I’m writing this as someone who has mostly lived in the US and Canada. Personally, I find the whole “lying to children about Christmas” thing just a bit weird (no judgment on those who enjoy this aspect of the holiday). But because it’s completely normalized in our culture, this is something many people have to deal with.
Two questions:
What age does this normally happen? I suppose you want the “magic of Christmas” at younger ages, but it gets embarrassing at a certain point.
And how does it normally happen? Let them find out from others through people at school? Tell them explicitly during a “talk”? Let them figure it out on their own?
Jesus probably did exist, but he probably didn’t commit miracles.
Exactly. Also, fun fact: If I recall correctly, there were a lot of religious preachers/prophets at the time. A good example is John the Baptist. Why do you think he baptised Jesus? So Jesus could now be a member of John’s church/cult/club/group/whatever. My personal headcannon (i.e I don’t have evidence to back it up but it just makes a lot of sense) is that Jesus learned how to lead a religion by example from John the Baptist and used that to grow his own religious group. And if it wasn’t for the crucifixion, Jesus’s religious group would have never grown to be so popular that it eventually spread throughout the Roman Empire. Now, I’m guessing the resurrection got added to the story either because Jesus was still alive when removed from the cross and then nursed back to health, or because someone saw him before the crucifixion and somehow got into his head that the time they saw Jesus was after the crucifixion and the story spread mouth to mouth, changing over time. Of course, as it turns out that was among main topics of discussion during the Council of Nicaea: should Jesus be perceived as human or as divine?
If you read the text carefully, no one saw him alive after the crucifiction. Just some lights and some stuff magically moved around when no one was looking. No reason for him to have survived, if his followers were fast and quiet etc.
But yeah, there are several possible “sons of god” at the time. Jesus is just a confabulation of them.
Well, idk about “sons of god” but there were certainly many many prophets at the time. Jesus wasn’t anything special (if he was, in fact, real, and not just an amalgamation of multiple popular prophets at the time)
Source?
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
In a modern survey of Jesus is Definitely Real and Was The Son of God and Died and Rose Again for Our Sins scholars, they unanimously believe that Jesus was real.
Do not argue against it. It’s on Wikipedia. Those are the guys who were cited, so he’s real.
Silly me - wondering if there was a contemporary, unbiased historian who maybe could have heard of him
Exactly. There is about as much proof of Jesus of Nazareth existing as there is of King Arthur existing.
Saying “he probably did exist” is like saying “my dog probably speaks English to his fellow dogs.” It is meaningless without objective evidence.
People tend to say “he probably did exist” simply to hedge their bet or to not go against the grain of the mainstream belief system. I, for one, have been provided no objective evidence (by claimants such as religionists) of the existence of such a person and therefore I have no reason to accept the mainstream belief of his existence.
Agreed. People don’t take into account the fact that historians have existed for a long time and probably would have noticed a person as revolutionary as the one mentioned in the gospels - miracles or not. The Romans were excellent record keepers, and that is how we know for a fact - for example - that Herod’s timeline does not jibe with the virgin birth myth, nor did the Roman survey methodology jibe with the Bethleham journey myth, to cite two examples among so many others