There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

To say that Jesus never existed is nonsense since all scholars agree that Jesus existed and almost universally agree that Jesus was crucified.

No, I am not taking sides, I am only sitting on the sidelines. I agree with 'some' Christian beliefs about Jesus but not 'everything' that is recorded the NT.
However, the details don't matter to me, because I believe that Jesus existed and died for our sins, which is what really matters.

As a Baha'i, what is important for me to know about Jesus I get from what Baha'u'llah wrote, which is not in conflict with Christian beliefs.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.​

​

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.​

​

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”​

​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86​

You should have had a qualifier there. Almost all scholars affirm the existence and even crucifixion of Jesus. A small handful disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus met Paul in a vision. You don't have to believe it, I do believe it.

A vision. In other words a hallucination. Paul never saw a living Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone tells you something that you like, that's good, right? In a similar way, those running for election might say what the people want to hear, right?

She was merely posting some of the information that explains why some believe that he never existed.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

She was merely posting some of the information that explains why some believe that he never existed.

I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but I wanted to clarify that I was responding to the assertion that all scholars believe that Jesus existed and also explain why I disagree with biblical accounts claiming he existed and the stories claiming he is divine. As it turns out, not all scholars believe that Jesus existed.

 

[Thrillobyte]

It is questionable whether a man named Jesus (Yehoshua or Yeshua) lived in biblical times because not all scholars agree that he did.

The Jesus Controversy: Why historical scholarship cannot find the living Jesus

Opinion: These 5 historical truths suggest Jesus Christ may have never existed

A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus

Did this man actually exist, and was he crucified as the Bible claims? Based on my personal research, the answer depends on the historical scholar who writes the article and presents the evidence that they believe supports their thesis. In my opinion, everyone has an opinion on this subject based on what they believe is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove that Jesus actually existed and lived on this earth during biblical times. I have read quite a bit of information on both sides of this debate, and I lean towards the possibility that Jesus most likely existed, but he was just an ordinary man. I believe that he was just a popular but controversial religious teacher who inspired his devoted followers to the point where they fabricated elaborate stories about him being godlike or being God himself (miraculously healing the sick, performing supernatural miracles, resurrecting the dead, and rising from the dead).

Am I right? Maybe. I honestly don't know, but I do know that I've carefully considered and evaluated everything I've read in order to form my opinion on this subject. The articles I read by Christians and Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was who the Bible claims he was, and the articles I read written by non-Christians and non-Christian scholars presented what they believed to be sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was not who the Bible claims he was or that he never existed. To be honest, the evidence is compelling on both sides, but I have chosen the side that I believe to be the most accurate and convincing, which is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this response and what I've written in other posts. And it doesn't matter to me whether other people believe in Jesus, as long as they don't try to convert me by preaching and proselytizing.

And if I may add to your excellent post: I read all three articles--something I know NO Christian in here is going to be brave enough to do--and of the three I think I can dismiss the first as basically saying, "Choose the Jesus that most appeals to you and follow him" while the other two are very good. I'd like to post a few quotes from the 2nd:

>>>>>>>1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.<<<<<<<<

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus' life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

3. Even the New Testament stories don't claim to be first-hand accounts.

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

To these solid points I'd like to ask the Christians:

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, wouldn't God have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise? Isn't the fact that Christian and secular scholars are arguing to this day whether the Jesus of the gospels is real proof positive that the Christian god failed to leave any kind of substantial evidence proving that his divine son is real?

Would any Christian care to tackle these questions if they're brave enough?

 

[osgart]

Christians think they have a direct line with Jesus. I don't think they'll listen to historical evidence from secular sources.

If it were a matter of objective evidence than salvation would be extremely difficult to obtain. They consider it to be a matter of listening to the Holy Spirit. The spirit bearing witness to all that the Christ story is true.

So talking human evidence and human reason isn't even on the table.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christians think they have a direct line with Jesus. I don't think they'll listen to historical evidence from secular sources.

If it were a matter of objective evidence than salvation would be extremely difficult to obtain. They consider it to be a matter of listening to the Holy Spirit. The spirit bearing witness to all that the Christ story is true.

So talking human evidence and human reason isn't even on the table.

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, wouldn't God have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise? Isn't the fact that Christian and secular scholars are arguing to this day whether the Jesus of the gospels is real proof positive that the Christian god failed to leave any kind of substantial evidence proving that his divine son is real?

I am not saying I believe everything that Christianity teaches. For example, I don't believe that Jesus is God and I don't believe that Jesus is literally the Son of God, but rather He is in a relationship to God as a son would have to a father. All that said, I believe the reason God did not leave a mountain of evidence proving who Jesus actually was, evidence that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise, is because God wants our faith, and if God provided proof faith would no longer be necessary. It all makes sense if you think about it.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

We must first believe that it is 'possible' for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find and recognize the evidence they need to believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, wouldn't God have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise?

I went to get a bite to eat and while I was eating I thought of another angle...
What kind of historical evidence do you think there could have been that would prove that Jesus was the divine divine son sent to earth to die for our sins?
I mean if it was true how could it ever be proven?

 

[Thrillobyte]

I learned a while ago that faith is one of the gifts of the spirit. It took me prayer and a while to recognize that. Even while Jesus was on the earth, his claim to be the son of God was contested by some, plus the Sanhedrin was mainly against him. He knew what the scriptures said about the messiah and he also knew he would be put to death by those who did not like him.

And I learned a while ago that when I tried to sell the Brooklyn Bridge for $10,000 to a person I met but didn't have the deed, I just insisted, "You don't need the deed. You can trust me ON FAITH that I own this bridge. It's yours. Now fork over the 10 grand." Needless to say he forked it right over. He was Christian, by the way.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I am not saying I believe everything that Christianity teaches. For example, I don't believe that Jesus is God and I don't believe that Jesus is literally the Son of God, but rather He is in a relationship to God as a son would have to a father. All that said, I believe the reason God did not leave a mountain of evidence proving who Jesus actually was, evidence that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise, is because God wants our faith, and if God provided proof faith would no longer be necessary. It all makes sense if you think about it.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

We must first believe that it is 'possible' for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find and recognize the evidence they need to believe.

I appreciate you tackling the question, Trail. Here's what I heard:

Christian churchmen circa 100 CE were trying to get pagans to give up their gods and join Christianity. But when the pagans asked, "What evidence can you show us that your god, Jesus is real and that our gods are false?" the churchmen couldn't come up with anything. I mean they had no body, they had no cross, they had no nails, they had no shroud, they had no writings from this god. All they had were anonymous stories floating around the Mediterranean of this amazing Galilean who could perform magic tricks like rising from the dead. To which the pagans said, "Big deal. Our gods rose from the dead too and they could perform magic tricks as well!" So the churchmen got together and conferred among themselves. "These pagans have us over a barrel. We have no proof this Jesus guy ever lived. What are we going to do?" One clever churchman thought and then said, "Of course. We tell the pagans that our God doesn't like people to ask for proof. He wants people to believe on pure faith that his son died for their sins and that if they join the Christian faith he will answer ever prayer they pray if they just pray in Jesus' name."

Well, dumb gullible pagans being dumb gullible pagans, they fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, especially with "And if you don't become Christian you will burn forever in eternal torment in the fires of hell." How could the pagans resist a terrifying threat like that?

And that's how the doctrine of "Believe in Jesus on pure faith without asking for proof" came about.

 

[Trailblazer]

I appreciate you tackling the question, Trail. Here's what I heard:

Christian churchmen circa 100 CE were trying to get pagans to give up their gods and join Christianity. But when the pagans asked, "What evidence can you show us that your god, Jesus is real and that our gods are false?" the churchmen couldn't come up with anything. I mean they had no body, they had no cross, they had no nails, they had no shroud, they had no writings from this god. All they had were anonymous stories floating around the Mediterranean of this amazing Galilean who could perform magic tricks like rising from the dead. To which the pagans said, "Big deal. Our gods rose from the dead too and they could perform magic tricks as well!" So the churchmen got together and conferred among themselves. "These pagans have us over a barrel. We have no proof this Jesus guy ever lived. What are we going to do?" One clever churchman thought and then said, "Of course. We tell the pagans that our God doesn't like people to ask for proof. He wants people to believe on pure faith that his son died for their sins and that if they join the Christian faith he will answer ever prayer they pray if they just pray in Jesus' name."

Well, dumb gullible pagans being dumb gullible pagans, they fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, especially with "And if you don't become Christian you will burn forever in eternal torment in the fires of hell." How could the pagans resist a terrifying threat like that?

And that's how the doctrine of "Believe in Jesus on pure faith without asking for proof" came about.

