There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Sgt. Pepper]

Someone did so I learned to think for myself,

Learning to think critically for myself prompted me to reread and reevaluate the Bible, which eventually caused me to renounce my belief in God and leave Christianity. I reread the Bible without regard for what other Christians said I should or should not believe about it. Like the majority of Christians I knew at the time, I had been taught what to believe about the Bible, and I didn't voice my doubts about what I learned. I learned at an early age to keep my doubts and questions to myself because I was chastised and shamed for questioning the Bible, which I was told was questioning God, and as a mere human being, I had no right to ever question him. I was even told that it was a sin to question Almighty God. So, the harsh chastisement and shame were ingrained in my head, and even as an adult, I struggled to question and doubt God. I believe that was the reason why I emotionally struggled so much to renounce my belief in God a couple of years ago. But despite the struggle I went through, disavowing my belief in God and my Christian faith was one of the best decisions that I've ever made for my mental health and emotional well-being. It's only second to the decision I made to stand up and confront my abusive (Christian) mother and older brother when I was eighteen. Being a Christian was a living nightmare for me, but my life has turned out so well since I renounced my Christian faith. I finally feel peace, joy, and contentment in my life. Frankly, I don't need my emotional crutch of believing in God anymore.

 

[nPeace]

Let me guess, you are a Christian, but not a "Christian".

Well, they both exist, and I am either one or the other. I can't be both. However, it doesn't require guessing.

Can you explain the difference for us?

I did that a while back, but I don't know how to find thread I created.
So, briefly...
A Christian is a follower of Christ - his teachings and example.
Wikipedia defines Christianity as an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Based on the definition, Donald Trump might call himself Christian, but that would not make him one.
Jesus gave the identifying marks, and what he defines is legitimate. Here are a few.
John 8:31, 32; John 13:35; John 15:8

And how do "Christians" not realize they aren't Christian?

Some don't realize, in the same way you think we don't realize how wrong we are. Or, you don't realize how wrong you are.
If you are not on the side of truth, you are subject to being misled.

1) They believe they are right.
(John 16:2, 3) 2 . . .everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God. 3 But they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me.

2) They don't want to follow God's way... or the way of righteousness, but prefer their own desires.
(2 Timothy 4:3) . . .there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.
(2 Thessalonians 2:12) . . .they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

Some do realize it, of course, but they like their "comfort zone".
(John 3:19) . . .men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. . .

So you are clarvoyant and can see my future? That sounds rather creepy, and almost as if you believe yourself God-like. Any chance you could be mistaken?

You're right.
I don't know, since you could die without seeing it, and true, you may not know, since you could be totally ignorant. I don't know.

 

[nPeace]

What is your response to educated people being Hindu or Muslims or Jewish? Do you applaud them for being religious even if not Christian?

I'm not atheist. I do not put religious people in a box marked "Brainless".

Yes it is.

Another one who needs educating.
Hey, @lukethethird, take this one along with you.

Many religious people are helpful, but some are idiots.

Idiots exist in every corner of the earth... including atheism.
So, would you object to the statement, 'Some atheists are helpful, but many are idiots'?

 

[Thrillobyte]

1) Context says there were followers of Christ.

(1 Corinthians 15:5-9) 5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 But last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.​

2) There is no scriptural basis for claiming Jesus didn't have more than 500 followers.

(Matthew 28:16, 17) 16 However, the 11 disciples went to Galʹi·lee to the mountain where Jesus had arranged for them to meet. 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted.​

​

(Acts 1:3) . . .He was seen by them throughout 40 days. . .​

​

(Acts 2:41) [In a single] day about 3,000 people were added. . . [to 120 (Acts 1:15)].​

​

Is that hard to fathom? There is no reason it should.​

​

(Acts 4:3, 4) 3 So they seized them and took them into custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 However, many of those who had listened to the speech believed, and the number of the men became about 5,000.​

​

Threats of beatings and death, do not stop what God makes grow.​

​

However, in one day, that number can be reduced to 1,000... because, not all really belong.​

(John 6:66) . . .many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. . .​

The issue originally was never about whether Jesus appeared to 5 or 500 and whether they were disciples or little green men. If you'll look back at my post #922 I raised the issue of Jesus appearing to the 500 because Jesus didn't have any trouble appearing to people outside those associated with the Bible. Jesus could have appeared to 500 or 5000 or 500,000 according to Paul's report and it wouldn't have changed my point.

