Now whether Jesus was a divine being, sure that picture depicts the evidence of that. But we “know” that a man named Jesus certainly existed and was crucified.
Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don’t believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don’t believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field. When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists. When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion. Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject, the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case. But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists.
We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?
When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?
I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion.
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject,
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case.
In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can’t do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.
But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.
Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed.
It also means that we can’t assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn’t exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can’t disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.
Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepting everything on faith.
If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn’t mean we have to.
If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.
Please present your evidence. On my side I have a century of textual analysis that shows that everyone involved in the documentation process was a liar, as well as legendary figures such as William Tell, John Frumm, and Ned Lud.
Oh really the dead sea scrolls mention Jesus of Nazareth? Please inform me. What did you find in the scrolls that mentions him?
This is going to be so amusing.
it is unlikely that people made him up at that time, then had random people talk and write about him.
You mean the way people did with Ned Ludd going so far as to write letters claiming to be him? Or the way they did with John Frumm? Or William Tell? In any case we don’t actually need that to happen. Of the 27 books of the OT 23 follow the traditions of St. Paul directly. A man who admitted that he never once saw Jesus. The remaining borrowed from Paul and a theoretically community (no evidence for) founded by James. We don’t need random people to do it. We have a charismatic well spoken leader who spoke of his visions.
By your standards, Alexander the Great did not exist,
You don’t know what my standards are. You are assuming not asking. Also we have a physical inscription written contemporary about the man from a disinterested party.
Socrates was a dream,
I wonder what blog you are copying now. He could have been but the claim of the man is ordinary so it unlikely to be a forgery. Besides the stories of him were written for an audience that knew him and no one is recorded objecting.
and Siddartha Guatama was a fable.
You really should cite the blog you are copying and posting from. We have some evidence that he existed. Since we have the Sangha and that shows signs of having one person creating it. We have relics such as the tree sapling of his tree. We have references in the Pali Canon that hint that the speaker was part of the royal lines by references. Again it isn’t even a crazy claim. Wandering monks existed in the 5th century BCE and almost none of his work is unique, it was a continuation of a philosophy tradition.
That’s just not how it works.
“Your” entire argument is basically since humans accept bad evidence sometimes we must accept bad evidence all of the time. You can’t prove that your best buddy existed so you try to prove that since I am an imperfect thinker I have to be naive and accept you on faith about everything else. Sorry but that’s just not how it works.
I am looking forward to you being too embarrassed to mention the dead sea scrolls in your next comment. Really looking forward to it. Don’t worry, I will remind you ;)
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
This is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. These scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes. Until you have evidence that either disproves his existence or disproves all the historical records, this is contrarian nonsense with no basis in how historical research is done.
hese scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes.
That is untrue. The consensus that he likely existed isn’t founded on any contemporary evidence, because there is none. They assume he existed from events and sources that all stems from a period after he purportedly died.
The fact that there isn’t any contemporary evidence is an indisputable fact, acknowledged by the historians who believe that Jesus existed as well.
You want a citation that there is no evidence? Isnt this reversing the burden of proof? Claims require evidence, lack of evidence is not something that has to be demonstrated.
Well a good place to start is the citations at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on the historic figure of Jesus I know many others have posted and you are quite conveniently ignoring. After that it’s probably lots of googling and going to libraries and archives to find the information you’re looking for.
And you sound like you are comparing medical science to the bible.
I am fully vaxxed and boosted, my wife and kids are fully vaxxed and boosted. When the new booster comes out we will all be getting that one. I also make sure the entire family has the flu shot each year. Vaccines are freaken awesome.
Now, do you want to present evidence for the historical Jesus or do you want to try another personal attack? I have a receding hairline you can poke fun at that if you want. Me personally I would rather discuss historical truths instead of the personal flaws of people in a debate.
The problem with all of this “evidence” is that Christians don’t want to officially recognize any of it because it proves Jesus or Joseph as he was probably called. Was just a normal guy.
I am still waiting for the evidence. We have Paul who didn’t see anything, despite being in the area when it all supposedly went down, we have him call into question the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and despite spend decades with Christians only seems to know 11 facts about Jesus. Then we get complete silence for 50 years and an off-hand mention of the some hearsay by a man who believed in a literal Adam and Eve as historical fact.
