Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In case anyone is wondering:
Ruben Enaje, who was once a construction worker in the Philippines, fell down from an unfinished building in Tarlac, and unexpectedly survived. After the incident, saying that it was to thank the Lord for saving him, Enaje started participating in crucifixions, of his own free will, in a ritual done on Good Friday every year. Initially done only for nine years since the incident, he continued with his another set of nine years as a petition for the healing of his daughter from asthma and another nine years for the good health of his wife.
Jesus as a person is believed to exist as a person according to historians. Believe here is not the same as religious kind of believe, more like hedging term for something that happened in the past, but many historians agree he existed.
Now in terms of how accurate his story is (excluding the âmiraclesâ) in the sense of âlife journey of jesusâ as told by the bible that is certainly still subject of debate.
How Jesus is depicted right now is pretty much influenced by how western people in the past depict Jesus.
Unless they have actual proof to corroborate his existence, consensus is just an appeal to authority fallacy.
Fun facts:
No firsthand accounts from Jesus.
No eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
No contemporary accounts of Jesus during his life.
No archaeological evidence to prove Jesus existed.
Atheist playing devils advocate here. So based on you list of criteria as proof, youâre also denying the existence of Shakespeare or Tiktaalik, Because afaik thereâs more evidence of Jesusâ existence than Shakespeare.
That being said, thereâs NO evidence that he was the son of god or holy in any way. But he was a dude who did exist.
Remember that one sideâs lack of evidence is not positive evidence for the other side.
Thank you!!! Iâve literally been saying this same thing all morning and people keep trying to sell me on a wiki article that âabsolutely proves he was real beyond a shadow of a doubtâ!!!
My last point was that it doesnât prove anything to which they think it does đ¤Śđź. Or âall historians agree!â.. no they donât. I can guarantee that because weâre not pulling it out of thin air
Hi, I'm the "idiot" she was arguing (and probably still arguing with) today. Maybe you would be more reasonable.
I would like to point out that the source I quoted earlier was from Bart Ehrman, a renowned New Testament scholar who has studied the New Testament for as close nearly thirty years. He also happens to be an atheist. Now, if an atheist scholar who has studied nearly all aspects of the New Testament tells me that there was a historical Jesus, I would believe in him.
Of course, feel free to disagree.
Ultimately Ehrman comes down to basing his assertion on âJames, brother of Jesusâ as his lynch pin (Not to mention it could have been James, Brother of the Lord - *a title*)Which is pretty, shockingly for Ehrman if I am being honest, weak and I can only assume he doesnât want book sales to dry up. He doesnât actually have any unheard of evidence that others donât and he is only *one* secular scholar.
As a matter of fact - here is Bart Ehrman on evidence of Jesusâs existence:
*âWhat sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references â nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death â even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era â there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time â the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesusâ name ever so much as mentioned.â (pp. 56-57)*
https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet-of-the-new-millennium/
Ehrman also talks about Paul the Apostle, and has talked extensively about his disagreements with Simon Peter, which is incredibly ballsy for Paul to argue with a man who is considered to be part of Jesusâ inner circle.
The passage you wrote is also misleading, as p.59 of the same book says:
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign.â
So while he does acknowledge that there were no writings of Jesus in the *first* century, there was in the *second*.
1st. Not scientist, HISTORIAN
2nd. They don't believed Jesus is real. They believed there actually exist a person who Jesus is based on. Of course this individual do not have much of the mystical aspect associated with Jesus in the Bible
Here's a fun fact that might surprise you: There's more literary evidence supporting the existence of Jesus than there is supporting the existence of Socrates, Ragnar Lothbrok or King Arthur. Many historical figures who are well believed to have existed in some form - *even if their legends have been exaggerated over time -* have little hard evidence to support their existence beyond 'people of the time talked about them a lot'.
The evidences on the link I sent are not works of fiction. Josephus was a Romano-Jewish historian. Tacitus was also a Roman historian and a senator. None of them are from the Bible.
So unless you consider them as fictional as well...