My point was that if Jesus didn't have any trouble appearing to 500 then why didn't he just appear to 50,000 in Rome and tell them that he had been crucified, died and risen for their sins? Wouldn't that have helped facilitate the spread of his gospel?

 

[F1fan]

Well, they both exist, and I am either one or the other. I can't be both. However, it doesn't require guessing.

For as judgmental as you can be of others you don't seem very confident that you're a Christian.

I did that a while back, but I don't know how to find thread I created.
So, briefly...
A Christian is a follower of Christ - his teachings and example.
Wikipedia defines Christianity as an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then many atheists live like Christians. Is it important that a person thinks they have to follow Christ? Not if they live in a way that is consistent with what he taught, as that is what is important, yes?

Based on the definition, Donald Trump might call himself Christian, but that would not make him one.
Jesus gave the identifying marks, and what he defines is legitimate. Here are a few.
John 8:31, 32; John 13:35; John 15:8

Trump is a liar and corrupt, and very cruel to people, so that he calls himself a Christians is another lie that he hopes Christians believe and vote for him.

Some don't realize, in the same way you think we don't realize how wrong we are. Or, you don't realize how wrong you are.
If you are not on the side of truth, you are subject to being misled.

That's why I think for myself, and avoid being a follower.

You're right.
I don't know, since you could die without seeing it, and true, you may not know, since you could be totally ignorant. I don't know.

This is the advantage I have by thinking for myself, and rejecting popular dogmas.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not atheist. I do not put religious people in a box marked "Brainless".

Is there a reason you avoided my question?

Another one who needs educating.
Hey, @lukethethird, take this one along with you.

This isn't a rebutal, but then, how could you rebut the fact that faith is blind belief? Faith is unreliable and not reasoned.

Idiots exist in every corner of the earth... including atheism.
So, would you object to the statement, 'Some atheists are helpful, but many are idiots'?

You can't seem to handle that Christians can be weak, foolish, deceived, corrupt, and full of vice. Being a believer guarantees nothing.

 

[nPeace]

OMG!

"Maybe Tacitus substantiated his information and then again maybe he couldn't, we just don't know. Nevertheless it's rock solid proof Jesus was real!"

Augustus, no offense. You're probably a kid who doesn't know up from down about evidentiary rules--and commonsense, frankly. There's no point dragging this out.

Do you challenge or disagree with the following?

Sources of Tacitus​

For the period from Augustus to Vespasian, Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment. It has been noted that the work of Aufidius Bassus and its continuation by Pliny the Elder covered these years; both historians also treated the German wars. Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus (on Tiberius), Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus (on Nero), and Vipstanus Messalla (on the year 69). He also turned, as far as he felt necessary, to the Senate’s records, the official journal, and such firsthand information as a speech of Claudius, the personal memoirs of Agrippina the Younger, and the military memoirs of the general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. For Vespasian’s later years and the reigns of Titus and Domitian, he must have worked more closely from official records and reports.

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, (born AD 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Then many atheists live like Christians. Is it important that a person thinks they have to follow Christ? Not if they live in a way that is consistent with what he taught, as that is what is important, yes?

Personally, I mostly prefer the company of atheists and other nonbelievers to the majority of Christians I know. The atheists and other nonbelievers I know are much kinder and more compassionate people than the majority of Christians I know or have met in my lifetime. The atheists and other nonbelievers I know aren't pompously judgmental of others, and they respect others even when they don't agree with them. They aren't prejudiced against immigrants, minorities, women, LGBTQ people, or anyone else who is different than they are either. Grant it, there are a few Christians I know who practice what they profess, but I consider them to be the exception, not the rule. My wonderful husband of thirty-and-a-half years is one of these good-hearted Christians.

Trump is a liar and corrupt, and very cruel to people, so that he calls himself a Christians is another lie that he hopes Christians believe and vote for him.

And so many evangelical conservative Christians fell for his lies, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Do you challenge or disagree with the following?

