Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Yeshua ben Yosef

Actually, if I could think of the one thing most likely to make me believe that some rabbi named Jesus lived for a couple decades a couple millennia ago, it would be a growing consensus of Serious Western Scholars™ from Respected Research Institutions™ concluding through Reliable News Outlets™ that there was no such rabbi.

Really though. What could possibly be more reliable proof than such conclusions? Re-translated quotes referencing said rabbi from two thousand years of endlessly re-transcribed European primary sources passed through the hands of the feudal nobility and their despicably untrustworthy learned servants? Absolutely not. Pictures? Photoshopped. Audio recordings? Voxal. Firsthand experience? Actors and sets. Ultra-HD video of Jesus shaking hands with Alan Dershowitz, brought back from a time traveling expedition with accompanying testimony and sworn affidavits from Serious Western Anthropologists™ and Sociozionologists™? Sounds about as trustworthy as Colin Powell at the U.N. A bunch of people swearing that they've talked to this guy Jesus, and felt said rabbi's presence? Clearly unreliable; could be cuckoo, or wishful thinking, but definitely not something to base a logical conclusion on.

When a bunch of western academics start agreeing that there was no Jesus, though, things start to look different. Historically speaking, whatever the academic consensus produces is self-serving, pointless, and, perhaps less importantly, wrong. So however unpleasant it seems, it may be time to start reading Left Behind, people, and praying and all that other shit, because when a Regents Professor at the University of Formerly Mexico gets published in Academic Journals™ and draws the attention of Reliable News Outlets™ for telling us that some guy didn't exist, there's a 100-motherfucking-percent chance that the guy did exist.


  1. Yeah, I saw that stuff, and felt too defeated to even get annoyed

    Jesus aside, for me the elephant in the room is trying to "scientifically" prove that something does not exist (without even going into the inane arguments provided for that). LOL! You can only prove scientifically that something does exist, and only if it is something that appears with some regularity (Qualifies: boiling water, thunderstorms, supernovae etc.; Does not qualify: origin of life, origin of the universe).

    But, oh well. You can get away with anything if you are a scholar, especially a serious one.

    1. From a scientific perspective, analyzing "Jesus" should be like analyzing "Harry Potter"--it's something that, if they were really so confident in themselves and in their methods as they pretend to be, they wouldn't feel a need to do. Also, they'd consider it a complete waste of time, and go cure genocide or cancer instead.

  2. Considering the relentless stupidity of people, I think
    it's pretty obvious that Somebody is highly invested in keeping us around. Without Divine intervention it's hard to imagine us having lasted even as long as we have.

    The bass akwards rule is a sound one when dealing with academics or politicians. Just reverse everything they say and you'll find the Truth.

    Science seems perched on the edge of proving that the universe is just a hologram. It kind of makes me laugh, in the process of trying to prove that God doesn't exist, we're inadvertently proving that we don't.

    1. In the interests of non-discrimination, you should add a "prominent" to the front of the "academics or politicians." Plenty of them are okay people; they just don't get any airtime, so we all live our lives assuming they don't exist. Jim Carrey was rather channeling the right idea in Cable Guy, mmh?