There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[YoursTrue]

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."

So in other words, are you saying that when an artifact is found that confirms what the Bible says, you don't think scholars who believe in God should mention it?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

That's like Judge Judy saying, "You can't tell me that! That's hearsay!" That's if you ever listen to Judge Judy on TV.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

I would say that the real meat and potatoes question ought to be, "Does the message contained in the Gospels still have meaning and value, 2,000 years after the event?"

Questions about the nature of the messenger have tended to obscure the message for centuries, yet the message still endures; even if not too many people heed it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would say that the real meat and potatoes question ought to be, "Does the message contained in the Gospels still have meaning and value, 2,000 years after the event?"

Questions about the nature of the messenger have tended to obscure the message for centuries, yet the message still endures; even if not too many people heed it.

I would say that's also a good meat and potatoes question, and one that can be considered completely independently of the historicity of Jesus himself.

I also like describing things as meat and potatoes.

 

[PureX]

I wish I could also say he was wrong, but history shows us otherwise. Witchhunts. The inquisitions. The crusades. Horrible violent deaths against anyone who dissented.

Christianity made a name for itself, and it did so through massacring entire groups of people. Look at the massacre of the Cathers; look at the Goa Inquisition, in particular. How saints spoke of nonbelievers. It is fear-based completely and totally. Look at the anti-Semitism that was spouted by Christians, for instance.

None of this made anyone believe in Christ. If anything, it drove people away from that belief. Sure, they'd fake it while the guns were pointing at them. But the moment the threat was gone, they spit at the thought of the God behind it.

 

[joelr]

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.

The evidence for a human Jesus isn't great. All historians mention Christians who believe in the Gospels.
That just leaves the Gospels and Paul.
Paul only had visions of a risen Jesus, killed by "archerons of the age".
The crucifixion, his family, teachings, ministry all comes with Mark.
Mark is writing in a very fictive style combining elements of many other stories. Even his name means "Yahwehs Savior" which is suspicious.

I think Richard Carrier giving it 3 to 1 odds is reasonable. But future historians may find reasons to disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the most pure sense, you are right. The lack of evidence for Jesus doesn't mean 100% that Jesus is a myth anymore than the scanty "evidence" consisting of opinion, assumption, guessing, and frankly wishful thinking proves Jesus was real.

If I show you a deed to my house and try to sell it to you, the deed isn't 100% evidence I own the house. I mean I could have forged the deed; I could have copied it; I could have stolen it from the rightful owner. If i have this problem WITH a deed then what kind of trouble am I going to have WITHOUT a deed. In the case of Jesus and there being no evidence for his existence, churchmen are asking people to invest their entire life dedicated to following Jesus and doing exactly what the churchmen say Jesus wants them to do--purely on their good word in faith that they would never lie to people. And you show me a churchman who has never lied about Jesus.

I suspect that we have one in Denmark. But you decide if you are willing to learn that you are wrong and adjust your model accordingly. Or if you in effect ignore that and react differently.
So let me be honest. I am religious but I try to never lie in regards to evidence. I just for me as me state that for that part of me as me I use blind faith. And the joke is that as long as I do that for where it works and for the rest use in effect evidence, then I can do that, because even evidence is not universal as a positive for all of the everyday world.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

We are in effect playing the demarcation between with evidence as it works and without evidence, as it doesn't work.
And I have been in effect doing that for 25+ years now, so yes: You are an expert on a part of the world, but you still have to check your claims. But that is not unique to you. I do the same, but I am in effect a different expert. For the meta of how we know that we know, that is what I do.

 

[Colt]

"Unlike our modern, “Ladies and Gentlemen” opening, when a Jew spoke to a crowd of predominantly Jewish men, he might say “Brethren”. (See Acts 3:17, 22; 7:2; 22:1; 23:1, 5, 6; 28:17 in the NASB when the term "brethren" is used for a Jewish, non-Christian gathering.)May 22, 2020"

Why Are Believers Called Brethren in the Bible?

hy is the word Brethren or Brothers used in the New Testament to describe those who believe in Jesus? Does "Brethren" include women too?

www.katrinadhamel.com

Brethren has nothing to do with disciples, Coulter. Jesus didn't have 500 disciples.

Followers, believers not apostles. Jesus met with believers after the resurrection not enemies or anti-Christ

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because what he was deriding was not a consensus of faith-based thinkers, but historians

You asked, "when you were a Christian, did you call the majority of scientists who accept evolution as the "bandwagon fallacy" because they disagreed with your beliefs in a 6000 year old earth?" I answered you with, "Why would he? A consensus of experts is different from a consensus of faith-based thinkers."

