Funny how every single one of these right wing history youtubers proves to be completely ignorant of history.
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
98 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
833 readers
430 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He was a radical dissident that was killed by the government for criticizing them and for agitating the masses with his speeches.
Totally not political.
Even worse...... He was a radical dissident that was killed by reactionaries in his own community. Even the Romans were like....... You guys sure about this?
The whole pilate not wanting to execute jesus and the crowd shouting for clemency for barabas instead was probably added later to make christianity more palatable to the romans who didn’t want to see themselves as the villains
I mean..... Who hasn't wanted to edit their works of fiction at some point or another?
Jesus, the real guy as depicted in the bible, would have taken a whip to your average chud to drive them out of the temple. But today modern anglo heretics use Jesus as a blank slate to project their fucked up shit onto.
Bible Jesus wouldnt approve of like...aby of this but he also thought the world was gonna end innlike 30 years max. Apocalypticism was huge amongst jews at the time, like Beatlemania. Dude eas badically preaching to that Christmas is coming up soon and Santa is warching bt that parents do but with God ans the end times. If he thought shit was gonna keep going another couple thousand years he probably would have acted very different.
he was definitely executed by the Roman state, that the Jews did it has no historical support
I was working within the framework of the Bible, the vast majority of which has very little to no historical support.
The bible is also Roman propaganda
fair enough, I was thinking of the historical dude
He was a fictional character invented by an apocalyptic Jewish sect a century or so after his supposed life.
No serious historian thinks that. Jesus was definitely a real dude who was really a religious leader and really got executed.
Historians generally agree that there was a dude named Yeshua of Nazareth who was executed by the Romans but
The problem is that such a reductive historical Jesus is similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur, where the core person (if there ever was one to begin with) has been effectively lost, and potential candidates are presented as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.
That's not really a good comparison at all. There is not actually any direct evidence for King Arthur at all, even if it's possible he's somehow extremely loosely based on a figure that might have existed somewhere at some point. There is literally nothing we can say about a historical King Arthur. And Robin Hood has always been a purely folkloric figure, never even claimed to be a real historical person.
Compared to Arthur, we know far more about Jesus from far more sources - where he lived, when and how he died, who killed him, a few specific events from his life (baptism by John being the strongest one). We know about him from Jewish, early Christian, and Roman sources. We can guess within a decade where he was born. We know the name of his brother and the role he played in running the religious movement that formed after Jesus died! We have sources from only a decade or two after his death that discuss people who knew him personally.
Yes, the gospel stories are either obviously legendary or at least impossible to verify with the sources we have available. They were written after the religion was establishing a doctrine and they're full of contradictions with each other and with the non-canonical gospels as the followers of Jesus competed to define who he was and what he did. They probably do contain some genuine historical truths - specific actions, sayings, or miracles performed (magicians were a big deal in Judaism at this time). There's probably no way for us to separate out the real from the fictional, but that is not the same as saying it's all fictional.
where he lived,
Not with any degree of specificity, it's not like they had his address in an antiquarian phone book.
when and how he died,
We can assume that a guy got executed around 33 AD but not even what he got executed for. As the article mentions, there were probably hundreds of itinerant preachers around that time that could have been convenient pegs to hang the rest of the story on.
who killed him,
Not really:
"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mythicism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think). Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)
a few specific events from his life (baptism by John being the strongest one).
According to what? The New Testament or someone citing the New Testament?
Not with any degree of specificity, it's not like they had his address in an antiquarian phone book.
Obviously. If they didn't live in a palace, who's address do we know? Preposterous and irrelevant.
We can assume that a guy got executed around 33 AD but not even what he got executed for. As the article mentions, there were probably hundreds of itinerant preachers around that time that could have been convenient pegs to hang the rest of the story on.
We don't need to assume a guy got killed because there are multiple sources for Jesus's crucifixion by the Romans. There were definitely hundreds of itinereant preachers who could've spawned religions. One of them, Jesus, led to Christianity and a complex web of mythologies were constructed around him after his death.
