President Donald Trump revealed on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast an executive order instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek out and prosecute "anti-Christian bias.""To confront such weaponization and religious persecution, today I'm signing an executive order to make our Attorney ...
Jesus pretty much was a socialist so where does that leave us?
He wasn’t promoting statism.
I mean, there’s zero evidence that he was even real.
I’m saying if you read the Bible, Jesus’s teachings align with socialism.
There is abundant testimonial of his existence, enormous bodies of archeological evidence dating the nascent Christian church to the period immediately following his life, and plenty of contemporary evidence describing the more prominent figures central to the gospels and the various letters that follow.
We have at least as much evidence of Jesus as we do Socrates or Confucius or Boudica or Pakal the Elder.
Not exactly. Socialists are not a Millenarian Cult eagerly awaiting the end of the world. The early disciples believed the apocalypse was nigh and material wealth would be of no consequence in the Next Life. Their socialist policies were heavily informed by their dogmatic belief in a Final Judgement coming within their lifetime.
Modern socialists don’t hold this view at all. On the contrary, they tend to be deeply concerned with the long term health and well-being of their communities, their economies, and the global ecology. One of the major distinctions between modern Friedmanian free market thinking and MLM economic central planning is the focus on fluctuations in market price relative to the long term socio-economic consequences of current economic policy.
If anything, it is the capitalists (particularly the more Millenarian-minded Protestant cults) who behave like there’s no tomorrow. The socialists are the ones talking about the next century of climate change and the next millennium of biodiversity / sustainability.
The consensus of scholars that focus on academic history of that time agree that it is extremely likely that some guy named Yeshua lived around that time and place and tried to reform Judaism as others were doing at the time (the Pharisees were the reformers that ended up being successful).
There’s a whole FAQ about this on reddit’s askhistorians that goes into detail but essentially if you argue Yeshua of Galilee never existed you cannot then accept that most historical figures were real as we have similar evidence for the existence of many people.
And Im saying they might be more anarchistic beliefs than socialist beliefs as the NT isn’t pushing a pro-governance view.
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
I’m sure a guy named yesua may have existed
I’m also sure he was just another guy spouting religious beliefs, he was not magical or supernatural, because none of that exists
All Im claiming is Yeshua existed and he was a rabbi around Galilee. The religion is likely very loosely based upon things he said as well as stuff people added (eg “render unto Caesar” is just saying pay your taxes).
Im not claiming historical evidence exists for the miracles.
What evidence exists? I mean, we have literally multiple accounts and writings by Aristotle… Or Eratosthenes… Who would be, by and large, contemporaries, at this scale…
Yet for Yeshua? We don’t even have birth records, which would have been meticulous, especially since a census happened at the same time. We can’t even confirm most of the documented events that were claimed.
In fact, all writings that state he existed weren’t even written until about 70 years after he purportedly died (Which we have no Roman records of the time, indicating even a scenario as described, which is kinda shocking).
In all likelihood, he is an amalgamation of several radical figures, as most of his story was cribbed from earlier, already extant, savior mythology.
deleted by creator
Bo we have writings we believe were written by Aristotle because other people from around that time say he did. We have similar things for jesus such as the writings of people who recorded the existence of people who followed a guy named Jesus a few decades after his death. It would ge really odd for people around the Mediterranean to all follow the teachings of a guy who they call by the same name who never existed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
Yes, we have contempory, verified sources of Aristotle’s lectures, and writings.
We have no such thing for Yeshua. The earliest is, as you say, “a few decades”, aka 70 years. That’s two entire generations. Nothing contemporary, and in fact, contemporary documents actually contradict much of what was written.
And yet, here were are, writing about a mystical man in the sky… Who never existed, as far as any evidence tells us. And, in fact, whatever evidence we DO find, contradicts the claims made by adherents to that mythology.
Hell, how many Romans wrote about how awesome on the field of battle Hercules was… Pretty certain a demigod never existed by the name of Hercules.
BTW, from your link:
“There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him”
We have things that other people who may or may not have known Aristotle claim Aristotle wrote. If you believe Aristotle and Plato were real people then you should accept that Jesus was based on somebody even if the message he was spreading isn’t the same as the faith maintains now.
Why not try reading the link rather than expounding upon a false understanding? For example the earliest writings are from around 70CE which is 37-40 years later. You shoildn’t be making any claims when you are making mistakes this simple because you clearly aren’t coming from an educated perspective.
I’m not saying Jesus Christ in the Bible is a historical figure. I am saying there was a real human being that was a basis for the faith.
And again all of this is based on what actual academic historians maintain not religious figures. What is your take based upon other than conjecture?
Every source of evidence I have heard of concerning Jesus having actually existed is either from the Bible or from religious relics like the shroud of Turin, that also aren’t even real.
So you look at biased non-academic resources and then conclude that the belief is not academic? Do you not get the problem is the resources you are using?
I mentioned a very specific source to start with which is Reddit’s askhistorians FAQ. Try looking at that because it is entirely constructed off of academic history.
You can choose to believe whatever you want but the consensus of historians focused on this is that he had to exist in some fashion albeit not as a messiah.
You got a specific link for this source of info? Because I’m looking at their FAQ right now and the only thing even mentioning Jesus is specifically about what Askhistorians users think of Reza Asland and his work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
This is the answer in the FAQ which links to another as well.