He was reason the movement started in the first place

Without Paul and others who decided to make this story into a religion, there is no reason to believe that we would never have heard of Jesus.

All inspired by the person

You mean the legend of the person. The life and words of Jesus were ordinary.

Buddha, who spoke the same words as Jesus did, which you call mundane.

I consider the two very different. Buddha never advised anybody to pluck their eyes out or to hate their families, nor extolled faith over reason.

 

[Augustus]

The evidence for a human Jesus isn't great. All historians mention Christians who believe in the Gospels.
That just leaves the Gospels and Paul.
Paul only had visions of a risen Jesus, killed by "archerons of the age".
The crucifixion, his family, teachings, ministry all comes with Mark.
Mark is writing in a very fictive style combining elements of many other stories. Even his name means "Yahwehs Savior" which is suspicious.

Given there is a movement that appears very close to his lifetime that believes he did exist, that the Gospels and Paul's letters make more sense if he did exist, that no Jews or anti-Christians seem to doubt his existence and numerous other pieces of evidence, i'd say the most logical and parsimonious reading is that he did exist but his life was embellished for a variety of reasons.

People will believe what they want though.

I think Richard Carrier giving it 3 to 1 odds is reasonable. But future historians may find reasons to disagree.

Well the vast majority of past and present historians of all backgrounds disagree, so I would expect that to continue into the future.

Of course this doesn't prove anything, but if we are giving odds, when the vast majority of experts of diverse backgrounds think X (and X is more parsimonious), but a small fringe of scholars with strong ideological and/or financial interests think Y (and Y is more convoluted), which is more likely to be correct in general?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Appearing to the world would have been against everything Jesus said and did.

That is a grand cop-out. Jesus came here to save people from hell. The easiest way for a god like Jesus to save people from hell is to simply appear to them and show them what he accomplished--show them the wounds in his hands and side. They would have gotten Pilate over to Rome and asked him, "Is this the man you crucified?" and Pilate would have said, "Yes, it is" and Jesus could have converted all 5 million people in Rome at once. That's commonsense.

The reason why commonsense like that doesn't work in Christianity is because none of it--NONE OF IT is true. Not Jesus, not his resurrection, not his appearance to 500, not any of it.

Jesus is best witness AGAINST his own words:

“No one lights a lamp and hides it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light." Luke 8:16

Jesus could have been that light on the stand that people entering the room could see, but instead he chose to hide himself under the bed and appear only to a select handful of people who chose not to corroborate anything Jesus did. That's bonkers.

The whole paradigm of Christianity is bonkers because none of it is true. Its logic simply doesn't work in the real world. It's all fabrication. Commonsense reveals how crazy all this is.

 

[F1fan]

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

Reading your words that reveal your beliefs and attitudes. The more fervent a Christian the lkess they tend to follow Jesus.

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

What I mean is many atheists are loving, charitable, kind to others, they accept gays and other categories of people that far right Christians target, etc. They have a similar moral and loving character that is consistent with what Jesus taught, but the atheists don't have to follow anyone since they think for themselves. The oddity of many more conservative christians is why they bother to be aligned to Christianity but don't botehr to follow what Jesus taught. Christians shouldn't condemn gays or have contempt for science, or liberals. Christians should BE liberals poiltically since the republican party has a platform that is in direct opposition to what Jesus advocated for, namely no judgment of sinners and helping the needy.

Very important. Why do you ask?

Because I don;t see many conservative Christians following Jesus, and I'm curious why they claim to be Christian at all. These believers seem to follow a conservative dogma that just exploits the label of "Christian" without the burden of honing decency and morals.

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?

I missed a word in my comment, I was asking what Christians DON'T live in a way that is consistent with what jesus taught if they think what he taught is important. Conservative Christians don't strike me as following Jesus since they condemn gays, trans kids, liberals, lie, cheat, etc. I'm always curious why Christian belief doesn't prevent obvious immoral acts.

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.

If you live a life of peace that would be the testimony. Beating people ver the head with cruel dogma and threats of hell is the antithesis.

Who has that good news, other than those who received it from the one who has it?

See how you treat it as a product that is possessed for the self? That misses the mark. You see it as an ideal, a dogma, a product to own, but what Jesus taught was about how a person lives their lives, and treats others with decency and kindness. Jesus taught living in service to others.

Thus, it's not possible, on your own, to consistent with what Jesus taught.

That is what the business of religion tells you. They want you to follow the religion's dictates and dogma, and give them money.