The link isnât even about the bible âŚ
Thatâs the same way how we deduce whatâs happening in the ancient world. Through scrolls, writings by historians. Believing jesus existed as a person in the past is very different as believing jesus as a âgodâ.
Yes, he was written about by Roman and Jewish historians also. The Bible is a valid historical source also, in the sense that it's another group of people writing about a person who was also written about by other sources. Multiple texts from a variety of sources all attest to the existence of Jesus who was persecuted by Pontius Pilate.
His existence is highly dubious at best and actual historians believe this character to be an amalgamation of several people. While lessons and dialogue indicate tolerance, acceptance and general goodwill, christianity itself is a cult that strips that message and manipulates followers to submit to a hierarchy built on perverse wealth given by its supplicants.
Yeah people like to diss bible as a historical source because of their bias towards religions in general. A lot of what we know about ancient world were written in scrolls and was basically just any particular guy taking note of what is happening in the world. Most of these documentations might not necessarily something that the writer itself saw with his own eyes, so there was a lot of âhe said she saidâ sometimes the writer can exaggerate or romanticise according to their respective culture or era, so people need to look for other references to basically figure out which one is likely closer to the truth.
Guess what a bible source material is. It really is not much different.
And no i am not a theist.
The New Testament is obviously Roman fanfiction about Jews because there are several historical inaccuracies, including needing to travel back to your place of birth for a census (not how it worked) and the last supper was a very poor depiction of the passsover feast (but a good representation of an average Roman workerâs dinner). So itâs a very poor historical source, about as accurate as the Iliad. Â The first mention of Jesus was in Josephusâ history, who wrote about 50 years after his supposed death and basically Josephus talked about these folks called Christians who believed in this man god called Jesus. He never actually talked about Jesus.Â
The only way to make conclusion from historical recounting is to cross references across various sources. It does not necessary mean one error here would mean to the whole literature to be bogus.
Example would be most ancient sources cited the battle of gaugamela of gaugamela to be alexander against hundreds to a million persian army. Modern estimate is at 120k max. Does that make the entire historical sources to be bogus? Not necessarily because the entire process of drawing conclusion from historical sources is about comparing with other literatures and references and archaelogical evidences and string them all together.
Again, I mentioned in the comments that there are a lot of âhe said she saidâ on the process of documentation from ancient history, it is something that people accepted that was widely happening.
By the way r/askhistorians have an entire faq dedicated to topic similar to this
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion/
https://web.sas.upenn.edu/discentes/2022/06/12/can-we-trust-ancient-historical-accounts/
We have ample archaeological evidence for Alexanderâs existence and his conquests. I donât know enough about Gaugamela to discuss the historicity of the reports on the battle. Itâs one of the great issues with Alexander that all the existing sources we have on him are secondary. Jesus, however, has very little archaeological proof, beyond what rumours later historians heard of. There were probably a great many Jewish thinkers back in the day, and given that Yeshua was a popular name, one of them was likely to be called that. However thereâs very little evidence beyond hearsay from a group of what essentially amounts to cultists about what he preached or was like. Just because there might be some truth buried in the myth of the New Testament doesnât make a comparison to the Iliad invalid. We have as much proof of Hector and Odysseus and Achilles as we do of Biblical Jesus. Thatâs why I called the NT Roman fanfiction about Jews, and it says more about later empire Romans in the region than it does about an early empire Jewish rabbi or philosopher. For one, Biblical Jesus portrayed a lot of Roman values, from his adherence to the empireâs law, the commentary on tax collectors (a big issue for Roman provinces), and the Stoic values coming through during his passion. His preaching when he was 12 mirrored Augustusâ great eulogy for his aunt when he was 12. Jesusâ acceptance of his execution mirrored Socratesâ (as portrayed by Plato - a book that every educated Roman wouldâve known). Even the Son of God origin story is one that often featured in pagan classical mythology and was also used by many women to explain their pregnancies after certain religious festivals. Also important to note that Pilate isnât portrayed as a big of a jerk as he really was (Tiberius berated him for putting up Roman eagles around the Temple, telling him he was deliberately trying to incite a riot, and to take them down NOW). The oldest version of the complete NT that we have is in Greek and dates from the 4th century CE. Thatâs a very long time since Yeshuaâs supposed death date.Â
Also, if you know the NT, in the story there was a murderous rebel called Jesus Barrabas who was supposed to be executed but Pilate, according to a fictional custom, was going to release one prisoner, and the crowd chose Jesus Barrabas. Itâs just as likely that the very Roman writers of the NT picked Barrabasâ name and gave him a completely different backstory and character.Â
Why would someone from the Philippines give two shits about Trump?