Meanwhile every single part of the Jesus con is found in the stories and history that was around at the time. It is a hacky unoriginal derivative work with all of the evidence conveniently missing.
That wiki article presents zero historical evidence and is full of references to biblical scholars claiming there was s areal historical Jesus because the bible says so.
Pure garbage source.
Thats literally not true. It provides multiple non-christian historians (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus). Theres all kinds of charismatic leaders today that people ascribe religious meaning to, I’m not sure why some people have a hard time believing a charismatic dude had followers who believed he was god.
Is the implication here that a bunch of Jewish people started pretending there was a guy named Jesus and that he was the messiah, and pretending that he lived a few decades back, and that multiple different sources very quickly picked up the same general story of this pretend man’s life, and that’s more plausible than people following a charismatic leader and deifying him after he died?
The written record we have only mentions two eyewitnesses by name. Both of which were saying this guy died. You don’t need a cast conspiracy, only two people to keep a secret. The written record was authored by a person who was there when things were happening but saw nothing and heard nothing until years later.
What is more likely a charismatic leader vanishes from the entire historical record, the one person who writes the events down doesn’t seem to know anything about what happened, and then silence for over 50 years? And when the records do start they just happen to be pulled from other popular myths of the time and place?
Ffs if they had copyright law back in the day the authors of the Gospels would have been sued for violating it.
The reduction Jesus doesn’t even work. Even if you reduce him down to some guy named Jesus who pissed the Romans off you wouldn’t be able to account for the community that popped up. Additionally you still can’t prove that this diet Jesus event happened, you just lowered the claim so much that it is not plausible instead of impossible.
What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.
Yeps. Even Tacticus mentions how weird it was that the leader was dead but yet the movement continued. If the leader is very much alive and making up stories about his dead brother for decades it makes more sense.
Also had a precedent in Jewish history. When the temple was closed the leader of the revolt died and his son (so many references to Peter being the successor to Jesus) took over and eventually did restore the temple.
I disagree. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so starting from that common ground shows Christians that you are following the consensus views and are discussing in good faith with them
Well first off that really isn’t my problem. If there is no evidence that someone in history existed it is not my fault. Go dig in the dirt and find it.
Secondly you will notice that every time this argument is brought up they always reference a historical figure who we do have evidence, while they were alive, that they existed. Julius Ceaser is usually cited.
Third, even the reduced to the minimum non-supernatural Jesus is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the minimum Jesus is to believed he came from a one-horse town with no one literate. Mastered the arts of illusions. Migrated. Within six months convinced a bunch of people to abandon their families. Got several people to help him with his tricks. Figured out the rock formation under Gallie. Convinced all of them to follow them to what was definitely suicide.
Now the fun part is what happens next. Pilat decides for no reason at all not to go after the rest of them, they form two separate communities, become a threat to the Pharisees on their own turf, inspire Paul to attack them, convert him, get him to start his own counter-counter movement off the original movement. All the while they are able to survive attacks by everyone around them for well over a century. The timeline for all these movements, counter movements, counter counter movements, multiple communities? 1-3 years.
Could you do this? Do you think with the clothing on your back you could go to a backwater of a backwater and pull all this off in the same time period? Could anyone do this?
…Umm…did you ever consider that instead of all those extraordinary magic tricks and social engineering occurring…
…That they just lied and embellished in an era where people told tales of gods and the supernatural? Like you’re assuming we need proof that all the things Jesus was said to have done happened in some form, when in reality the only thing that had to happen is that he was persecuted in Rome during a time when we know Rome was doing that.
Like you’re focusing so much on this that it looks silly and detracts from much better arguments against Christianity…
I did consider it. The thing is the Gospel miracles are all variations on common magic tricks in the area at that time. If someone made them up decades later why not make up bigger ones? To me it made more sense for James to claim his non-existent brother did those same tricks that way it would sound familiar. You always want to tell the most minimum lie you can get away with. If I told you I was late for work because of a flat tire you are more likely to believe me than if I said because I was defusing a hostage situation.
