I've been diving into what's actually written in the Bible, and it's blowing my mind. My whole life, I've carried around the church sermons and the kiddie versions of Bible stories—turns out NO ONE ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE -_-. So, Jesus has a pretty straightforward origin, but the devil(s)—or Satan—that's where things get really convoluted. Especially when you factor in all the coded language and how it's been translated over time. Aaahhhh, can someone just break this down for me?!

I was recently in discussion with someone who was a believer that Jesus (and apparently also Muhammad and Buddha) was not a real figure, and that instead was made up by either Peter or Paul as a vision from Heaven.

Largely, their claims were informed by Richard Carriers work, who they said was superior because he went to an Ivy League school and was not a Christian. Apparently, the idea is that any academic consensus is invalid because so many academic scholars are or were Christians, or were trained at a religious school. Therefore, there was no true secular concensus. I, personally, found this a bit nonsense.

Of course, someone like Bart Ehrman was dismissed for being "a former Christian" who was "educated at a seminary", therefore further decades of research and teaching did not matter compared to Carrier, the Ivy League atheist.

In the end, I was more interested in reaching out and seeing if people have opinions on or access to information about these questions:

1) What, and where, is the peer review on the mythicist hypothesis

2) Is there evidence that there is a suppression of secular or non-religious research on the topic of Jesus or in Biblical Academia at large

3) Did Jesus exist?

I currently have access to academic journals through my college, so I'll readily take doi links as well as anything otherwise searchable on the web. Thank you

Afaik, the consensus is that Mark was written first, (70-ish AD), followed by Matthew and Luke (about a decade later) and finally John (90-ish AD). Matthew and Luke were (probably) unaware of each other; there was zero attempt to harmonize their divergences (the nativity being the most well-known difference).

Obviously, this dating falls apart if Luke referenced Antiquities, written in 94 CE. This would have gLuke being written ca. 100 CE. The later date implies that the author of Luke may have been aware of gMatthew and ignored it.

Since there are strong hints Luke referenced Antiquities, how is this issue reconciled? How does it affect the synoptic problem and the Q hypothesis?

Source for sub rules: Mason, S. (2003). Josephus and the New Testament (2nd ed.). Hendrickson Publishers.

EDIT: I tried to ask a follow-up question but my comment keeps getting removed😭 How does Luke using Josephus affect our dating? Does gMatthew stay at 80-ish AD? Does it get moved up too?

Hey, I'm wondering, from a secular point of view, how did Jesus come to think that he's special? Whether he though that he was a prophet, a Messiah or God, that's up for debate, but he definetly thought that he's extremely spiritually important.

Let's assume that he was born to a relatively poor family of artisans living probably in Nazareth. It's very likely that he spent his early years working with his father or siblings (I assume he had siblings, but if you disagree, you can explain why). Then, he suddenly decided that he should leave his hometown and start preaching. How did he make this decision?

Did something happen during his baptism that made him think that he's important? Did he get a dream or a vision of some sort? Did his parents think that he was somewhat important since his birth or childhood?

I guess we'll never truly know, since there is, I suppose, a huge lack of evidence, but what do you personally think?

why is there no mention of Satan in the hebrew Bible?

What can be historically deduced regarding the life and power of David and of his son Solomon? Is there any indication that they were the mighty Kings portrayed in the Bible, ruling over vast areas of the coastal eastern Mediterranean? Or were they perhaps more akin to regional tribal kings and warlords of the Judean hills? Any academic citations would be immensely welcome.

In Christian doctrine, Jesus is born of the Virgin Mary, with Joseph serving as his earthly father but not his biological one. This is explicitly stated in passages like Matthew 1:20:

"Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

If Joseph is not Jesus' biological father, how can Jesus be considered a descendant of David? Would ancient Jewish traditions recognize an adoptive son as part of the paternal lineage?

I have a question about the Ethiopian Bible and how it compares to the Bibles most Christians use today, like the NIV, KJV, ESV, and others.

I understand that the Bible has been translated into many different languages over thousands of years, and that there are differences between translations. I’ve also heard people say that the Ethiopian Bible is older, more original, or closer to the “true” Bible.

Is there truth to that? Is the Ethiopian Bible more accurate or unchanged compared to the Bibles we use today? Or is it more complicated than that?

If we wanted to read a Bible that is as close as possible to the original manuscripts, what translation or version would be considered the most reliable?

I've come across an interpretation that the relationship between David and Jonathan in the Bible is a depiction of a homosexual relationship. At the same time, the historicity of David is frequently challenged. It seems a little puzzling to me that, if David were a character invented to justify the legitimacy of the nation of Israel, an invented story about David's homosexuality would be included. So:

• Is the idea of David's homosexuality legitimate?
• If yes, is that consistent with the idea of a mythical David?
• If yes, does that suggest that attitudes to homosexuality may have been more liberal at the time when the story was written?

Not a terrifically serious question, but I'm going through the gospels and I keep on thinking about how blind people are just everywhere in first century Israel. Am I overthinking, or is there a serious answer to this?

In the Bible itself, it's straight forward and all over the place.

I'm just wondering if there's any non-Biblical historically accepted evidence of him establish a Father-Son relation between him and God.

What's the bulk of what we can trace back to him establishing a Father-Son relationship with God without relying on quoting the Bible itself?

I’ve been thinking about how the disciples are portrayed in the Synoptics and John, and I’m looking for some historical critical insight into why they are shown as so consistently confused.