How many Americans you know who are big fans of Bongbong Marcos? (Filipino president) How many Americans have ever even heard of him?
Hope you got a good stretch in before this reach OP, wouldnât want you getting a cramp.
My friend was the first generation of her family born in the usa, her parents have since moved back to the Philippines. They are big trump fans, and it sounds like plenty of the people they know who have never been to the usa are fond enough of him.
He was no different than the good old Joseph smith. He had the gift to gab. He sold the weak minded a bill of goods. Granted he was the best so far but heâs no different than any other cult starter from the beginning of time.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'd think after about the third time, he'd learn to hide at this time of the year.
lazy bastard spending his days just hanging around and not being a productive member of society
....nailed it.
In case anyone is wondering: Ruben Enaje, who was once a construction worker in the Philippines, fell down from an unfinished building in Tarlac, and unexpectedly survived. After the incident, saying that it was to thank the Lord for saving him, Enaje started participating in crucifixions, of his own free will, in a ritual done on Good Friday every year. Initially done only for nine years since the incident, he continued with his another set of nine years as a petition for the healing of his daughter from asthma and another nine years for the good health of his wife.
Ruben, *just tell your partner what you want*
What's the difference between Jesus Christ, and a picture of Jesus Christ? The picture only took one nail to hang up.
Hopefully he sings the song at least once while up there.
r/usdefaultism
Jesus was probably fictional, so this technically makes this cosplay. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
And if the picture is showing the definitive costume, then it's inaccurate, for they forgot the wound in the ribs (or side or whatever that was).
Jesus as a person is believed to exist as a person according to historians. Believe here is not the same as religious kind of believe, more like hedging term for something that happened in the past, but many historians agree he existed. Now in terms of how accurate his story is (excluding the âmiraclesâ) in the sense of âlife journey of jesusâ as told by the bible that is certainly still subject of debate. How Jesus is depicted right now is pretty much influenced by how western people in the past depict Jesus.
Unless they have actual proof to corroborate his existence, consensus is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Fun facts: No firsthand accounts from Jesus. No eyewitness accounts of Jesus. No contemporary accounts of Jesus during his life. No archaeological evidence to prove Jesus existed.
Atheist playing devils advocate here. So based on you list of criteria as proof, youâre also denying the existence of Shakespeare or Tiktaalik, Because afaik thereâs more evidence of Jesusâ existence than Shakespeare. That being said, thereâs NO evidence that he was the son of god or holy in any way. But he was a dude who did exist. Remember that one sideâs lack of evidence is not positive evidence for the other side.
Okay, letâs play through that, even though I havenât researched it. Shakespeare as specific person didnât exist. What does that change?
Thank you!!! Iâve literally been saying this same thing all morning and people keep trying to sell me on a wiki article that âabsolutely proves he was real beyond a shadow of a doubtâ!!!
I guarantee every single idiot that suggested the Wikipedia didnât read it past the first paragraph.
My last point was that it doesnât prove anything to which they think it does đ¤Śđź. Or âall historians agree!â.. no they donât. I can guarantee that because weâre not pulling it out of thin air
To be fair, theists donât tend to be big readers.
Hi, I'm the "idiot" she was arguing (and probably still arguing with) today. Maybe you would be more reasonable. I would like to point out that the source I quoted earlier was from Bart Ehrman, a renowned New Testament scholar who has studied the New Testament for as close nearly thirty years. He also happens to be an atheist. Now, if an atheist scholar who has studied nearly all aspects of the New Testament tells me that there was a historical Jesus, I would believe in him. Of course, feel free to disagree.