Additionally if you look at the formula school you notice a repeating pattern to the miracles. Jesus is asked to solve a problem, no one thinks he can, he does, everyone is shocked. All these repetitive stories hints at a core one a core lie.
Plus you still have Paul to worry about which your reduced Jesus doesn’t cover.
Ok, Pompeii. Less than a century later, before Constantine reskinned the Roman religion with the Christian label, we’ve found hidden shrines and symbols used by followers of Jesus. And uncovered very recently - not much room for it to be falsified. There’s also contemporary accounts that spread extremely fast throughout the Roman empire and beyond, but those weren’t buried under ash until the modern era.
That’s a long way to go in very little time - that’s only maybe 3-4 degrees away from the original source. Not nearly long enough for a mythical figure to develop organically
You can dispute the details, but someone must’ve been the figurehead at the very least. The gospels themselves hint at the events being staged to some extent by a small group spreading an ideology according to a literal plan - the public events literally start with Jesus’s cousin gathering support for the movement, and then Jesus goes around recruiting specific people as apostles
The Romans also kept records - there’s a lot of corroborating evidence for certain events spread too far and wide for a pre-information age society to fabricate. Even things like his birthdate - I think they’ve been able to narrow it down to a few days in July, during the census, where we had accounts of a temporary new star in the sky
Even the papers that are given clickbait-y headlines like “historians dispute the existence of Jesus” generally dispute certain aspects, there was almost certainly a historical figure named Jesus who was killed by the Romans for inciting a resistance movement
That’s a long way to go in very little time - that’s only maybe 3-4 degrees away from the original source. Not nearly long enough for a mythical figure to develop organically
It went down in 79AD, a fully 43-46 years after the supposed events and at least 41.5 to 39 years after Paul began his missionary trips across the Roman Empire. To be clear you are arguing a strawman. I believe Paul was real and I believe James was real. I think it was a con job. This wasn’t a myth that organically made itself, this was centuries of Jewish legends/stories/culture that was hijacked.
Also I asked for contemporary source not hearsay “3-4” times removed.
You can dispute the details, but someone must’ve been the figurehead at the very least.
Sure they had a mythical figurehead. It would explain why the Romans left them alone for decades after the supposed events. They were running a mystery-cult / charity organization and were saying that their leader had already been killed. Also would explain why Paul didn’t know pretty much anything about the details.
The gospels themselves hint at the events being staged to some extent by a small group spreading an ideology according to a literal plan - the public events literally start with Jesus’s cousin gathering support for the movement, and then Jesus goes around recruiting specific people as apostles
Could be. I admit I hadn’t thought of that. I promise to look into it. I assumed that they were sorta reverse engineering the “known” events. Building a narrative after the fact, a retrocon.
The Romans also kept records - there’s a lot of corroborating evidence for certain events spread too far and wide for a pre-information age society to fabricate. Even things like his birthdate - I think they’ve been able to narrow it down to a few days in July, during the census, where we had accounts of a temporary new star in the sky
And those records don’t show anyone by that name in that city or being crucified. As for the star thing keep in mind the Gospel writers were multiple decades later well enough time to fit the data to the narrative. The census is a classic example of this. It was known that a census had been done around that time it was also “known” that Jesus was from Nazareth but was supposed to be from Bethlehem so the census is given for the reason.
Even the papers that are given clickbait-y headlines like “historians dispute the existence of Jesus” generally dispute certain aspects, there was almost certainly a historical figure named Jesus who was killed by the Romans for inciting a resistance movement
I don’t care about consensus or other writers. I care about evidence. Please present it. You gave me evidence that there were Christians decades later, which is not what I asked for.
That is just wrong. There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity. Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him, and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts, but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up, and is still enough that it’s widely believed that he was a real guy. If what he taught was true or not is another story.
Secular scholars consider the historical account of Jesus existing in the writings of the Roman Jewish Historian Josephus. There are extra biblical references to him. Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person. His ministry wasn’t even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.