Sources of Tacitus​

For the period from Augustus to Vespasian, Tacitus was able to draw upon earlier histories that contained material from the public records, official reports, and contemporary comment. It has been noted that the work of Aufidius Bassus and its continuation by Pliny the Elder covered these years; both historians also treated the German wars. Among other sources Tacitus consulted Servilius Nonianus (on Tiberius), Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus (on Nero), and Vipstanus Messalla (on the year 69). He also turned, as far as he felt necessary, to the Senate’s records, the official journal, and such firsthand information as a speech of Claudius, the personal memoirs of Agrippina the Younger, and the military memoirs of the general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. For Vespasian’s later years and the reigns of Titus and Domitian, he must have worked more closely from official records and reports.

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, (born AD 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language.

You're asking, "Is it possible Tacitus..." or, "Would it be illogical to think that Tacitus...." and my response is, "Yes, it's possible. Anything is possible. It's possible Jesus appeared to Tacitus and laid out the whole plan of redemption for him."

But do we have any written evidence Tacitus drew upon earlier histories? You say, "Tacitus consulted this person and that person. He also turned to the Senate's records." Do we have those records today? Did they survive? If those records are extant and they are the ones Tacitus used, then obviously we have extra-Biblical historic records that mention Jesus and the Christians. Why aren't we discussing those records right now? If you know of these records, nPeace then please squash this debate right now and show them to us. I'll shut my mouth right this minute and never speak of Jesus not existing again if you can simply produce the Senate records you think Tacitus used to write his passage about the Christians and Chrestus.

Go for it.

 

[lukethethird]

That would only manifest hypocrisy.
Come on. We know you are an atheist - the die-hard aggressive kind... you know, the ones that use every tactic in the book to try to belittle the strong believers in an attempt to loosen them from their course.

My response to you goes against the norm, doesn't it... because you think the Christian is weak, because he applies Christian values, to be peaceably with all men, and respond with kindness - not in kind.
So, you were taken by surprise. It's not the response you normally get when you apply that tactic. Am I right?

I'd be impressed if you educated yourself, and not speak as empty-headed people do... as if the only thing they know, is what's inside a closed cigar box.

Can I offer some help?

1. Some of the most educated people in the world, are religious. They have invented stuff you can't even begin to dream of doing.
2. Faith is not blind belief. It is not devoid of reason. If you heard different, perhaps take those persons with you when you start your educational journey.
3. Religious people can help you. They are not idiots.

Hope that gives you a little start.
Hope you can finish, and wish you well.

Religious people can accomplish great things in spite of their religion, when they put their religion aside and think critically, but they sound silly when it comes to The Bible, as if The Bible is different than any other book of tall tales.

 

[Truthseeker]

Oh, to sound high and almighty, I see.

Do I detect a little sarcasm, perhaps? I don't care, you can have your sarcasm.

 

[nPeace]

For as judgmental as you can be of others you don't seem very confident that you're a Christian.

I'm sure.
How did you reach that conclusion?

Then many atheists live like Christians.

Or the other way around... but what do you mean.

Is it important that a person thinks they have to follow Christ?

Very important. Why do you ask?

Not if they live in a way that is consistent with what he taught, as that is what is important, yes?

You can't live in a way that is consistent with what Jesus taught, if you don't think it is important to follow Christ. Why?
(Matthew 7:21-27) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’ 24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and struck against that house, and it caved in, and its collapse was great.”

Who is going to get out of bed, and leave their house to go searching for people who wants to hear good news of peace.
Who has that good news, other than those who received it from the one who has it?
Thus, it's not possible, on your own, to consistent with what Jesus taught.

Trump is a liar and corrupt, and very cruel to people, so that he calls himself a Christians is another lie that he hopes Christians believe and vote for him.

So are many men and women "of the cloth", or filling the pews.

That's why I think for myself, and avoid being a follower.

You think for yourself. That's good. We all do... except for those who follow the Jim Jones, and David Koresh, and... the list goes on.
You aren't a follower. Hmm. We might want to believe that. However, the reality is, we are all followers.
Some follow willingly and knowingly... for example, I follow Christ. While others follow blindly, and unknowingly

This is the advantage I have by thinking for myself, and rejecting popular dogmas.

You are not a hermit.