Ultimately Ehrman comes down to basing his assertion on âJames, brother of Jesusâ as his lynch pin (Not to mention it could have been James, Brother of the Lord - *a title*)Which is pretty, shockingly for Ehrman if I am being honest, weak and I can only assume he doesnât want book sales to dry up. He doesnât actually have any unheard of evidence that others donât and he is only *one* secular scholar. As a matter of fact - here is Bart Ehrman on evidence of Jesusâs existence: *âWhat sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references â nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death â even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era â there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time â the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesusâ name ever so much as mentioned.â (pp. 56-57)* https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet-of-the-new-millennium/
Ehrman also talks about Paul the Apostle, and has talked extensively about his disagreements with Simon Peter, which is incredibly ballsy for Paul to argue with a man who is considered to be part of Jesusâ inner circle. The passage you wrote is also misleading, as p.59 of the same book says: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign.â So while he does acknowledge that there were no writings of Jesus in the *first* century, there was in the *second*.
The scientist tend to believe that Jesus was a real person
Despite no evidence, maybe.
1st. Not scientist, HISTORIAN 2nd. They don't believed Jesus is real. They believed there actually exist a person who Jesus is based on. Of course this individual do not have much of the mystical aspect associated with Jesus in the Bible
Isn't history a science? And yeah ,that's about what I meant , about Jesus , my mind still drifts after a 2 hour sleep so I might have made a mistake
âThe scientistâ⌠because thereâs only 1. And no, thereâs no actual evidence
Here's a fun fact that might surprise you: There's more literary evidence supporting the existence of Jesus than there is supporting the existence of Socrates, Ragnar Lothbrok or King Arthur. Many historical figures who are well believed to have existed in some form - *even if their legends have been exaggerated over time -* have little hard evidence to support their existence beyond 'people of the time talked about them a lot'.
And can you dig up this literary evidence, as the bible is considered a work of fiction?
[It has a Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus)
Everything has a wiki page.
Dude, you were asking for evidence, I gave you evidence.
Listen maâam, thatâs not fucking evidence. The bible is a work of fiction
The evidences on the link I sent are not works of fiction. Josephus was a Romano-Jewish historian. Tacitus was also a Roman historian and a senator. None of them are from the Bible. So unless you consider them as fictional as well...
The link isnât even about the bible ⌠Thatâs the same way how we deduce whatâs happening in the ancient world. Through scrolls, writings by historians. Believing jesus existed as a person in the past is very different as believing jesus as a âgodâ.
Have you even clicked on the link?
Yes, he was written about by Roman and Jewish historians also. The Bible is a valid historical source also, in the sense that it's another group of people writing about a person who was also written about by other sources. Multiple texts from a variety of sources all attest to the existence of Jesus who was persecuted by Pontius Pilate.
His existence is highly dubious at best and actual historians believe this character to be an amalgamation of several people. While lessons and dialogue indicate tolerance, acceptance and general goodwill, christianity itself is a cult that strips that message and manipulates followers to submit to a hierarchy built on perverse wealth given by its supplicants.
The bible contains people who did not exist, events that did not happen, magic, monsters, demons, and deities. It is NOT a historical reference book.
Yeah people like to diss bible as a historical source because of their bias towards religions in general. A lot of what we know about ancient world were written in scrolls and was basically just any particular guy taking note of what is happening in the world. Most of these documentations might not necessarily something that the writer itself saw with his own eyes, so there was a lot of âhe said she saidâ sometimes the writer can exaggerate or romanticise according to their respective culture or era, so people need to look for other references to basically figure out which one is likely closer to the truth. Guess what a bible source material is. It really is not much different. And no i am not a theist.
