/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15408359]

>there is no historical evidence jesus ever existed
this literally changes everything

[Anonymous No.15408363]

Actually there is some mentions of him in secondary literature which we all know PROVES existence according to historiography

[Anonymous No.15408368]

There are also no firsthand accounts of Nero

[Anonymous No.15408369]

Has the shroud of Turin ever been disproved?

[Anonymous No.15408377]

>>15408359
why did the disciples make him up?

[Anonymous No.15408383]

He has a kino kiwifarms thread
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/richard-carrier.16191/

[Anonymous No.15408406]

>>15408369
Pretty sure the supposedly real shroud of Turin was made in the 1400s

[Anonymous No.15408417]

>>15408359
The problem with rejecting a historical Jesus is that for the position to be coherent a large chunk of accepted history must also be discarded. The rejection of a historical Jesus is necessarily a rejection of portions of the structure of the discipline of history.

The purpose of denying a historical Jesus is generally an anti-religious one in any case, and it fails miserably at damaging Christianity or the arguments for Christianity, because at best it is a negation of certainty, rather than proof of nonexistence.

[Anonymous No.15408424]

>>15408359
Compared to practically all figures of antiquity there is exceptional evidence, which isn't too shabby for a carpenter. So if we accept the commonly used parameters to determine the historicity of a person he did indeed exist. Also if you read the NT you will find that the people in there act like people would and at the center of all is this Jesus person.

[Anonymous No.15408492]

>>15408363
>>15408417
>>15408424
first five minutes of this btfo all of these:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc

and even conservative altright figures like dan Crenshaw or BAP think jesus was made up. when conservatives are admitting jesus isn't historical anymore it's pretty safe to say that the times of taking jesus' reality for granted are over. and for good reason.

[Anonymous No.15408515]

>>15408369
Yes scientists tested it.
>inb4 they dun goofed when they took the samples

[Anonymous No.15408551]

>>15408492
I'm talking about the majority view within the science not 'alt-right' figures, whatever that even means in this context. Within the profession from left to right the view is he was an actual person, doesn't mean he was, it's just the view according to the accepted methods. To quote a scholar in the field:

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher"

Again, reading the NT I have no doubt whatsoever that this was an actual person.

[Anonymous No.15408555]

>>15408492

>denying the existence of Christ

[Anonymous No.15408565]

>>15408515
>>15408406
>A variety of methods have been proposed for the formation of the image, but the actual method used has not yet been conclusively identified.[16] The shroud continues to be both intensely studied and controversial.[17][18][19][20]
they didn't test it, they are still testing you idiot

[Anonymous No.15408586]

>>15408492
BAP is trolling and Crenshaw is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15408606]

>>15408359
I have my doubts that Jesus ever existed.
I also don’t think it matters.

[Anonymous No.15408622]

>>15408492
>conservative altright
>christians
ok retard

[Anonymous No.15408634]

>>15408383
Still loling about how this ended up happening to almost all of the big name atheists, I think it would happen to hitchens were he still alive too. Who in philosophy ever got me too'd besides searle, who wasn't much of a philosopher anyway and more of a chink lover

[Anonymous No.15408637]

>>15408492
>curly hair
Well that explains a lot

[Anonymous No.15408669]

>>15408359
Denials of Christ rest on a lack of sufficient positive and direct accounts. But the Church exists and gives positive and direct account. To deny Christ relies on rejecting the accounts of the Church. But, objectivity demands that rejecting that accounts of the Church be demonstrated by positive and direct account. How, through positive first-hand accounts can the Church be explained if it is taken for granted that Christ was not who the Church claims him to be? Does the historical record actually support a Christless Church? After all, the Church clearly exists. So, if the historical explanation for the non-existence of Christ is not historically compatible with the development of the Church, then the explanation must necessarily be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.15409817]

>>15408492
didn't that guy beat up his wife or something lmao

[Anonymous No.15409849]

>>15408669
Or maybe the church is founded in myth?

[Anonymous No.15409864]

>>15409849
Literally impossible.

[Anonymous No.15409886]

>>15409864
Why?

[Anonymous No.15409986]

>>15408424
>>15408424
Compared with most figures of antiquity have jack shit thats older than 200 years after he supposedly died.

[Anonymous No.15410028]

>>15409886
The Jesuit shill will not respond. The Vatican has dispatched a team of cyber propagandists to this very board in their efforts to stake a claim to the avant-garde intellectualism of the New Century. The Catholic Church has a long history of using the church militant to infiltrate and subvert intellectual movements and pry away from man the fruit of his imaginative labors. See the gnostics and the masons. Catholic thought must be rooted out and incinerated if society is ever to elevate itself towards the true sublime.

[Anonymous No.15410052]

even early christians doubted the "historicity" of jesus as a "person" from time to time. plenty of gnostics in the 2nd and 3rd centuries thought that jesus was literally a spirit and not human

[Anonymous No.15410055]

>supposedly God himself comes down to earth and spends DECADES performing Criss Angel tricks before getting BTFO
>almost zero documentation he ever existed
M-muh one passing line in Tacitus

Anyone who believes this shit is literal and not simply parable is actually retarded

[Anonymous No.15410056]

>>15408368
Yes, there are actually.

[Anonymous No.15410061]

>>15408383
This guy is "polyamorous." wtf

[Anonymous No.15410063]

[Anonymous No.15410092]

>>15409986
The Pauline epistles were written 20 years after crucifixion and Paul met the brother of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.15410093]

>>15410028
Kek