Repeating stories he heard decades later. Hearsay by people who had an incentive to lie. Josephus also said things like this:
Now Adam, who was the first man, and made out of the earth, (for our discourse must now be about him,) after Abel was slain, and Cain fled away, on account of his murder, was solicitous for posterity, and had a vehement desire of children, he being two hundred and thirty years old; after which time he lived other seven hundred, and then died. He had indeed many other children, 1 but Seth in particular. As for the rest, it would be tedious to name them; I will therefore only endeavor to give an account of those that proceeded from Seth. Now this Seth, when he was brought up, and came to those years in which he could discern what was good, became a virtuous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.
It’s interesting to me that you consider him a valid source for one thing you can’t prove but reject pretty much everything else the man said especially since you can’t really disprove the Adam and Eve story.
Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person
Interesting because your boy Josphius was in the area and wasn’t aware Nazareth even existed. In any case truth doesn’t depend on how many people assert something.
His ministry wasn’t even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.
Thank you. I was looking for a place to point out that the evidence is the bible and historical figures saying that these people say this. I mean if there was actual roman data from a census (which supposedly was being done when he was born) and government paperwork around the crucifixion that would be different.
but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed
How do we know this?
Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him,
Spiderman must exist as well. Also all the books about him were written multiple decades later.
and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts,
You mean the Gnostic stuff written two centuries later or the Talmudic stuff written only a mere 150-400 years later?
but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up,
Means motive and opportunity. Means, the early stories are all ripped off. Motive, sex and greed. Opportunity, if Paul is to believed in his 7 undisputed letters the only two people to see the resurrection are Peter and James and “the twelve” who he doesn’t name and never met.
We know this because a group of followers doesn’t just form and grow without someone they are following. The entire teachings of everyone within his group revolves around Jesus, and if he didn’t exist then Christianity never began. People need a leader to form a group, they don’t just all be together and say hey, let’s make up a dude and then follow what we made up. They believed enough to die for their group, and they believed enough to dedicate themselves to growing it. That doesn’t just happen if you made it on a whim or made up a key point of your story which could be validated. Additionally just because books were written multiple decades later doesn’t mean that they were completely made up. People can live multiple decades, and stories of experiences and knowledge of people can survive this long easily too. We also don’t know what they knew at the time because lots of information about Jesus that would have survived had been altered much much later by kings who wished to use Christianity for control, we of course know he didn’t completely make up Jesus as there are books referencing him from before this happened, however it does mean our information now is more limited than theirs, so we can’t assume they made this up based upon the same information we have now. It is both logical and just true that they would have had access to more valid information than we do today. They where also often scholars who’s job it was to write about true people and to prove together missing info and validate this sort of thing is even real. With all the information that was available at the time they still believed he existed. We can’t say just because such evidence was lost doesn’t mean that they all came to an invalid conclusion or all made it up. It’s just illogical. As for actual biblical events that had few witnesses, it’s fine to believe that that was made up, or information was lost so it was believed that something happened when in reality there is an entirely different reality that we just don’t have what we would need to piece together today. As we are assuming many stories are being made up or are incorrectly accounted throughout it, it’s not fair to say any events in his life happened based on the book alone, so this a mute point.
TLDR Jesus was real because he formed a group that still exists and followed his teachings from the beginning. Groups don’t just form and follow a fake persons teachings and still believe it and constantly lie about his existence. Scholars closer to his life who had more information than we do now believed he existed, and we can’t invalidate multiple scholars with more information than us just because we don’t have that information anymore.
Right so here is the thing. We know someone kicked Christianity off, it couldn’t have been fully organic. This doesn’t mean that because you have established that there must be a founder the founder is of the form you want it to be.
James could have made up the whole story. There is more evidence pointing that way than a historical Jesus.
There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity.
We actually don’t know any of that, and that is not what the historical consensus is either.
I am always curious about how the Jesus was real crowd explains all these things Jesus supposedly taught that no one seems to know about until about fifty years later. And why these things he taught just happen to be from a subset of the Greek OT that was popular at the time. Strange how an Aramaic speaking rabbi, in an area with a 1% literacy rate, would only quote from a book written in Greek. And no one is aware of these parables and sayings.
According to Paul these are all the things that Jesus taught:
Don’t get divorced and if you do the woman is never to marry someone else
Yeah i mean sure, but that’s like saying a guy named Chris existed and died in a car accident. That doesn’t mean he had superpowers and can turn into Optimus prime
Not really. There isn’t any contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. The historical consensus that he was likely real was constructed from later sources.
