Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]He had a psychotic break as a young man (probably schizophrenia would make the most sense) and started a cult. It was based on some good things so that’s cool. But obviously nothing else about him is true except he was a dude who got enough power to threaten the Romans and they killed him.

If there was this whole thing where the world knew the son of god was born, how on earth was he allowed to live in complete obscurity until he was an adult? I also believe that if anything about Mary is true, it’s likely she was raped by her father (or an adult Joseph while she was a child) got pregnant and had to “marry” to make do. [/quote]

Your take on Jesus is a mix of modern speculation, mythicist leanings, and alternative interpretations that pop up in skeptical circles, but it doesn’t align well with the mainstream scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus (drawn from ancient historians, archaeologists, and textual critics, not theologians). Keep in mind, the “historical Jesus” refers to the non-supernatural reconstruction: a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who gathered followers, preached about the Kingdom of God, and was crucified by the Romans around 30 CE. Miracles, divinity, and resurrection are seen as later theological additions by most secular scholars.

[u]However, this is far from scholarly consensus—it’s more of a fringe hypothesis in psychology and history. Most historians of ancient Judaism (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan) view Jesus as a rational, charismatic apocalyptic prophet, not someone with a clinical mental illness. His teachings fit squarely into 1st-century Jewish eschatology (end-times expectations), influenced by figures like John the Baptist, and don’t require a “psychotic break” to explain[/u].

Labeling him schizophrenic is anachronistic—ancient people didn’t have modern psychiatric categories, and behaviors like prophecy or ecstasy were often seen as divinely inspired, not pathological.

As for starting a “cult”: Yes, he led a small apocalyptic sect within Judaism, emphasizing ethical reforms (love your neighbor, care for the poor) that had broad appeal. But “cult” implies something sinister or manipulative; scholars see it more as a reform movement that grew posthumously into Christianity. The “good things” (e.g., Sermon on the Mount ethics) are indeed core to his historical message, but the power threat to Romans is spot-on—he was executed for sedition, likely for claiming kingship in a messianic sense, which challenged Roman authority.

[color=red]Your theory captures some edgy, rationalist angles that challenge traditional Christianity, and parts (like the Roman execution and ethical core) match historical consensus. But the psychosis and rape elements are more hypothesis than fact, often used in anti-religious polemics. If you’re interested in deeper dives, books like Ehrman’s “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” or Schaberg’s work lay out the evidence without dogma.[/color][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics