There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Augustus]

We cannot know for sure so it isn't evidence.

Don't be silly.

Ancient history is mostly about probabilities, not cast iron facts, so if we took that approach then we would have to reject much of what we know about anything. We don't know for sure that Socrates and Pythagoras existed, but the writings of Plato and Xenophanes are still evidence that they existed.

Simply offering an alternative explanation does not negate evidence, so we don't dismiss Plato's writings simply because he could have made them up.

We cannot know any mythicist arguments for sure either, so, by your logic, that's not evidence.

The problem with mythicists is that they insist you cannot use the same critical historical methodology as you would use with any other historical figure, and what normally counts as evidence is special pleaded away.

IF you assume the human Jesus existed and started a small movement that took off after his death, what sources would you actually expect to exist that would meet your criteria for evidence? Creating a closed-system where any evidence that you would expect to exist cannot actually be used is just motivated reasoning.

In normal historiography, multiple, independent, near-contemporary sources that suggest someone existed is considered evidence that someone existed. This is true even if the sources contain clear aspects of myth, or attribute magical characteristics to the person in question.

Ancient biography/narrative history was generally not written as an attempt at objective, modern academic style history and was highly mythologised or contrived for narrative/moral/political/etc. purposes, but we still use it critically. If you want to special plead away this evidence in the case of Jesus that's up to you.

Most historians reject this though, and with good reason.

"He meant a regular “Brother of the Lord,” an ordinary non-apostolic Christian. But a Christian all the same—which was important for Paul to mention, since he had to list every Christian he met on that visit, lest he be accused of concealing his contacts with anyone who knew the gospel at that time."
There is a decent amount of peer-reviewed literature on this phrase that agrees.

That is one opinion, many others disagree. Josephus also talks about James, and AFAIK, most Josephus scholars consider that genuine.

Multiple independent sources talking about his brother is good evidence for his existence.

That period is almost completely blacked out, erased from history once the Church became all powerful.

The "all powerful" church was amazing at preventing factionalism and heresy

In the ancient world, with basic transport and communication technology, it would be very hard to erase things from history even if you had the entire power of the Emperor behind you.

It's more parsimonious to assume it didn't happen than there was a successful conspiracy to hide the fact they had turned the space Jesus into a meat Jesus, which some unknown people for some unknown reason thought would be a great idea..

What do you find convoluted about Carriers On the Historicity of Jesus or Lataster's follow up? You haven't presented anything that is convoluted?

The a person easily explained by a human having mythical attributes attached to them in a society known for attaching mythical attributes to humans, who was written about in multiple, independent near-contemporary sources including those noting family and purported human descent and has a backstory that seems to be desperately trying make facts of his life fit a messianic narrative is in fact better explained as being a space Jesus made in an intergalactic jizz factory who, for some reason by some unknown person, was turned into a normal human Jesus who was still a bad fit for a messiah and no one remembered this change happening even though there were countless factions with all sort of heterodox beliefs and lots of anti-Christians seeking to discredit the movement.

You might find the space Jesus more parsimonious, I find it convoluted.

100% of all other dying/rising savior demigods added to religions that Hellenistic Greeks invaded did not exist. The Greeks occupied Judea in 167 BC. There was a known Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity is a Hellenistic religion.

Osiris, Dionysus, Zalmoxis, Inanna, Adonis, Romulus, Asclepius, Hercules , dying/rising (some saviors) demigods were all fictive.
Those are more comparable to Jesus.

Which of them resemble a normal human with magical bits written about and having a cultic following around the time of their purported lives?

It is largely an arbitrary grouping based on subjective preference.

Could just as easily group him with Alexander, Augustus, Pythagoras, etc. as humans with attributes of divinity attached to them.

And if you were going to attach aspects of divinity to a human, as we know people did, of course it would be likely to have something in common with existing myths.

Paul knew nothing about his ministry, life, family, birth? Mark is writing fiction and re-working older sources. He rewrites 2 Kings, uses Psalms for the crucifixion...
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives.
He rewrites many Epistles, and much more. There isn't room for a real life persons story.

It's unsurprising that people writing about a Jewish messiah utilised scripture in constructing his biography, especially as ancient biographies/narrative, in general, were written as explanatory narratives

Well the PhD who looked over ALL of the available evidence gives 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism.
You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that suggests a human preacher was the framework the stories were built around.
This is exactly what Carrier is saying, it's based on assumptions that don't hold up.

3-1 based on cherry-picked categories that don't have sufficient data to make a meaningful probabilistic argument. But he's entitled to his opinion.

Even before considering other evidence, I give it odds of 90%+ based on his membership in a much larger and far less subjective category: purported real humans written about in multiple near-contemporary sources.

The evidence is entirely consistent with a mythologised human, and this remains the most parsimonious understanding.

As it can't be proved though, you are free to believe whatever you like.

 

[nPeace]

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

Religious Dogma would be traditions and doctrines of men, which are not patterned after the teachings of Jesus and his early followers.
For example...

Spoiler: Baby Baptism

Spoiler: Cross Carrying

Spoiler: March For Jesus

...and a whole lorry load of other thing that Jesus and his followers never instructed to do, nor did.
As you may have noticed, they all send the message, "Hey, look what we are doing for Jesus!" However, you're not going to hear the part they mutter under their breath... "Never mind that we aren't doing what he actually commanded."

Things such as...
(Matthew 28:19, 20) 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.. . .

(Mark 13:10) Also, in all the nations, the good news has to be preached first.

(2 Timothy 4:2) Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching.
(2 Timothy 4:5) . . .do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry. . .
Illustration

...and a whole truck load of other things that Jesus and his followers practiced, and commanded.
Basically... doing the will of God.
(Matthew 7:21-23) 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!’

I have joined myself with 8.6 million Christians who are united internationally, in doing what Jesus commanded, and taught.
They are indeed identified not only by the love they have among themselve, but by their teachings.
(1 Corinthians 1:10) Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Why are atheists like this?
I suggest atheists try very hard to convince themselves of what is not true. So they try very hard to pretend they don't get an answer... when they actually do.

May I offer a suggestion...
If you have a question you seriously want answered, ask the questions, without looking for a particular answer.
You asked... 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 answered... I commend religious people for believing in an intelligent creator... but I do the same for non-religious people..

If you know what religious mean, you would not complain, unless there is a hidden motive behind your question - hence, loaded.

I'll be back later.

 

[Alien826]

.... I moved to NYC for
Uni, and found myself as a conversion target
for Christians.

My one time step-daughter (her mother is now my ex) was captured by these people, or a similar group, in High School and it continued at College. She married one of the group and has had five children, all home schooled to avoid any contact with reality. They have spent their lives as "missionaries" in foreign countries, on other people's dimes. My ex is not allowed to be with her grandchildren unless a parent is present and has been told she is "of the devil", all to her great distress. She has pretty much given up on the lot of them now.

These people are effing evil imo.

 

[Audie]

Why are atheists like this?
I suggest atheists try very hard to convince themselves of what is not true. So they try very hard to pretend they don't get an answer... when they actually do.

May I offer a suggestion...
If you have a question you seriously want answered, ask the questions, without looking for a particular answer.
You asked... 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 answered... I commend religious people for believing in an intelligent creator... but I do the same for non-religious people..

If you know what religious mean, you would not complain, unless there is a hidden motive behind your question - hence, loaded.

I'll be back later.

Classic psychological projection

 

[Audie]

My one time step-daughter (her mother is now my ex) was captured by these people, or a similar group, in High School and it continued at College. She married one of the group and has had five children, all home schooled to avoid any contact with reality. They have spent their lives as "missionaries" in foreign countries, on other people's dimes. My ex is not allowed to be with her grandchildren unless a parent is present and has been told she is "of the devil", all to her great distress. She has pretty much given up on the lot of them now.

These people are effing evil imo.

Those are. The Christians who were trying to
convert me were no worse than misguided
and ignorant.

 

[dybmh]

Do you find yourself being interrupted mid-sentence when posting?

It happens. The most recent example was in a thread about PoE. The poster asked a question. I answered part way, asked if we were good to that point, no answer, then continued. A few posts later, goal post was shifted, the questioner started playing dumb. This was evident from their signature which demonstrated they knew the meaning of words I was using.

Anyway, it happens.

A person can easily break up a reply and start shifting the goal post. "but... but... God? There's no evidence for God!"

Calling critical thinkers illogical and faith-based isn't a good plan if you can't back it up, and you can't.

I did show it. And do show it when I'm speaking to an individual or about a specific post.

In this thread there was the massive exaggerated claim about hundreds of millions of Christians followed by supposed evidence of a plummeting, complete, annihilating, decrease in religiousity in the US coming from a scaleless graph produced by a blog which doesn't match the study it was quoting.

The study itself can't be read easily; it's extremely unlikely the poster read it or reviewed the method and details. The author was writing outside of their professional expertise. An updated version of the graph is available, this time with a relative scale that is somewhat more believable, but it's still unknown what, who, or how many were surveyed nor how or if that data was weighted.

And, most important, the conclusion derived from the study is contradicted by a known good pro in the field.

All of this coming from someone who is arguing, "why is this [evidence of gospel Jesus] believed when the actual claim is historical Jesus?"

So the objection is "the actual details do not match the conclusion.". And that same person didn't check the details to see if they matched the conclusion. Just looked at a skewed graph, it matched their bias, and posted it like evidence.

The same sort of claim was made by the same poster about mythical attributes from a rating system designed to identify characters like Hercules. They claimed there were 20 points of correspondence, I found 3. The attributes clearly are not intended for religious prophet archetypes. And even so, the attributes don't match Jesus well at all.

The poster hasn't updated their claim or clarified or added reasons to their claim. Originally I was respectful, then lost respect naturally.

Another poster who frequently waxes on and on about critical thinkers and contrasts that with belief did the exact same thing in this thread. Claiming mythical similarity based on "what they heard an expert said". Very clearly did not verify this claim. Has no clue what myths, what expert, how many similarities. No details are actually known, just faith in what they heard.

And then there's the personal accusations against me. I'm a hypocrite, but no examples brought.

For starters, you're presuming that you can identify critical thinking better than those who have learned the principles of critical thought, that you do it better, and that you can serve as a metric for who is being logical and who is only pretending. But isn't it you who is only pretending to be logical right now?

No, definitely not. It's much simpler than that. Is the person making an attempt to ask themself the simple question "how do I know this is true?". If they do not complete this simple first step, they're not critically thinking.

And you're even doing this, right here, right now. Claiming some sort of ivory tower diploma is needed to accurately detect a fault like this. But even though you have awarded yourself this diploma based on your own career as an MD, and as a successful card player, you didn't check the facts of what I was saying. Just assumed on faith, because I am religious that I am less capable.

Well you just proved that playing cards and the medical career doesn't guarantee critical thinking.

You also don't understand what faith means to the critical thinker if you conflate the justified beliefs of critical thought with the unjustified beliefs of the faithful.

And your beliefs about me and my comments in this thread are unjustified. Your faith is noted. Lack of critical thinking confirmed. Another example to add to the list.

No one is immune to this. Especially the arrogant.

 

[Alien826]

On the subject of critical thinking, I invite everyone, atheist and theist alike, to participate in a thought experiment. It goes like this. You are told that someone has founded a new religion, quite recently, and the following claims are made. You're going to quickly recognize who I'm talking about, but I ask that you respond as if it was all totally new to you.

1. The religion claims to improve the mental abilities of those who go through a process that removes what sound like blockages in the brain.
2. The founder has written a book, couched in pseudo scientific terms, that purports to explain it all.
3. Other beliefs are:
Humans are immortal spiritual beings in physical bodies that have had many previous incarnations.
Some of these incarnations were lived in extraterrestrial civilizations.
4. the founder claims to have traveled through various Eastern countries, where he learned an obscure Eastern dialect in a single night.
5. The founder claims to have befriended a Native American shaman who could levitate and float in the air.
6. He claims to have had a distinguished career in the US Navy. He claims to have healed himself of several injuries sustained in that service.
7. He is reported to have been a womanizer, who was married bigamously to two women at one time. He denies this and condemns it in others.
8. The Church claims to be able to cure drug addition. The founder himself used several drugs and was a lifelong smoker.
9. The founder claims to have been a Roman tax collector as well as an alien race car driver.
10. His followers were involved in a government coup and were subsequently kicked out of that country.
11. He claims, and his followers believe, that he was the coming of a foretold Buddhist messiah.
12. Followers that displeased the founder were thrown overboard form his ships, often into raging and storm-swept seas.
13. The founder supported himself in his early days by writing for pulp-fiction magazines.

First question: what is your initial reaction to hearing all this? Why?

Second question: What investigation would you do to help form your opinion? What is your final opinion after making these investigations?

Third question: Suppose that this all happened 2000 years ago, the religion he founded is now accepted and believed by millions around the world, and the claims I list above are all you have as evidence that the guy even existed, and that in a number of different written versions that don't totally agree with each other. What is your opinion then?

 

[lukethethird]

On the subject of critical thinking, I invite everyone, atheist and theist alike, to participate in a thought experiment. It goes like this. You are told that someone has founded a new religion, quite recently, and the following claims are made. You're going to quickly recognize who I'm talking about, but I ask that you respond as if it was all totally new to you.

1. The religion claims to improve the mental abilities of those who go through a process that removes what sound like blockages in the brain.
2. The founder has written a book, couched in pseudo scientific terms, that purports to explain it all.
3. Other beliefs are:
Humans are immortal spiritual beings in physical bodies that have had many previous incarnations.
Some of these incarnations were lived in extraterrestrial civilizations.
4. the founder claims to have traveled through various Eastern countries, where he learned an obscure Eastern dialect in a single night.
5. The founder claims to have befriended a Native American shaman who could levitate and float in the air.
6. He claims to have had a distinguished career in the US Navy. He claims to have healed himself of several injuries sustained in that service.
7. He is reported to have been a womanizer, who was married bigamously to two women at one time. He denies this and condemns it in others.
8. The Church claims to be able to cure drug addition. The founder himself used several drugs and was a lifelong smoker.
9. The founder claims to have been a Roman tax collector as well as an alien race car driver.
10. His followers were involved in a government coup and were subsequently kicked out of that country.
11. He claims, and his followers believe, that he was the coming of a foretold Buddhist messiah.
12. Followers that displeased the founder were thrown overboard form his ships, often into raging and storm-swept seas.
13. The founder supported himself in his early days by writing for pulp-fiction magazines.

First question: what is your initial reaction to hearing all this? Why?

Second question: What investigation would you do to help form your opinion? What is your final opinion after making these investigations?

Third question: Suppose that this all happened 2000 years ago, the religion he founded is now accepted and believed by millions around the world, and the claims I list above are all you have as evidence that the guy even existed, and that in a number of different written versions that don't totally agree with each other. What is your opinion then?

I would believe every word of it and more.

 

[dybmh]

First question: what is your initial reaction to hearing all this? Why?

It's difficult to take seriously. I'm not sure I would believe any of the stories about it unless I met an adherent. But I wouldn't deny any of the stories either, not the self-healing nor the throwing people over-board.

Second question: What investigation would you do to help form your opinion? What is your final opinion after making these investigations?

I don't know if I would do any investigating. If I did, I'd be looking for adherents. My final opinion would be coming from what I learned from the adherents. And I might also look for ex-adherents. And listen to both sides. I'd be looking for the ex-adherent to have an axe to grind, and I'd be looking for the current adherent to be exaggerting in the other direction.

But I would reserve the negative judgement against the story.

Third question: Suppose that this all happened 2000 years ago, the religion he founded is now accepted and believed by millions around the world, and the claims I list above are all you have as evidence that the guy even existed, and that in a number of different written versions that don't totally agree with each other. What is your opinion then?

My opinion would be: I wasn't there, I have no idea what actually happened.

 

[Balthazzar]

You aspersing my greatity- great granddaddy???

No, in this a universittitty I would call my inquiry on spot and relevant based on historical texts and no known grave of Genghis Khan. I'll assert that there's plenty of texts written about Jesus also and quite a large movement in support of his life on earth, as well as an ongoing hope for a comeback of his type of truthful spirit.

"Truth Matters"

 

[Audie]

No, in this a universittitty I would call my inquiry on spot and relevant based on historical texts and no known grave of Genghis Khan. I'll assert that there's plenty of texts written about Jesus also and quite a large movement in support of his life on earth, as well as an ongoing hope for a comeback of his type of truthful spirit.