Not really:
"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mythicism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think). Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)
Rome killed him. What scholars, exactly, are arguing for an earlier century?
According to what? The New Testament or someone citing the New Testament?
Most of the Pauline Epistles were indisputably written by a dude named Paul in the Levant a few decades after Jesus's death. He wrote about James. He wrote about actually existing churches and conflicts. These were not constructed a century later (except for the ones that obviously were,which has been determined via textual criticism and analysis) - they are much closer to contemporary than most classical historical figures! Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically fake. It is a corpus to which we can apply historical criticism like any other, not some exceptional fabrication.
Preposterous and irrelevant.
No, there's a point here. While history might be unable to converge on a lot of figures who actually lived due to poor recordkeeping and the inherent unreliability of a predominantly oral tradition, I was pointing out the alternative possibility that he was a composite figure based on multiple dudes who might've shared superficial similarities with the fictional character in the book but which can't be localized to a specific personality. The idea that that there was a Real Historical Jesus that was the prime mover for the ideological offshoot that went on to become Christianity ignores the more reasonable possibility that the movement arose as the result of the coordinated actions of a lot of people who converged on an account of a life that could have happened
We don't need to assume a guy got killed because there are multiple sources for Jesus's crucifixion by the Romans. There were definitely hundreds of itinereant preachers who could've spawned religions. One of them, Jesus, led to Christianity and a complex web of mythologies were constructed around him after his death.
The non-Christian sources all leave a lot to be desired. From the RationalWiki article:
The Jewish historian Josephus is claimed to be the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93-94 CE) with the two references being referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum and the "Jamesian Reference". However, there is much debate regarding how much of the Testimonium Flavianum (if any of it) was written by Josephus as there is no reference to it before the 4th century.
In his Annals (ca. 109 CE) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" (generally read as "Christus" but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"), in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source. Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.” His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.
Pliny the Younger was a Roman official who wrote innumerable letters. In one (ca. 112 CE), he references "Christians" (but not Jesus), and his "Christ" could have referred to innumerable other "messiahs" that various Jews were following.
Most of the Pauline Epistles were indisputably written by a dude named Paul in the Levant a few decades after Jesus's death. He wrote about James. He wrote about actually existing churches and conflicts. These were not constructed a century later (except for the ones that obviously were,which has been determined via textual criticism and analysis) - they are much closer to contemporary than most classical historical figures! Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically fake. It is a corpus to which we can apply historical criticism like any other, not some exceptional fabrication.
In addition to Paul writing about events two decades after the fact and never actually meeting Jesus,
Paul had no knowledge of Jesus' early life, just his claimed ultimate activities, and his teachings sometimes seem at variance with those of Jesus in the Gospels. He also does not mention the handful of churches that arose in Jesus' name, but having nothing to do with his own Christianity. Although Paul writes about numerous other people seeing Jesus, he provides no corroborating evidence or means by which they could be identified. He does (e.g. in Galatians) speak of meeting some of the Disciples, but, as the John Frum cult shows, even the mention of James (the Just) as Jesus' brother doesn't mean much as John Frum got Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who has only sisters) as a brother only 17 years after the first record of his movement.
Just because he talks about real stuff doesn't mean he can't also be making stuff up or embroidering actual events with fictional details. The existence to churches dedicated to Jesus also doesn't really say much, since there are a lot of churches dedicated to fictional entities.
Majority is a pretty bold statement. There are aspects without historical support, jews were most likely never Egyptian slaves and were probably a sect within the Canaanites that grew to dominance. I woild say that literal divine intervention is ahistorical, but while for sure skewed to the side of the writers, there is a solid amoimt of historical support behind the broad strokes of events in the Bible. The specifics and the god stuff isnprivsvlt made up but to say the vast majority has no historical support is absurd.