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

So you acknowledge that many Christians are frauds. Do you think they are aware they are frauds, or that they accepted a distortion of what Jesus taught and were duped, or both?

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 might pick out your preferred brand of toothpaste, but why have you adopted a Christian set of attitudes that are contrary to what Jesus taught? Your condemnation of atheists is an example that goes against what Jesus taught.

You aren't a follower. Hmm. We might want to believe that. However, the reality is, we are all followers.

You are going out of context here. I'm referring to following religious dogmas and how people conform to one type of Christianaity or religion mostly because they were exposed to it. I'm not referring to language, or speaking style, or cultural influences, just religious belief.

Some follow willingly and knowingly... for example, I follow Christ. While others follow blindly, and unknowingly

Explain to us how you follow Jesus, and not some religious dogma.

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.

I suggest what is LOADED is your assumptions, and hard questions that challenge your religious assumptions are uncomfortable and you are motivated to avoid them. Many theists do the same thing. Asking how an "intelligent creator" caused cancer and birth defects is a basic question, and if you can't answer it due to assumptions you make it should tell you something about your bad assumptions.

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.

Many words have multiple meanings, and that is why language has to establish context. Theists are often deceptive and try to manipulate the meanings in a way that tries to minimize the unreliability of "faith". We see believers say that even atheists use faith, but that is a different meaning from religious faith.

For a moment there, I thought you were putting Christians in a box labelled "foolish".

Oh I don't have to do that, they have themselves.

I was about to ask if you can't see how idiotic that is.

Good thing you didn't bring it up.

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?

My comment only reveals the obvious. I see many more conservative Christians arrogant because they believe they have an absolute truth (dogma) on their side, and they use it against others. More humble Christians know better, and they are more consistent with what Jesus taught. Creationists are deliberate frauds since that whole framework knowingly tries to fool believers about science. There shouldn't be any creationists among Christian congregations, but there is, and these are a huge sign of believers who have been deceived.

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.

Since there are Christians among all these categories, yes, you are correct.

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 difference is having the wisdom to know you are off the path, or missing the mark, or exploited by dogma, or deceived by religion, etc. No matter how much a person believes in a dogma it all comes down to their own thinking and wisdom. Following toxic forms of religion is something a naive person wouldn't be aware of, so we see many deceived among religious ranks, and they follow toxic dogmas.

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

Being on the path is good, but the self has to know a virtuous path from one that serves the self's lesser angels.

 

[Alien826]

Sounds like your unconscious mind knew what your conscious mind didn’t; that the answer to every problem arises in it’s own time.

You did get the point that the answer was wrong, yes? I can agree that wrong answers appear all the time.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You did get the point that the answer was wrong, yes? I can agree that wrong answers appear all the time.

It doesn’t matter that the answer was wrong. Thinking you had an answer enabled you to sleep until the right answer eventually presented itself, which I’m sure it did in it’s own good time.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Reading your words that reveal your beliefs and attitudes. The more fervent a Christian the lkess they tend to follow Jesus.

What I mean is many atheists are loving, charitable, kind to others, they accept gays and other categories of people that far right Christians target, etc. They have a similar moral and loving character that is consistent with what Jesus taught, but the atheists don't have to follow anyone since they think for themselves. The oddity of many more conservative christians is why they bother to be aligned to Christianity but don't botehr to follow what Jesus taught. Christians shouldn't condemn gays or have contempt for science, or liberals. Christians should BE liberals poiltically since the republican party has a platform that is in direct opposition to what Jesus advocated for, namely no judgment of sinners and helping the needy.

Because I don;t see many conservative Christians following Jesus, and I'm curious why they claim to be Christian at all. These believers seem to follow a conservative dogma that just exploits the label of "Christian" without the burden of honing decency and morals.

I missed a word in my comment, I was asking what Christians DON'T live in a way that is consistent with what jesus taught if they think what he taught is important. Conservative Christians don't strike me as following Jesus since they condemn gays, trans kids, liberals, lie, cheat, etc. I'm always curious why Christian belief doesn't prevent obvious immoral acts.

If you live a life of peace that would be the testimony. Beating people ver the head with cruel dogma and threats of hell is the antithesis.

See how you treat it as a product that is possessed for the self? That misses the mark. You see it as an ideal, a dogma, a product to own, but what Jesus taught was about how a person lives their lives, and treats others with decency and kindness. Jesus taught living in service to others.

That is what the business of religion tells you. They want you to follow the religion's dictates and dogma, and give them money.