This is just patently untrue.
Now whether Jesus was a divine being, sure that picture depicts the evidence of that. But we “know” that a man named Jesus certainly existed and was crucified.
Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don’t believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don’t believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
I do as well and I am still waiting for the evidence that he wasn’t a myth.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field. When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists. When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion. Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject, the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case. But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?
You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?
I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can’t do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.
Alright? Does that make the claim true?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.
Very well. You must believe in ghosts.
It also means that we can’t assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn’t exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can’t disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.
If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn’t mean we have to.
If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.
I disagree.
Bro you should sue whatever educational institution you went to. They fucking duped you lmao
You are in a bad spot here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
It doesn’t even take that long to find credible sources to demonstrate that denying the historicity of Jesus is the fringe theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
This is a meaningless hill to die on. You are simply wrong and you should move on to things that are actually valuable.
Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???
Right so you will be producing that historical evidence when exactly?
Removed by mod
Please present your evidence. On my side I have a century of textual analysis that shows that everyone involved in the documentation process was a liar, as well as legendary figures such as William Tell, John Frumm, and Ned Lud.
Removed by mod
Hey still waiting for you to show me the part of the Dead Sea Scrolls that mention Jesus. You weren’t lying about your god were you? Hehehe
Oh really the dead sea scrolls mention Jesus of Nazareth? Please inform me. What did you find in the scrolls that mentions him?
This is going to be so amusing.
You mean the way people did with Ned Ludd going so far as to write letters claiming to be him? Or the way they did with John Frumm? Or William Tell? In any case we don’t actually need that to happen. Of the 27 books of the OT 23 follow the traditions of St. Paul directly. A man who admitted that he never once saw Jesus. The remaining borrowed from Paul and a theoretically community (no evidence for) founded by James. We don’t need random people to do it. We have a charismatic well spoken leader who spoke of his visions.
You don’t know what my standards are. You are assuming not asking. Also we have a physical inscription written contemporary about the man from a disinterested party.
I wonder what blog you are copying now. He could have been but the claim of the man is ordinary so it unlikely to be a forgery. Besides the stories of him were written for an audience that knew him and no one is recorded objecting.
You really should cite the blog you are copying and posting from. We have some evidence that he existed. Since we have the Sangha and that shows signs of having one person creating it. We have relics such as the tree sapling of his tree. We have references in the Pali Canon that hint that the speaker was part of the royal lines by references. Again it isn’t even a crazy claim. Wandering monks existed in the 5th century BCE and almost none of his work is unique, it was a continuation of a philosophy tradition.
“Your” entire argument is basically since humans accept bad evidence sometimes we must accept bad evidence all of the time. You can’t prove that your best buddy existed so you try to prove that since I am an imperfect thinker I have to be naive and accept you on faith about everything else. Sorry but that’s just not how it works.
I am looking forward to you being too embarrassed to mention the dead sea scrolls in your next comment. Really looking forward to it. Don’t worry, I will remind you ;)
This is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. These scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes. Until you have evidence that either disproves his existence or disproves all the historical records, this is contrarian nonsense with no basis in how historical research is done.
That is untrue. The consensus that he likely existed isn’t founded on any contemporary evidence, because there is none. They assume he existed from events and sources that all stems from a period after he purportedly died.
The fact that there isn’t any contemporary evidence is an indisputable fact, acknowledged by the historians who believe that Jesus existed as well.
Citation needed.
You want a citation that there is no evidence? Isnt this reversing the burden of proof? Claims require evidence, lack of evidence is not something that has to be demonstrated.
May I see those historical records? May I see even one?
Well a good place to start is the citations at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on the historic figure of Jesus I know many others have posted and you are quite conveniently ignoring. After that it’s probably lots of googling and going to libraries and archives to find the information you’re looking for.
How is that contemporary evidence coming along?
You sound like an anti vaxxer
And you sound like you are comparing medical science to the bible.
I am fully vaxxed and boosted, my wife and kids are fully vaxxed and boosted. When the new booster comes out we will all be getting that one. I also make sure the entire family has the flu shot each year. Vaccines are freaken awesome.