The majority of the new testament is personal testimony that was handed down by word of mouth for generations before actually being written down......
that the Jews did it has no historical support
??? why does so much indicating that pontius pilate was being pressured by Jewish leaders come up when i google it
Because it really seems like the state executed him... at the behest of local reactionaries
The local compradors didn't have control over the Roman state apparatus by virtue of being colonized subjects. Pilate indeed had Jesus's blood on his hands and no amount of making a public spectacle by washing his hands changes this. The only person who outranked Pilate was the Roman emperor himself, which meant everything fell on his shoulders. He could've just freed Jesus and there was no one there to stop him because Pilate had a Roman legion under his command while the Judean compradors didn't.
load more comments
(7 replies)
What are you seeing that's indicating that? What's understood about the hospital Jesus is very slim. He was a Galilean Jewish apocalyptic preacher. He was baptized by John the Baptist. He was crucified by the Roman state. Beyond that, nothing is certain. He probably has disciples. He was probably a miracle worker as was typical of his time. He probably caused some kind of stir at the Temple. That's about it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
of all the legit things to be critical of the pope/papacy about, the fact that he's generally anti-war is so instructive.
they can excuse the hierarchy, the wealth, the secrecy, the persecution of women, LGBTQ+, the protecting of child abusers, the gatekeeping, the rich history of violence, murder, and betrayal against those that most need protection, the fascist collaboration, etc, etc.
but being against war and bombing of cities... well, hold the phone.
i try to avoid believing in actual, literal evil but so many of these people seem to worship it.
I mean geez, why couldn't we get one of those Crusader popes? Those guys were all about war. /s
Jesus was white and was crucified in a spontaneous act of a anti white hate crime
Dont make Hegseth tap the sign
It's hilarious that modern day Christian nationalists don't realize that they are exactly the people who crucified Jesus the first time or that they would immediatly do it again if he showed up today.
Makes me almost wish I was a Christian cause it would give me hope that these awful fuckers would face the ultimate embarrassment in the afterlife.
he was the first victim of the white genocide in south africa
as a former catholic i hate how this new discourse has me defending Catholicism now
but these chuds are just making it so easy. making me have thoughts on how i'd love to lead a new inquisition until they are quickly dismissed
I know, I'm weekly fighting off intrusive thoughts to do entryism into the fucking catholic church
there is a collectivist streak and a "praise god by doing service to others" in some churches. at least there used to be.
my grandfather admired the Jesuits and liberation theology and was otherwise a bog standard lib catholic. but i think there's a brick wall at "moderate social democratic ideals"
but yeah i'm not suggesting such a thing i don't even know how it would be possible; be better to go after the "social catholics"
Thou shalt not kill
WHY'D YOU MAKE IT FUCKIN' POLITICAL
In all likelyhood he was a random doomsday preacher who was made a legend by the unknown gospel authors and Paul.
at some point that's like saying Paul Bunyan was based on a tall guy with the foot thing and it just got out of hand in retellings.
For the century after the Maccabees there were probably so many doomsday preachers named Joshua that everyone might have been talking about different guys and not realized it
They were talking about the same guy but it could have just as easily been a different similar guy.
Jesus was a 5'4", brown-skin socialist
Nothin' like the white man on that crucifix
The truth is there, you just won't notice it.
Grandson - Little White Lies
load more comments
(1 replies)
Raise the shieldwall noble ones!
It's true Jesus was maga he even had the hat, it was recently found in a dig site.
oh fuck, not this guy 
go back to crying about politics in vidya or better yet larping as a roman soldier and talking about ancient history
load more comments
(2 replies)
Mighty big talk from someone claiming to be God's mouthpiece
It takes a certain kind of testicular fortitude to name yourself after the Jewish angel who speaks for the lord to simultaniously whine about wokeness in video games and how others are doing Christianity wrong. I'm not saying it's hubris, but it's not not hubris.
Jonathan Davis became a trad-Cath?
view more: next ›