Comment on Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?

• sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This stems from the fact that, so far, the earliest written fragments we have from what is now the New Testament are some of the writings of Paul.

  Paul was not one of the Apostles, and it seems possible that, after persecuting earlier, existing Christians, he could have basically had a stress induced psychotic break and hallucinated the vision of Jesus that he had, then converted.

  Thing is though, Christians would have to … you know exist and already be a real thing first, for that to make sense.

  It does explain why Paul does not mention some very key elements of the narrative of the Gospels: He just had not actually read about or heard of those parts yet.

  This creates some theological problems down the line, and some of those problems were ‘remedied’ by what a good deal of scholars and historians believe to be forgeries… chapters of the Bible that modern Christians attribute to Paul, but do not seem to actually have been written by Paul.

  source

  • Liz@midwest.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The explanation I heard was that it was likely Mary and Peter hallucinated Jesus only a few days after he died. That’s a very common timeframe for when people hallucinate seeing dead loved ones, and the early descriptions in Bible match the flavor of dead loved-one hallucinations people typically have, with the figure assuring the person everything will be all right and whatnot. Other descriptions (like Jesus appearing to all twelve disciples or crowds of people) seem to have been written later more as persuasive arguments, with doubting Tomas acting as the stand-in for the skeptical listener. This is all from “How Jesus Became God” and I have no idea how mainstream or fringe the author’s views are.

    source
  • GojuRyu@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.

    source

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I thought Paulogia’s minimum witnesses argument is basically that Paul could have hallucinated, and that those who witnessed an empty tomb basically did see an empty tomb, but circumstantial confusion led them to misinterpret what they saw?

      I’ll have to rewatch some of his vids.

      Also, hey, Goju Ryu! I trained in Shito Ryu =D

      source

      • GojuRyu@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
        I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
        I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.

        Oh nice! :D

        source