Now, do you want to present evidence for the historical Jesus or do you want to try another personal attack? I have a receding hairline you can poke fun at that if you want. Me personally I would rather discuss historical truths instead of the personal flaws of people in a debate.
Are you okay?
Doing fine. Want to mention my vaccination records again?
The problem with all of this “evidence” is that Christians don’t want to officially recognize any of it because it proves Jesus or Joseph as he was probably called. Was just a normal guy.
I am still waiting for the evidence. We have Paul who didn’t see anything, despite being in the area when it all supposedly went down, we have him call into question the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and despite spend decades with Christians only seems to know 11 facts about Jesus. Then we get complete silence for 50 years and an off-hand mention of the some hearsay by a man who believed in a literal Adam and Eve as historical fact.
Meanwhile every single part of the Jesus con is found in the stories and history that was around at the time. It is a hacky unoriginal derivative work with all of the evidence conveniently missing.
His name was Joshua, or Yeshua, not Joseph. Joseph was his father’s name. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua or Yeshua
That wiki article presents zero historical evidence and is full of references to biblical scholars claiming there was s areal historical Jesus because the bible says so. Pure garbage source.
Thats literally not true. It provides multiple non-christian historians (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus). Theres all kinds of charismatic leaders today that people ascribe religious meaning to, I’m not sure why some people have a hard time believing a charismatic dude had followers who believed he was god.
All of three of those men were born decades after the events.
Is the implication here that a bunch of Jewish people started pretending there was a guy named Jesus and that he was the messiah, and pretending that he lived a few decades back, and that multiple different sources very quickly picked up the same general story of this pretend man’s life, and that’s more plausible than people following a charismatic leader and deifying him after he died?
The written record we have only mentions two eyewitnesses by name. Both of which were saying this guy died. You don’t need a cast conspiracy, only two people to keep a secret. The written record was authored by a person who was there when things were happening but saw nothing and heard nothing until years later.
What is more likely a charismatic leader vanishes from the entire historical record, the one person who writes the events down doesn’t seem to know anything about what happened, and then silence for over 50 years? And when the records do start they just happen to be pulled from other popular myths of the time and place?
Ffs if they had copyright law back in the day the authors of the Gospels would have been sued for violating it.
Removed by mod
The reduction Jesus doesn’t even work. Even if you reduce him down to some guy named Jesus who pissed the Romans off you wouldn’t be able to account for the community that popped up. Additionally you still can’t prove that this diet Jesus event happened, you just lowered the claim so much that it is not plausible instead of impossible.
What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.
Removed by mod
Yeps. Even Tacticus mentions how weird it was that the leader was dead but yet the movement continued. If the leader is very much alive and making up stories about his dead brother for decades it makes more sense.
Also had a precedent in Jewish history. When the temple was closed the leader of the revolt died and his son (so many references to Peter being the successor to Jesus) took over and eventually did restore the temple.
I disagree. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so starting from that common ground shows Christians that you are following the consensus views and are discussing in good faith with them
I am not interested in consensus, if I were I would still be a theist. I am interested in what is true.
Under that narrow circumstance you’d start writing out many more historical figures than just Jesus i’m pretty sure…
Well first off that really isn’t my problem. If there is no evidence that someone in history existed it is not my fault. Go dig in the dirt and find it.
Secondly you will notice that every time this argument is brought up they always reference a historical figure who we do have evidence, while they were alive, that they existed. Julius Ceaser is usually cited.
Third, even the reduced to the minimum non-supernatural Jesus is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the minimum Jesus is to believed he came from a one-horse town with no one literate. Mastered the arts of illusions. Migrated. Within six months convinced a bunch of people to abandon their families. Got several people to help him with his tricks. Figured out the rock formation under Gallie. Convinced all of them to follow them to what was definitely suicide.
Now the fun part is what happens next. Pilat decides for no reason at all not to go after the rest of them, they form two separate communities, become a threat to the Pharisees on their own turf, inspire Paul to attack them, convert him, get him to start his own counter-counter movement off the original movement. All the while they are able to survive attacks by everyone around them for well over a century. The timeline for all these movements, counter movements, counter counter movements, multiple communities? 1-3 years.
