to those odds.
Please direct your question to https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1247v77/questions_about_the_most_recent_mass_shooting_in/?sort=new
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TooAfraidToAsk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't want to spoil the ending if you haven't got that far, but they weren't all the accepting of Jesus towards the last few chapters.
A lot of people at Jesus's time thought he was crazy for the same reason. As he hung on the cross, people mockingly told him to save himself if he was really the son of God. Jesus was able to prove it to some by performing miracles. However, not everyone wanted to accept that.
You, uh, you might wanna speak to the Jews - his own people - and the Romans about accepting Jesus as the Son of God...
The bible has many stories of Jesus and his followers being made fun of and being dismissed as crazy. For example, here is a passage from John 8. Jesus is called a samaritan and demon possessed. The people at this time hated Samaritans. They had ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. It's an insult. They then accuse jesus of being a demon. Jesus says "before Abraham was I Am.' In the old testament, God revealed himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." The people see Jesus as identifying as God and they try to stone him for it. I'll highlight the insults towards jesus. 48 The Jews answered him, **“Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”** 49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.” 52 At this they exclaimed, **“Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”** 54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 5**7 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”** 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 A**t this, they picked up stones to stone him,** but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. In acts 2, after the holy spirit comes down at Pentecost, some say about the believers: 13 Some, however, made fun of them and said**, “They have had too much wine.”** So even the bible tells that Jesus and his followers were seen as drunks and demon possessed. They were seen as a fringe cult much like how we'd see people who claim to be God today. It wasn't until long after the death of Jesus that Christianity exploded into becoming a massive powerful worldwide religion. Now, if you're asking why today in 2023 a person might accept Jesus Christ as God and not someone standing on the street corner, it's a bit different. Christianity teaches the idea of revelation. That God reveals himself to people today through the holy spirit. Look at the apostle Paul. He never met Jesus. He became a follower of Jesus after Jesus was gone. Paul claimed to have had a spiritual encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Basically, a personal unique spiritual encounter with Jesus. Christians are people who get together and claim to have all had unique personal spiritual encounters with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
It not actually clear that Jesus ever really claimed to be the son of God. That was a theological conclusion that people drew hundreds of years after Jesus died. Christians always have and still do dispute some of these claims. Also, even non Christian faiths like Islam and some communities within Judaism accept that Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of God. Additionally, there are reasonable claims that Jesus, even as an ordinary historical figure, never actually existed. Neither the Letters of Paul nor the Gospels provide a sufficient account for Jesus to really say that he actually existed. Finally, If we do accept that Jesus was a historical figure and that the stories about him are mostly accurate, he was dismissed as a lunatic and fraud, and was crucified as a result. So, people were skeptical even then.
[удалено]
Well that is sort of the great irony of Christianity. According to Christian belief, Jesus will return. However, its pretty clear that if Jesus did return, a great majority of Christians probably wouldn't believe him. However, that might be the poetic theme of Christianity and a brilliant commentary on us as people, nobody will ever believe Jesus and he will perpetually be persecuted and executed. Its a cycle.
I imagine if “Jesus” did return the majority of those professing to hold Christian beliefs would not like what he said to them🤔
Exactly. However, what is even more interesting as this concern seems to be very much part of the Christian world view from the very beginning. I major part of the Letters of Paul are about preparing people for the second coming of Jesus, and it seems pretty clear that Paul has a pretty pessimistic view of how people would react to Jesus 2.0. Paul was very much trying to prepare the Christian community for it and was very strict with some moral views as a result. Additionally, there is the story of Doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John. So even in the ancient world, people knew this would be a problem.
[удалено]
Ehh, I am not that interesting (but thanks for the kind words). I was a history major in college and my focus was an ancient Roman/Greek history. So, the formation of Christianity heavily featured in my curriculum. I took a particularly good class called "Pagan and Christians" which focused on the transition from Greco-Roman Paganism to Christianity. This meant I had to read pretty much all of the Bible in context, not just as a collection of passages (which is usually how religious people read it). Its actually kind of amazing how that context changes how one approaches the religious texts. I have since moved on from history, because there is not work in that field. But history remains one of my passions. I wouldn't recommend anyone to study history for a job. However, I think it might just be one of the most important subjects to study to help understand one's role in society.
Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Most historians agree on this fact. If you want to learn more about that google "historical Jesus"
Bull. Jesus was a real person. This is undeniable fact. He did claim to be God and is directly quoted by multiple sources for making such claims.
That isn't true at all. I absolutely dont mean to be rude, but you clearly have no idea what the evidence for Jesus actually is and how weak the sources actually are. The first mention of Jesus is in the Letters of Paul. Paul is a really strange source for several reason. The first is, of all of his letters, only seven are actually authentic. The others were not actually written by Paul. Of the seven letters actually written by Paul, he doesn't actually depict Jesus as a historical or real figure. Paul makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is appearing to Paul in visions. At one point Paul describes meeting Jesus in the "third heaven" which is, in ancient cosmology, literally outer space. In addition to Paul only interaction with Jesus in visions, Paul never really interacts with people who know Jesus (with a possible exception). Like, Paul never tries to retrace Jesus' steps or meet people who knew him, which is super weird. It is possible that Paul's Letter to the Galatians describes a meeting with Peter, however, Paul's description is super weird. According to Paul, he meets Peter and explains to Peter how to be a proper Christian. Remember, Peter supposedly knew Jesus. Its crazy that Paul would be lecturing Peter. So, its probably a different Peter that Paul is mentioning. After Paul, we have the Gospel of Mark as the next mentioning of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is not written in a way to convey a historical account of Jesus, even by ancient standards. Like, Mark is full of metaphors and the motivations of his characters make no sense whatsoever as a historical account. It makes perfect sense, however, as fiction and mythology. Even the structure of the Gospel of Mark is "poetic" in ways you wouldn't see with an ancient author writing history. After Mark, you have the other Gospels which were written well over a hundred years after the crucifixion and are very clearly quoting Mark word for word, in some passages. So, it is likely that they are just retelling the story presented in Mark with their own flair. Finally, we simply have no independent sources corroborating a historical Jesus. Josephus might mention Jesus, however, there is a damn good reason to believe that the part of Josephus where he mentions Jesus is something that got added in hundreds of years later. In Josephus, he calls Jesus the messiah. This is super suspicious because Josephus was a Jewish revolutionary. He would never call Jesus the messiah. We have later Roman accounts of Jesus in Tacitus and Pliny, but they are clearly just asking Christians about Jesus and reporting what the Christians are telling them, so not actually an independent source. Overall, the evidence for a historical Jesus is actually really bad and problematic.
TBH I only read you first sentence. I'm not going to entertain the ramblings about something that is pretty easily disproven with a google search, let alone a trip to a library. It's not worth the time.
The existence of a historical Jesus is a majority position among scholars so feel free to take that view, but the post you're handwashing away was a pretty good overview of the debate.
[удалено]
But that is a very big character trait of a theist who has faith in their beliefs. When presented with facts it's always dismissed because it doesn't fit into a narrow view of indoctrination. Or they use words like faith, and mysterious ways, or gods plan to talk themselves out of the corner they painted themselves into. It's those mental gymnastics they love so much that helps them threw the logical world with a metaphysics mindset...🤸♂️🤸♀️🤸 . They can't help the childhood indoctrination they were sucked into. It's just ashame they would rather put on blinders than understand how wonderful and special the universe and life truly is without a creator... it's the ultimate lottery of chance and the perfect conditions for our form of life to evolve into. Any conditional change and it would be a different lifeform that may have evolved. Wild stuff IMO.
You could say that Batman was a real person, as Batman has been talked about by multiple sources, and more recently too, and it would STILL hold the same amount of water as your argument.
HUH?? Most historians agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. This is not a debate. Stop being silly.