Thanks for filling me in on that. I learn a lot from atheists since they know more about Christian history than Christians, who just believe.
And that actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I appreciate you tackling the question, Trail. Here's what I heard:

Christian churchmen circa 100 CE were trying to get pagans to give up their gods and join Christianity. But when the pagans asked, "What evidence can you show us that your god, Jesus is real and that our gods are false?" the churchmen couldn't come up with anything. I mean they had no body, they had no cross, they had no nails, they had no shroud, they had no writings from this god. All they had were anonymous stories floating around the Mediterranean of this amazing Galilean who could perform magic tricks like rising from the dead. To which the pagans said, "Big deal. Our gods rose from the dead too and they could perform magic tricks as well!" So the churchmen got together and conferred among themselves. "These pagans have us over a barrel. We have no proof this Jesus guy ever lived. What are we going to do?" One clever churchman thought and then said, "Of course. We tell the pagans that our God doesn't like people to ask for proof. He wants people to believe on pure faith that his son died for their sins and that if they join the Christian faith he will answer ever prayer they pray if they just pray in Jesus' name."

Well, dumb gullible pagans being dumb gullible pagans, they fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, especially with "And if you don't become Christian you will burn forever in eternal torment in the fires of hell." How could the pagans resist a terrifying threat like that?

And that's how the doctrine of "Believe in Jesus on pure faith without asking for proof" came about.

It's how cults rig things to keep their members subjugated and afraid to question things.

The psychological effects override their sense of actual reality.

Not a healthy state of mind.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I went to get a bite to eat and while I was eating I thought of another angle...
What kind of historical evidence do you think there could have been that would prove that Jesus was the divine divine son sent to earth to die for our sins?
I mean if it was true how could it ever be proven?

Oh easy, easy, easy!

The gospels say that Jesus fame spread far and wide beyond the borders of Israel into Syria. That's pretty famous, wouldn't you agree? How is it that Philo of Alexandria, the foremost Jewish historian of that time who was in Jerusalem during Jesus' ministry, doesn't say a single word about Jesus, this most famous rabbi and miracle worker--the trial; the 3 hours of supernatural darkness over the entire world, according to Mark; the earthquake, the zombies rising out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem and talking with inhabitants. Philo doesn't mention a word of all this. On top of that, not a single culture over the entire planet made a record of this 3 hours of supernatural darkness. That takes more faith to believe than Jesus rising from the dead.

If cultures in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas had cave carvings of this supernatural darkness covering their lands for 3 hours and the dates coincided, that would be proof positive Jesus was really the son of God. Hell, if even 5 historians in the list I provided in post #44 had written, "I can attest that a Jesus ben Joseph of Galilee who raised two people from the dead and was himself crucified and rose just as his followers claim." that would be pretty good proof that a divine Jesus was real.

But we have none of that. We haven't a single word from independent witnesses that can corroborate what the writers of the gospels claim happened. We haven't a single mention of a single apostle in the historic record. We have nothing. This is strange when you think that the Christian god would have wanted everyone to believe in his son's death and resurrection.

 

[Windwalker]

His spirit fills my soul with a sense of peace and happiness. I feel the power of Rubeus Hagrid come over me when I call on his name.

So in other words, you're full of haggis. Not really up to a serious discussion.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, but as you've kind of pointed out, it transcends belief.
I've found belief in a God or following a specific religion is not necessary.
IOW, there are secular ways to gain the same benefits.
Which is not proof of anything. Only that Gods and religions are not a necessary part of it although it is usually the way one gains the initial experience.

Well, isn't secular an ideology as well? Why is it 'secular'? I prefer the terms "spiritual but not religious", but that does not mean secular. Secular typical means, "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." When I say it transcends beliefs, that includes secularism, and atheism. All of those including religion are cognitive, mental beliefs. Secular is non-spiritual. What I am talking about, what that article was talking is more clearly spiritual in nature. But that is experiential, not belief-based.

 

[Windwalker]

Coulter, if you benefit from belief in Jesus then by all means continue believing in him. I'm not trying to destroy people's faith, I'm just trying to give people both sides of the story.

Both sides? There is either the fundamentalist, mythic-literalist side, or the so-called skeptic fundamentalist neo-atheist side? What about the middle ground of reasonable modern scholarship on these issues? No? There's not two sides, there's many different ways to look at these things, not just fundamentalist black and white ways.

If after they hear the lack of evidence for Jesus they still want to believe in him then by all means do so. I've always said: use anything that helps you to get to end of the day with your sanity intact, whether it's sex, drugs, rock-and-roll and even Jesus.

So, yes. Only atheism is clear thinking, and the rest is just drugs and religious escapism. Let me guess, you used to try to share the truth to give people the choice to be saved or not as a Christian fundamentalist? But now, you have the real truth, and are making sure everyone has a chance to hear the real truth and be saved by reason, like you?