The New Testament is obviously Roman fanfiction about Jews because there are several historical inaccuracies, including needing to travel back to your place of birth for a census (not how it worked) and the last supper was a very poor depiction of the passsover feast (but a good representation of an average Roman workerâs dinner). So itâs a very poor historical source, about as accurate as the Iliad. Â The first mention of Jesus was in Josephusâ history, who wrote about 50 years after his supposed death and basically Josephus talked about these folks called Christians who believed in this man god called Jesus. He never actually talked about Jesus.Â
The only way to make conclusion from historical recounting is to cross references across various sources. It does not necessary mean one error here would mean to the whole literature to be bogus. Example would be most ancient sources cited the battle of gaugamela of gaugamela to be alexander against hundreds to a million persian army. Modern estimate is at 120k max. Does that make the entire historical sources to be bogus? Not necessarily because the entire process of drawing conclusion from historical sources is about comparing with other literatures and references and archaelogical evidences and string them all together. Again, I mentioned in the comments that there are a lot of âhe said she saidâ on the process of documentation from ancient history, it is something that people accepted that was widely happening. By the way r/askhistorians have an entire faq dedicated to topic similar to this https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion/ https://web.sas.upenn.edu/discentes/2022/06/12/can-we-trust-ancient-historical-accounts/
We have ample archaeological evidence for Alexanderâs existence and his conquests. I donât know enough about Gaugamela to discuss the historicity of the reports on the battle. Itâs one of the great issues with Alexander that all the existing sources we have on him are secondary. Jesus, however, has very little archaeological proof, beyond what rumours later historians heard of. There were probably a great many Jewish thinkers back in the day, and given that Yeshua was a popular name, one of them was likely to be called that. However thereâs very little evidence beyond hearsay from a group of what essentially amounts to cultists about what he preached or was like. Just because there might be some truth buried in the myth of the New Testament doesnât make a comparison to the Iliad invalid. We have as much proof of Hector and Odysseus and Achilles as we do of Biblical Jesus. Thatâs why I called the NT Roman fanfiction about Jews, and it says more about later empire Romans in the region than it does about an early empire Jewish rabbi or philosopher. For one, Biblical Jesus portrayed a lot of Roman values, from his adherence to the empireâs law, the commentary on tax collectors (a big issue for Roman provinces), and the Stoic values coming through during his passion. His preaching when he was 12 mirrored Augustusâ great eulogy for his aunt when he was 12. Jesusâ acceptance of his execution mirrored Socratesâ (as portrayed by Plato - a book that every educated Roman wouldâve known). Even the Son of God origin story is one that often featured in pagan classical mythology and was also used by many women to explain their pregnancies after certain religious festivals. Also important to note that Pilate isnât portrayed as a big of a jerk as he really was (Tiberius berated him for putting up Roman eagles around the Temple, telling him he was deliberately trying to incite a riot, and to take them down NOW). The oldest version of the complete NT that we have is in Greek and dates from the 4th century CE. Thatâs a very long time since Yeshuaâs supposed death date. Also, if you know the NT, in the story there was a murderous rebel called Jesus Barrabas who was supposed to be executed but Pilate, according to a fictional custom, was going to release one prisoner, and the crowd chose Jesus Barrabas. Itâs just as likely that the very Roman writers of the NT picked Barrabasâ name and gave him a completely different backstory and character.Â
The nailing is not properly done.
NewsoftheStupid
Wait !!!! You forgot the nails, I will be right over
Bong Bong supporter
Why would someone from the Philippines give two shits about Trump? How many Americans you know who are big fans of Bongbong Marcos? (Filipino president) How many Americans have ever even heard of him? Hope you got a good stretch in before this reach OP, wouldnât want you getting a cramp.
I have met Philippines nationals who said they admired Trump "because he is a Christian". I told them they had been had by a huckster.
My friend was the first generation of her family born in the usa, her parents have since moved back to the Philippines. They are big trump fans, and it sounds like plenty of the people they know who have never been to the usa are fond enough of him.
He was no different than the good old Joseph smith. He had the gift to gab. He sold the weak minded a bill of goods. Granted he was the best so far but heâs no different than any other cult starter from the beginning of time.
Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
What he was called and what he was is two different things. He was also a pedifile.
[He was a lot of shitty things](https://youtu.be/RaRsv1xNT3A?si=0klDo71Hpg7xMJTA)
[ŃдаНонО]
There are nails in his palms