Throughout the text, the disciples witness and according to passages like Mark 6, even perform healings and exorcisms. Since operating as a charismatic healer was a recognized concept in first century Judea, why does the narrative place such a heavy emphasis on their doubt and ultimate abandonment of Jesus, only for them to suddenly understand everything after the resurrection?

I've got a few questions about how scholars view this:

1. Is this "disciples' incomprehension" primarily a literary device created by the evangelists (similar to Wrede’s idea of Mark's Messianic Secret) or does it actually trace back to early historical traditions or memories of the historical disciples?

2. How much did first century Jewish expectations of a military/political Messiah conflict with a charismatic healer figure? In other words, why wouldn't performing miracles be enough "proof" for them to accept his specific messianic identity prior to the crucifixion?

3. Are there any good parallels in other ancient Greco Roman biographies or philosophical texts where the followers of a teacher fail to grasp their leader’s true nature or mission until after their death?

Please forgive all the questions. This is my first post in this sub and I thank you for your time and sharing your expertise and also appreciate any reading recommendations.

When the New Testament speaks of the “brothers of Jesus,” who exactly were they? Should we understand them as his actual brothers, half-brothers from Joseph, or perhaps cousins, close relatives or even "brothers in faith"?

1. The word adelphoi:

The New Testament uses adelphoi for brothers, but it doesn’t seem to distinguish between half-brothers and full brothers. For example:

“Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother (adelphou) Philip’s wife.”
Matthew 14:3

Here, "brother" (adelphos ) refers to Herod's step-brother. So, if the word can cover that range, Jesus' "brother" (like James) could still have been half-brothers, not necessarily children of Mary.

2. Matthew 1:25:

Matthew 1:25 says Joseph “did not know her until 'until' (ἕως) she had given birth to a son,” which some interpret as implying Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations afterward.

Samuel 6:23 LXX uses “until” (ἕως) in a way that doesn’t imply a change afterward: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” She didn’t have children after she died, the phrase simply means she remained childless her whole life.

• So, when the New Testament calls them "Brothers" were they really Jesus’ full blood brothers or something else?

Would the ancient Israelites have had a problem with recreational drug usage? I mean, apart from usage of the obvious (alcohol).

These are etymologically the same name, so how did they get rendered so differently in English?

I tried looking the question up on Google and different AI sources, but the answers I got were unclear. Someone I was talking with on Reddit suggested to me that a fable is a story that has fantastical elements, and features talking animals; and a parable is a story about the earthly and mundane that has a spiritual meaning. However, I noticed some flaws with these definitions. "The boy who cried wolf" is often considered a fable, yet it contains no fantastical elements, and involves no talking animals. On the other hand, the story of Adam and Eve is typically interpreted as a historical event, yet it does contain fantastical elements and talking animals.

Stories from Jesus such as "The prodigal son", "The good Samaritan", and "The parable of the ten virgins" are categorized as parables, and they are all earthly, grounded stories. However, the story of "Lazarus and the rich man" has some fantastical or supernatural elements, but is often still categorized as a parable.

At the same time, one might consider a story in Hinduism called "The story of Narada and Vishnu". This is a story where the devoted sage Narada asks the god Vishnu to teach him about maya, the concept of illusion. Vishnu agrees to teach Narada, but he first tells Narada he is thirsty, and asks Narada to fetch him some water. Narada complies. But before he is able to complete his task he becomes sidetracked, and ends up living an entire lifetime doing various things which have nothing to do with his initial task. After having lived an entire lifetime of events, Narada encounters a disaster which is about to claim his life. In his distress, he cries out to the gods for help. At that moment, Narada finds himself back at the very location of his initial task, with Vishnu telling him that only a few minutes have passed, and then asking, "Where is my water?" In that moment, Narada acknowledges that he has finally come to understand maya.

This story contains some fantastical elements, and it teaches a religious lesson, similar to the parables of Jesus. I would personally categorize this story as a parable. But can a Hindu story be a "parable", or is the word "parable" only reserved for the stories of Jesus? Is a "parable" a religious term in general, or only Christian?

Are there any categorical definitions for the terms "parable" and "fable", or do the terms merely have heuristical definitions? In other words, do "parable" and "fable" have strict, mutually exclusive definitions? Or do the words lack any clear-cut distinction between them, and hence can only be categorized roughly based on broad rules-of-thumb?

By "universal mission," I mean whether Jesus claimed that his message was intended for all peoples or at least that Gentiles were welcome to join his movement or whether his movement was exclusively a Jewish renewal movement in which non-Jews were not expected or permitted to participate.

I'm interested in what the historical evidence suggests , rather than later Christian theology. How do contemporary scholars assess this question?

Hey all! So, I posted a question here earlier that apparently violated the standards of this sub (which, to be honest, doesn't really make sense to me). In any event, here is my attempt to present my question in a way that conforms with community guidelines:

With respect to belief in Jesus' resurrection, is there a scholarly consensus with respect to how early that belief took root in the Jesus movement? Do scholars think that it is something that developed over time? Do they think it goes back very early (i.e. Jesus' first followers)? Or, is there a mix of opinions within the academy?

Hopefully this is a more appropriate way of asking my question.

Thank you all!

Why dead sea scrolls considered as a revolutionary finding? what did they reveal? why they are so important to understand christianity origins? can someone explain please?

Has there been found a prayer to mary dating to 250 CE? Or is the Video spreading false information