Could you do this? Do you think with the clothing on your back you could go to a backwater of a backwater and pull all this off in the same time period? Could anyone do this?
…Umm…did you ever consider that instead of all those extraordinary magic tricks and social engineering occurring…
…That they just lied and embellished in an era where people told tales of gods and the supernatural? Like you’re assuming we need proof that all the things Jesus was said to have done happened in some form, when in reality the only thing that had to happen is that he was persecuted in Rome during a time when we know Rome was doing that.
Like you’re focusing so much on this that it looks silly and detracts from much better arguments against Christianity…
I did consider it. The thing is the Gospel miracles are all variations on common magic tricks in the area at that time. If someone made them up decades later why not make up bigger ones? To me it made more sense for James to claim his non-existent brother did those same tricks that way it would sound familiar. You always want to tell the most minimum lie you can get away with. If I told you I was late for work because of a flat tire you are more likely to believe me than if I said because I was defusing a hostage situation.
Additionally if you look at the formula school you notice a repeating pattern to the miracles. Jesus is asked to solve a problem, no one thinks he can, he does, everyone is shocked. All these repetitive stories hints at a core one a core lie.
Plus you still have Paul to worry about which your reduced Jesus doesn’t cover.
I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.
I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there’s undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?
Show me the evidence, not what theist apologists argued later via tampered hearsay decades removed from the facts.
Ok, Pompeii. Less than a century later, before Constantine reskinned the Roman religion with the Christian label, we’ve found hidden shrines and symbols used by followers of Jesus. And uncovered very recently - not much room for it to be falsified. There’s also contemporary accounts that spread extremely fast throughout the Roman empire and beyond, but those weren’t buried under ash until the modern era.
That’s a long way to go in very little time - that’s only maybe 3-4 degrees away from the original source. Not nearly long enough for a mythical figure to develop organically
You can dispute the details, but someone must’ve been the figurehead at the very least. The gospels themselves hint at the events being staged to some extent by a small group spreading an ideology according to a literal plan - the public events literally start with Jesus’s cousin gathering support for the movement, and then Jesus goes around recruiting specific people as apostles
The Romans also kept records - there’s a lot of corroborating evidence for certain events spread too far and wide for a pre-information age society to fabricate. Even things like his birthdate - I think they’ve been able to narrow it down to a few days in July, during the census, where we had accounts of a temporary new star in the sky
Even the papers that are given clickbait-y headlines like “historians dispute the existence of Jesus” generally dispute certain aspects, there was almost certainly a historical figure named Jesus who was killed by the Romans for inciting a resistance movement
It went down in 79AD, a fully 43-46 years after the supposed events and at least 41.5 to 39 years after Paul began his missionary trips across the Roman Empire. To be clear you are arguing a strawman. I believe Paul was real and I believe James was real. I think it was a con job. This wasn’t a myth that organically made itself, this was centuries of Jewish legends/stories/culture that was hijacked.
Also I asked for contemporary source not hearsay “3-4” times removed.
Sure they had a mythical figurehead. It would explain why the Romans left them alone for decades after the supposed events. They were running a mystery-cult / charity organization and were saying that their leader had already been killed. Also would explain why Paul didn’t know pretty much anything about the details.
Could be. I admit I hadn’t thought of that. I promise to look into it. I assumed that they were sorta reverse engineering the “known” events. Building a narrative after the fact, a retrocon.
And those records don’t show anyone by that name in that city or being crucified. As for the star thing keep in mind the Gospel writers were multiple decades later well enough time to fit the data to the narrative. The census is a classic example of this. It was known that a census had been done around that time it was also “known” that Jesus was from Nazareth but was supposed to be from Bethlehem so the census is given for the reason.
I don’t care about consensus or other writers. I care about evidence. Please present it. You gave me evidence that there were Christians decades later, which is not what I asked for.
That is just wrong. There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity. Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him, and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts, but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up, and is still enough that it’s widely believed that he was a real guy. If what he taught was true or not is another story.
Secular scholars consider the historical account of Jesus existing in the writings of the Roman Jewish Historian Josephus. There are extra biblical references to him. Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person. His ministry wasn’t even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.