Is there a reason you avoided my question?

Yes. Why? It's loaded.
Do I laud them for what? Being religious, in believing in false gods... engaging is harmful rituals...?
I commend religious people for believing in an intelligent creator... but I do the same for non-religious people.

This isn't a rebutal, but then, how could you rebut the fact that faith is blind belief? Faith is unreliable and not reasoned.

Any idiot knows that atheists did not originate the word, so they don't get to define it.
Faith
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

See. That's an advantage idiots have over atheists. That's doesn't look good.

You can't seem to handle that Christians can be weak, foolish, deceived, corrupt, and full of vice. Being a believer guarantees nothing.

For a moment there, I thought you were putting Christians in a box labelled "foolish".
I was about to ask if you can't see how idiotic that is. However, I think you are saying that Christians are not immune to going contrary to Christ teachings.
Did I say otherwise? Where did I say that?

Everyone, regardless of skin color, nationality, belief system, worldview... can be weak, foolish, deceived, corrupt, and full of vice.
That's when they turn away, or, in the case of weakness fall, but some do get back up, and return to the way.

You can liken it to, walking a narrow path. Or a cross country marathon. One can fall off, or deviate to the right or left.
The important thing is to get back on the path. It's a race to the finish. Jesus said, it's the one who endures to the end that makes it. Matthew 24:13

 

[nPeace]

Religious people can accomplish great things in spite of their religion, when they put their religion aside and think critically, but they sound silly when it comes to The Bible, as if The Bible is different than any other book of tall tales.

Well, Biblical archeologist don't think that. The Bible is the most reliable souce in their work, and they are thankful they have it, as it saves them quite a lot of fruitless effort.

 

[nPeace]

The issue originally was never about whether Jesus appeared to 5 or 500 and whether they were disciples or little green men. If you'll look back at my post #922 I raised the issue of Jesus appearing to the 500 because Jesus didn't have any trouble appearing to people outside those associated with the Bible. Jesus could have appeared to 500 or 5000 or 500,000 according to Paul's report and it wouldn't have changed my point.

My point was that if Jesus didn't have any trouble appearing to 500 then why didn't he just appear to 50,000 in Rome and tell them that he had been crucified, died and risen for their sins? Wouldn't that have helped facilitate the spread of his gospel?

You don't understand.
Your point is moot, since Jesus appeared to his brothers for a reason.
Appearing to the world would have been against everything Jesus said and did.
I figure you are lost on that, so I will explain later. Buenas noches.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, Biblical archeologist don't think that. The Bible is the most reliable souce in their work, and they are thankful they have it, as it saves them quite a lot of fruitless effort.

Of course Biblical archeologists don't think that, they read The Bible into everything and they know what side their bread is buttered on. Read what religiously neutral archeologists have to say about Biblical archeologists and their "discoveries."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, Biblical archeologist don't think that. The Bible is the most reliable souce in their work, and they are thankful they have it, as it saves them quite a lot of fruitless effort.

That is not true at all. You are probably conflating Christian apologists that pretend to be archaeologists with real ones. Just as creationists cannot tell the difference between real scientists and "creation scientists". Actual archaeologists keep refuting the Bible. For example the much vaunted "peer reviewed" article about the Mount Ebal cursing tablet finally came out. It appears to have taken so long because the writers had to journal shop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course Biblical archeologists don't think that, they read The Bible into everything and they know what side their bread is buttered on. Read what religiously neutral archeologists have to say about Biblical archeologists.

If you have time in this video the "Curse stone" that was supposed to show that ancient Hebrew was much older than claimed by real archaeologists is rather thoroughly put to rest:

It covers the find, how it was an illegal find to start with, and how it does not show signs of writing. It is another embarrassing failure by apologists.

 

[Augustus]

OMG!

"Maybe Tacitus substantiated his information and then again maybe he couldn't, we just don't know. Nevertheless it's rock solid proof Jesus was real!"

Augustus, no offense. You're probably a kid who doesn't know up from down about evidentiary rules--and commonsense, frankly. There's no point dragging this out.

You seem confused.

