I mean, it’s not unlikely that there was a dude named jesus christ, two millennia ago. There are a couple of other details in the story that are pretty suspect though, and I really doubt he’s able to be consulted for political opinions either way.
His name would have been Yeshua (short form of Yehoshua), with the name translated first into Greek then into Latin and morphing into a form that became Jesus. Yeshua was also a common name. It’s actually more complex than that, as language and words over time get very mangled.
As for evidence of a singular guy of any name doing this stuff, there isn’t much at all that isn’t connected to the Bible in a circular reasoning. Without Saul/Paul renewing (or creating) a faith about someone long gone in his lifetime, it would have likely ended there. There could have been many iconic figures doing things with followers that didn’t jump the gap of history to become a permanent religion.
Was there an itinerant preacher on which the biblical character of Jesus was loosely based on? Almost certainly. Does that make the stories of Jesus as depicted in the gospels 100% true? Absolutely not.
There is literally zero chance that anyone was named Jesus Christ. The word (not name) “christ” means “king,” and was attached to the name centuries after he supposedly lived.
I also read somewhere that the real person he may have been based on was named Benjamin. No idea if that source was credible, I just remember it vaguely.
True, but scholars do have Roman records of a Jesus of Nazareth, that matches the description of Jesus and his followers. This is a man though, but there is relative proof of a guy that did exist.
Also there are lots of early depictions of Jesus with a wand, and if you are interested in a detailed secular history I recommend the book Zealot By Reza Aslan.
I mean, it’s not unlikely that there was a dude named jesus christ, two millennia ago. There are a couple of other details in the story that are pretty suspect though, and I really doubt he’s able to be consulted for political opinions either way.
His name would have been Yeshua (short form of Yehoshua), with the name translated first into Greek then into Latin and morphing into a form that became Jesus. Yeshua was also a common name. It’s actually more complex than that, as language and words over time get very mangled.
As for evidence of a singular guy of any name doing this stuff, there isn’t much at all that isn’t connected to the Bible in a circular reasoning. Without Saul/Paul renewing (or creating) a faith about someone long gone in his lifetime, it would have likely ended there. There could have been many iconic figures doing things with followers that didn’t jump the gap of history to become a permanent religion.
Was there an itinerant preacher on which the biblical character of Jesus was loosely based on? Almost certainly. Does that make the stories of Jesus as depicted in the gospels 100% true? Absolutely not.
Was Paul an absolute shit bag? Almost certainly so.
The modern form of Yeshua is Joshua.
Christianity should be called Paulinism, because he saw an opportunity, like any good politician, and took advantage of it.
There is literally zero chance that anyone was named Jesus Christ. The word (not name) “christ” means “king,” and was attached to the name centuries after he supposedly lived.
Also his name would’ve been something more like Yeshua, not Jesus.
I also read somewhere that the real person he may have been based on was named Benjamin. No idea if that source was credible, I just remember it vaguely.
Benus Christ!
Correct, his name was Oily Josh
True, but scholars do have Roman records of a Jesus of Nazareth, that matches the description of Jesus and his followers. This is a man though, but there is relative proof of a guy that did exist.
Also there are lots of early depictions of Jesus with a wand, and if you are interested in a detailed secular history I recommend the book Zealot By Reza Aslan.
There were many rabble rouser Rabbis in Roman occupied Judea. Pick one.
I thought the mindless pedants were supposed to have stayed on reddit?
“mindless pedant” is an oxymoron.
You tell 'em, you mindful pedant!
You can’t spell “oxymoron” without “moron”.
Along with the 14 year olds who just learned about atheism yet here we meet.