"Truth Matters"

For clarity, you are, Iike, serious ?

 

[F1fan]

Why are atheists like this?

What? Honest? Calling theists out on their crap, bluffing, and bogus claims of truth? Dismissing fantastic claims that lack evidence? It's because we think for ourselves, and have reasoning skill.

I suggest atheists try very hard to convince themselves of what is not true. So they try very hard to pretend they don't get an answer... when they actually do.

Oh the irony. You must have some consciousness of guilt to put together a false accusation like this that mirrors what theists do in how they convince themselves tjhat fantastic religiouys assumptions are true.

May I offer a suggestion...
If you have a question you seriously want answered, ask the questions, without looking for a particular answer.

This is not a genuine challenge, because clearly you, as a theists, have a pre-conceived answer for any question that your religion will have an answer do, and not have evidence for it. And that's ok for you because you want answers, not truth. I say truth to mean conforms to reality and fact.

You asked... 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 don't applaud anyone for being religious any more than I applaud anyone for sveaking the language they learned through their social experience. Most people end up religious because they learn it from others around them as they grow up, not because they carefully considered a factual understanding of what is true about reality. Religions offer dogma, not understanding.

I answered... I commend religious people for believing in an intelligent creator... but I do the same for non-religious people..

Why? Not only ios there no evidence, what we observe does not suggest any intelligent design. What we observe is order that has no design intent or morality. I notice you can't explain why children get cancers and die any more than other believers. That is a fatal blow to your belief in ID.

 

[nPeace]

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.

If you are so interested in context, why are you showing otherwise?
What is the context of faith from the Christian position?

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

Oh dear.

34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians​

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.

You don't know much about the Bible, evidently.
Jesus

• You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. . . (John 4:22)
• You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. . . (Matthew 22:29)
• You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you would know my Father also.. . . (John 8:19)
• Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father.. . . (John 8:43, 44)
• This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.. . . (John 8:47)
• I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. . . (John 14:6)

John

• We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us.. . . (1 John 4:6)
• We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)

Can I ask... Why are you trying to speak so expertly on something you evidently know very little, if anything at all?
Or is it the case, atheists are just saying how they would like things to be?

Creationists are deliberate frauds since that whole framework knowingly tries to fool believers about science.

Except the Creationists like @Dan From Smithville @exchemist and the likes, right?

There shouldn't be any creationists among Christian congregations, but there is, and these are a huge sign of believers who have been deceived.

All... Including the list of 25 scientists, and the two I just mentioned?

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

I've never seen bias like this in my life. Honestly.

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.

Listening to you, I don't have to even consider these words, since I know you don't have a clue about any of this.
These are just words rolling off you tongue, from an obvious closed minded, one sided, worldview.
You probably can't see that though.
It's a toxic view, so I hope you realize it before it kills you.

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

True, but I don't know why you think you are on a good path. Do you listen to yourself? Serous question.

 

[nPeace]

We wonder wouldn't it make ore sense
to appear to those who didn't have faith.

What makes the faithless more special than everyone else?

 

[Audie]

What makes the faithless more special than everyone else?

You actually can't figure any better
than that?

 

[nPeace]

Still waiting for your reply to my question, nPeace.

What question did I not answer?

My turn to ask:

You are free to respond.
Are you a man to your word?

Usually.

 

[nPeace]

You actually can't figure any better
than that?

I probably am not bright enough to decipher your riddles.

 

[Audie]

I probably am not bright enough to decipher your riddles.

And it's not even a riddle.

 

[Thrillobyte]

What question did I not answer?


Usually.

Why the hesitation to answer my question then:

Who specifically did Tacitus get his info about the Christians from? It does no good to just refer me to a list of Roman historians from a century before. Can you give specific citations that Tacitus used to claim that Chrestus suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate? Until then, Tacitus' paragraph on Christians is just 200th-hand hearsay likely gotten from stories he heard Christians repeating in Rome.

You throw out this name for example: Marcus Servilius Nonianus and try to imply that he wrote something about Jesus and the Christians that Tacitus used for his own statement in Annals on the Christians. Do you have a specific quotation from Nonianus that mentions the Christians? Tell us if you do please?