1. The evidence for Jesus the human is pretty good by normal historical standards and is not dependent on 'hearsay'.

2. The evidence for a miraculous Jesus is much, much weaker, not non-existent, but much weaker, especially to those who assume (with good reason) uniformity on the laws of nature mean that miracles don't happen. I certainly don't believe they happened, but unless we want to uncritically repeat lazy polemics, dismissing oral history as 'hearsay' is a bit silly. Historical Jesus studies should use the same standards we apply to other areas of history, no special favours like fundies expect, and no special negatives as many bitter anti-theists like you expect.

In a court of law, oral history might count as hearsay with the legal consequences that follow, in standard historical methodology, it's viewed as oral history. You certainly don't accept it uncritically as truth, but you also don't dismiss it out of hand as worthless hearsay.

But something tells me you aren't that interested in rational enquiry, just cathartic venting.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem confused.

1. The evidence for Jesus the human is pretty good by normal historical standards and is not dependent on 'hearsay'.

2. The evidence for a miraculous Jesus is much, much weaker, not non-existent, but much weaker, especially to those who assume (with good reason) uniformity on the laws of nature mean that miracles don't happen. I certainly don't believe they happened, but unless we want to uncritically repeat lazy polemics, dismissing oral history as 'hearsay' is a bit silly. Historical Jesus studies should use the same standards we apply to other areas of history, no special favours like fundies expect, and no special negatives as many bitter anti-theists like you expect.

In a court of law, oral history might count as hearsay with the legal consequences that follow, in standard historical methodology, it's viewed as oral history. You certainly don't accept it uncritically as truth, but you also don't dismiss it out of hand as worthless hearsay.

But something tells me you aren't that interested in rational enquiry, just cathartic venting.

I agree with this.

The issue with figures like Jesus is that there are essentially (at least) two separate claims you have to deal with that often just get rolled into one in most discussions. I see the two distinct claims as being the following:

1) Jesus Christ was a person who lived roughly 2,000 years ago who played a pivotal role in the establishment of the religious movement that would come to be known as Christianity.
And
2) Jesus Christ is a figure described accurately in almost every detail in the Bible, including being the son of God and performing miracles, and his exact words, beliefs and actions are well documented in Biblical texts.

From a strictly historical point of view, I would say claim 1 has met sufficient burden of proof on the basis of the mere existence of Christianity itself. There's room for ambiguity, but we must remember that claim 1 is not an exceptional or unlikely claim. The issue is when people conflate claims 1 and 2, or when people think that just because even the hard evidence for claim 1 is relatively scant, it should be pushed against just as much as 2; when the nature of the claim - for sake of argument - really doesn't require such a huge threshold of evidence that you can't just accept on the basis of such evidence as "The Bible and Christianity exist, so we can safely attribute at least the early development of these things to a figure who most likely was known as Jesus Christ".

Once people can agree on that, we can move on to the real meat and potatoes question of whether or not he was magical, bearded, virgin-born man who miraculously walked on water and fed five-thousand people with a bit of fish and bread, which I would argue is a far more important debate to religious debate than the former question of whether "some guy" existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

My source is the KJV 1611.

Then what is the minimum evidence that Jesus even existed, and how do you obtain this evidence other than the Bible?

What is accurate knowledge of the truth? How does that negate further doubt and questioning?

There's increasing amount of questions when reading the Bible. If it is false on one point the whole message is false. Then there's the issue of supernatural events like Noah's flood.

The Bible has to be perfect in order to prevent falsehood.

So a person knowing nothing of the Bible where does he/she find evidence of a resurrection?

There's a lengthy Bible and it all has to be consistently correct, consistently truthful, consistently moral. God doesn't seem to take questioning of God's morals when killing the first born of Egypt. Just accept seems to be the message.

God issues commands to kill in the OT, whole people's, save the virgins in some instances.

To prove the Bible people often start with Jesus, but there is a whole OT of God's commands and actions. Why would God need to kill children of foreign peoples such as in Isaiah Ch. 13?

Jesus living in Israel and being crucified is believable, but you can't produce evidence of miracles. The Bible relies on witnesses, and word of mouth to establish its veracity.

To be saved is a lengthy study.

I find it interesting that sometimes even the disciples didn't believe, or were astounded. That includes the resurrection of Jesus and the account with Thomas, the one calling "doubting." It is all written down for us to see.