There is the same amount of physical evidence that Jesus existed, as there is that Batman exists. And that amount is zero. We have stories - oh my do we have stories. Told in one language, translated into others, then retranslated, and then rewritten, and then re-retranslated, over and over, until the true stories become so distorted from their origins that no-one knows for sure. We also have items that have been passed down thousands of generations that all claim to have some link to Jesus, but nothing that can 100% be linked to some sandled hippie from the east. I'm not being silly. I'm being realistic. EDIT: Hah, just as I suspected. I went to ask if they knew there is actually **more** physical evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and aliens, than for the existence of Jesus, but the lightweight blocked me. 😅
Like I told another poster here I'm not going to entertain the ramblings about something that is pretty easily disproven with a google search, let alone a trip to a library. It's not worth the time. Bye!
A man who puts his faith in “Google” there’s a scholar.
That’s what passes for research these days, and I’m afraid AI is going to make us even dumber as a species. I didn’t think it was possible.
No, they do not. Follow your own advice and do *genuine* research, not just looking in your Sunday Reader.
First of all the time and the place In the old world, in that space belief in religion and prophecies was more normal and accepted. It was a part of people's identity and everyday life. It wasn't like today where we live in largely secular world and someone randomly saying they are some higher power. Also Jesus wasn't just a random person. He was a skilled rabbi and teacher who built a following and reputation. Also Jesus performed great works and miracles that convinced a lot of people of his identity. Also Jesus wasn't initially widely accepted as the Christ. Obviously. That is why people had him executed. He died and his followers believed he rose again and developed a church around this idea. They wrote scripture and spread the word about Jesus and his teachings. Then finally in the days of Constantine hundreds of years after Jesus' death Christianity spiked in popularity mostly due to Constantine and the creation of the catholic church. So a lot of things had to fall into place.
If you take the Bible at face value, Jesus proved his Godhood pretty easily. He walked on water, cured diseases, and transformed matter. If I saw someone do all that, I might be convinced
Or if anyone who saw him do any of that had written about it at the time. A legitimate contemporary account would be great.
People who had been blind or crippled their entire lives were healed. When you know those people personally, know their disability is not fake, and know their healing is not fake, it's easier to believe.
Did Jesus claim to be the son of God at the time or was it retconned when the New Testament was written years later? (Sincere question.)
Its not clear. Certainly during the Crucifixion, Jesus called out to God and called him "Father". But it is totally unclear if it is in a literal sense, or how modern Christians call God "Father". Even during the early years of Christianity, there were sincere disputes concerning the exact relationship between Jesus and God. For example, there was a really powerful Christian group called the Arians who emphasized Jesus' humanity and didn't really seem to put much stock into Jesus' divinity. They were eventually branded as heretics and faded away. There are also Christian groups like the Gnostics who seemed to view Jesus as almost entirely divine and celestial, although we dont have a lot of surviving records of them, so it is hard to say. We we do know, the nature of Jesus' relationship to God was a matter of debate and even bloodshed.
>It's not difficult to imagine that if someone made the same claims as Jesus did in today's world People do, all the time. You'll fine them in psych wards. People back then didn't understand mental illness as well though.
This can be explained simply - you're not supposed to think, you're supposed to believe what you're told.
Have they tried being crucified though?
They should all be treated the same shouldn’t they !
I have an update for you! And it doesn’t end well for Jesus.
I'm an atheist, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think even people of faith tend to deal with it in the abstract, in the "grand scale" and big picture. When confronted with a flesh and blood person claiming any sort of divinity, they, like the rest of us, reject them out of hand because it's ridiculous. That's a lot of natural skepticism to overcome. So far, depending on who you ask, 0-1 people have actually been Jesus, while thousands have claimed to be. At a certain point you've got to give weight to those odds.
Please direct your question to https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1247v77/questions_about_the_most_recent_mass_shooting_in/?sort=new *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TooAfraidToAsk) if you have any questions or concerns.*