I had a friend of mine who graduated from Bible college with me, back in the day, as we were having lunch together years later, both of us now atheists at that time, say to me, "I'm so glad we have the truth now!". I chuckled a little and said, "I remember both of us saying those same words to each other when were were bible-believing fundamentalists!". He paused stunned for a moment, then answered, "Yes, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth".

Is that your story too?

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh easy, easy, easy!

The gospels say that Jesus fame spread far and wide beyond the borders of Israel into Syria. That's pretty famous, wouldn't you agree? How is it that Philo of Alexandria, the foremost Jewish historian of that time who was in Jerusalem during Jesus' ministry, doesn't say a single word about Jesus, this most famous rabbi and miracle worker--the trial; the 3 hours of supernatural darkness over the entire world, according to Mark; the earthquake, the zombies rising out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem and talking with inhabitants. Philo doesn't mention a word of all this. On top of that, not a single culture over the entire planet made a record of this 3 hours of supernatural darkness. That takes more faith to believe than Jesus rising from the dead.

If cultures in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas had cave carvings of this supernatural darkness covering their lands for 3 hours and the dates coincided, that would be proof positive Jesus was really the son of God. Hell, if even 5 historians in the list I provided in post #44 had written, "I can attest that a Jesus ben Joseph of Galilee who raised two people from the dead and was himself crucified and rose just as his followers claim." that would be pretty good proof that a divine Jesus was real.

But we have none of that. We haven't a single word from independent witnesses that can corroborate what the writers of the gospels claim happened. We haven't a single mention of a single apostle in the historic record. We have nothing. This is strange when you think that the Christian god would have wanted everyone to believe in his son's death and resurrection.

So you are saying is that if there were independent witnesses that corroborated what is written in the gospels that would constitute proof for you that Jesus was the Jesus depicted in the gospels, the son of God who performed miracles?

I have to say that a lot of what is in the NT sounds fictitious, especially the zombies rising out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem and talking with inhabitants, Jesus raising people from the dead, and Jesus rising from the dead. I don't know how or why that came to be accepted by Christians.

By contrast, there were thousands of thousands of eyewitnesses who witnessed the miracle that happened at the Execution of the Bab.
The events that took place at the execution are delineated on Wikipedia: Execution of the Báb

The execution is also cited in God Passes By:

“It would indeed be no exaggeration to say that nowhere in the whole compass of the world’s religious literature, except in the Gospels, do we find any record relating to the death of any of the religion-founders of the past comparable to the martyrdom suffered by the Prophet of Shíráz. So strange, so inexplicable a phenomenon, attested by eye-witnesses, corroborated by men of recognized standing, and acknowledged by government as well as unofficial historians among the people who had sworn undying hostility to the Bábí Faith, may be truly regarded as the most marvelous manifestation of the unique potentialities with which a Dispensation promised by all the Dispensations of the past had been endowed.”

Of course, the difference is that the Gospels were not corroberated by independent eyewitnesses as was the execution of the Bab.

 

[Augustus]

Might as well get some enjoyment out of it while you're here

Is there any evidence the average believer gets less enjoyment?

Any study I’ve seen says religious people are happier, or it makes little difference.

To get philosophical for a minute, the poor kids who still-birth or die before they are five of disease, famine, natural disaster or abuse are the collateral damage of a universal system that doesn't give a damn about us. We're specks on a globe that is a speck in a galaxy that is a speck in a universe. To think that a God who created the universe can actually love a speck of a speck of a speck is so ludicrous it'd be a gut-buster if billions of people didn't actually believe such preposterous nonsense.

People have to believe some kind of myth ( or if you prefer, made up nonsense).

Being a bunch of matter that became sentient by chance and lives in a meaningless universe where nothing matters or has any intrinsic value is not the basis for any functioning civilisation.

So we all create myths to soften the harshness of our reality whether these are religious myths or secular ones.

Your post talks about rights, how we can waste our lives following myths and relies on a particular subjective conception of the good, none of these points is consistent with a cold, meaningless universe but one which you have softened with a layer of fiction.

 

[YoursTrue]

And I learned a while ago that when I tried to sell the Brooklyn Bridge for $10,000 to a person I met but didn't have the deed, I just insisted, "You don't need the deed. You can trust me ON FAITH that I own this bridge. It's yours. Now fork over the 10 grand." Needless to say he forked it right over. He was Christian, by the way.

That's ok. Many believed and many did not. Take care and bye for now.