Repeating stories he heard decades later. Hearsay by people who had an incentive to lie. Josephus also said things like this:
It’s interesting to me that you consider him a valid source for one thing you can’t prove but reject pretty much everything else the man said especially since you can’t really disprove the Adam and Eve story.
Interesting because your boy Josphius was in the area and wasn’t aware Nazareth even existed. In any case truth doesn’t depend on how many people assert something.
And?
Thank you. I was looking for a place to point out that the evidence is the bible and historical figures saying that these people say this. I mean if there was actual roman data from a census (which supposedly was being done when he was born) and government paperwork around the crucifixion that would be different.
How do we know this?
Spiderman must exist as well. Also all the books about him were written multiple decades later.
You mean the Gnostic stuff written two centuries later or the Talmudic stuff written only a mere 150-400 years later?
Means motive and opportunity. Means, the early stories are all ripped off. Motive, sex and greed. Opportunity, if Paul is to believed in his 7 undisputed letters the only two people to see the resurrection are Peter and James and “the twelve” who he doesn’t name and never met.
We know this because a group of followers doesn’t just form and grow without someone they are following. The entire teachings of everyone within his group revolves around Jesus, and if he didn’t exist then Christianity never began. People need a leader to form a group, they don’t just all be together and say hey, let’s make up a dude and then follow what we made up. They believed enough to die for their group, and they believed enough to dedicate themselves to growing it. That doesn’t just happen if you made it on a whim or made up a key point of your story which could be validated. Additionally just because books were written multiple decades later doesn’t mean that they were completely made up. People can live multiple decades, and stories of experiences and knowledge of people can survive this long easily too. We also don’t know what they knew at the time because lots of information about Jesus that would have survived had been altered much much later by kings who wished to use Christianity for control, we of course know he didn’t completely make up Jesus as there are books referencing him from before this happened, however it does mean our information now is more limited than theirs, so we can’t assume they made this up based upon the same information we have now. It is both logical and just true that they would have had access to more valid information than we do today. They where also often scholars who’s job it was to write about true people and to prove together missing info and validate this sort of thing is even real. With all the information that was available at the time they still believed he existed. We can’t say just because such evidence was lost doesn’t mean that they all came to an invalid conclusion or all made it up. It’s just illogical. As for actual biblical events that had few witnesses, it’s fine to believe that that was made up, or information was lost so it was believed that something happened when in reality there is an entirely different reality that we just don’t have what we would need to piece together today. As we are assuming many stories are being made up or are incorrectly accounted throughout it, it’s not fair to say any events in his life happened based on the book alone, so this a mute point.
TLDR Jesus was real because he formed a group that still exists and followed his teachings from the beginning. Groups don’t just form and follow a fake persons teachings and still believe it and constantly lie about his existence. Scholars closer to his life who had more information than we do now believed he existed, and we can’t invalidate multiple scholars with more information than us just because we don’t have that information anymore.
Right so here is the thing. We know someone kicked Christianity off, it couldn’t have been fully organic. This doesn’t mean that because you have established that there must be a founder the founder is of the form you want it to be.
James could have made up the whole story. There is more evidence pointing that way than a historical Jesus.
We actually don’t know any of that, and that is not what the historical consensus is either.
I am always curious about how the Jesus was real crowd explains all these things Jesus supposedly taught that no one seems to know about until about fifty years later. And why these things he taught just happen to be from a subset of the Greek OT that was popular at the time. Strange how an Aramaic speaking rabbi, in an area with a 1% literacy rate, would only quote from a book written in Greek. And no one is aware of these parables and sayings.
According to Paul these are all the things that Jesus taught:
Don’t get divorced and if you do the woman is never to marry someone else
Pay your preacher
The second one is debatable as well.
Removed by mod
Yeah i mean sure, but that’s like saying a guy named Chris existed and died in a car accident. That doesn’t mean he had superpowers and can turn into Optimus prime
but the meme is saying the opposite of what you’re saying.
Not really. There isn’t any contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. The historical consensus that he was likely real was constructed from later sources.
There isn’t even any evidence of the reduction version of Jesus.