So you acknowledge that many Christians are frauds. Do you think they are aware they are frauds, or that they accepted a distortion of what Jesus taught and were duped, or both?

You might pick out your preferred brand of toothpaste, but why have you adopted a Christian set of attitudes that are contrary to what Jesus taught? Your condemnation of atheists is an example that goes against what Jesus taught.

You are going out of context here. I'm referring to following religious dogmas and how people conform to one type of Christianaity or religion mostly because they were exposed to it. I'm not referring to language, or speaking style, or cultural influences, just religious belief.

Explain to us how you follow Jesus, and not some religious dogma.

I suggest what is LOADED is your assumptions, and hard questions that challenge your religious assumptions are uncomfortable and you are motivated to avoid them. Many theists do the same thing. Asking how an "intelligent creator" caused cancer and birth defects is a basic question, and if you can't answer it due to assumptions you make it should tell you something about your bad assumptions.

Many words have multiple meanings, and that is why language has to establish context. Theists are often deceptive and try to manipulate the meanings in a way that tries to minimize the unreliability of "faith". We see believers say that even atheists use faith, but that is a different meaning from religious faith.

Oh I don't have to do that, they have themselves.

Good thing you didn't bring it up.

My comment only reveals the obvious. I see many more conservative Christians arrogant because they believe they have an absolute truth (dogma) on their side, and they use it against others. More humble Christians know better, and they are more consistent with what Jesus taught. Creationists are deliberate frauds since that whole framework knowingly tries to fool believers about science. There shouldn't be any creationists among Christian congregations, but there is, and these are a huge sign of believers who have been deceived.

Since there are Christians among all these categories, yes, you are correct.

The difference is having the wisdom to know you are off the path, or missing the mark, or exploited by dogma, or deceived by religion, etc. No matter how much a person believes in a dogma it all comes down to their own thinking and wisdom. Following toxic forms of religion is something a naive person wouldn't be aware of, so we see many deceived among religious ranks, and they follow toxic dogmas.

Being on the path is good, but the self has to know a virtuous path from one that serves the self's lesser angels.

Winner frubal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is the Bible narrative. It sounds more like good story telling rather than what truly happened.

 

[Colt]

That is a grand cop-out. Jesus came here to save people from hell. The easiest way for a god like Jesus to save people from hell is to simply appear to them and show them what he accomplished--show them the wounds in his hands and side. They would have gotten Pilate over to Rome and asked him, "Is this the man you crucified?" and Pilate would have said, "Yes, it is" and Jesus could have converted all 5 million people in Rome at once. That's commonsense.

The reason why commonsense like that doesn't work in Christianity is because none of it--NONE OF IT is true. Not Jesus, not his resurrection, not his appearance to 500, not any of it.

Jesus is best witness AGAINST his own words:

“No one lights a lamp and hides it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light." Luke 8:16

Jesus could have been that light on the stand that people entering the room could see, but instead he chose to hide himself under the bed and appear only to a select handful of people who chose not to corroborate anything Jesus did. That's bonkers.

The whole paradigm of Christianity is bonkers because none of it is true. Its logic simply doesn't work in the real world. It's all fabrication. Commonsense reveals how crazy all this is.

We are supposed to be having a "faith experience". You want your homework done for you. Thats spiritual laziness!

Jesus appeared to thousands of people while he was on earth! They believed and many were saved. But look what hard hearted humans did to the Son of God who actually stood before them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So in other words, are you saying that when an artifact is found that confirms what the Bible says, you don't think scholars who believe in God should mention it?

That is not what "Biblical archaeologists do. They tend to distort findings to support their beliefs. One has to accept both the evidence that confirms part of the Bible, and the the evidence that refutes it. If one does not do both one is not being rational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are supposed to be having a "faith experience". You want your homework done for you. Thats spiritual laziness!

Jesus appeared to thousands of people while he was on earth! They believed and many were saved. But look what hard hearted humans did to the Son of God who actually stood before them?

Now you are conflating the claims with what happened. Did Jesus have followers? Probably. Did he have thousands while alive? That may not be true. That claim appears to be lacking when it comes to evidence. Did he save any? That claim is totally lacking in support.

 

[Alien826]

And so many evangelical conservative Christians fell for [Trump's] lies, hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure that is totally true. What the Evangelicals wanted was certain political objectives, most notably the banning of abortion, that they consider to be murder. When their inconsistency in using a blatant "sinner" to achieve their ends was pointed out to them, they responded that God sometimes uses sinners to achieve his ends and quoted Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed the Israelites to return to Palestine,as an example.

It was all politics at base.