There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Trailblazer]

No, it's a logical fallacy, called the bandwagon fallacy.

No, it is not a logical fallacy because I did not say Jesus existed because many or most people believe He existed.
I was agreeing with @cOLTER that it would be hard to justify the nonexistence of a man who has more effect on history than any other man in history.
That is just not logical at all.

There are hardly any scholars who will say that Jesus did not exist but whether He did everything that is recorded in the New Testament is a whole nother story!

 

[Colt]

Why not Jesus himself? He could appear right this moment and every atheist in the world would disappear overnight. We'd all be believers. Isn't that what God the father wants--for everyone to believe in Jesus?

Because we are supposed to be living by faith. The spiritually lazy want their homework done for them!
BTW, there were plenty of people who witnessed Jesus while on earth and still that wasn't enough!

The devil knows Jesus and still, thats not enough! Lucifer rejected faith in the unseen Father and rebelled against the rule of the Son!

So no! Seeing Jesus wouldn't convince all atheists necessarily

 

[Colt]

No, it is not a logical fallacy because I did not say Jesus existed because many or most people believe He existed.
I was agreeing with @cOLTER that it would be hard to justify the nonexistence of a man who has more effect on history than any other man in history.
That is just not logical at all.

There are hardly any scholars who will say that Jesus did not exist but whether He did everything that is recorded in the New Testament is a whole nother story!

And these same people have no problem saying that lightening struck a pile of wet sand 3.5 billion years ago, life forms popped out and fell uphill until humans evolved! Humans that are searching for God LoL! But since we dont have a Tik Tok video of Jesus healing sombody, it all just too much to be believed!

 

[SkepticThinker]

And these same people have no problem saying that lightening struck a pile of wet sand 3.5 billion years ago, life forms popped out and fell uphill until humans evolved!

I don't know anybody who thinks that. Who are these people?
Oh wait, that was just your strawman.

Humans that are searching for God LoL! But since we dont have a Tik Tok video of Jesus healing sombody, it all just too much to be believed!

I'm not searching for god.
I do need evidence to believe things. It's a shame that others don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

So no! Seeing Jesus wouldn't convince all atheists necessarily

I don't think it would convince many of them because Jesus appeared just like an ordinary man when He walked the earth, and He did that for a reason, so people would see Him for his qualities and His works and have faith in Him.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not searching for god.

How do you think you are going to find evidence for God is you are not searching for God?

 

[Colt]

I don't think it would convince many of them because Jesus appeared just like an ordinary man when He walked the earth, and He did that for a reason, so people would see Him for his qualities and His works and have faith in Him.

It was remarkable, he hid in plain sight!

 

[Colt]

I don't know anybody who thinks that. Who are these people?
Oh wait, that was just your strawman.

A strawman? You should get out a little more!

Miller–Urey experiment​

The experiment
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was a chemistry experiment carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth, in order to test the hypothesis of the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and an electric arc (the latter simulating hypothesized lightning).

At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the hypothesized conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis. It was performed in 1953 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year.[3][4][5]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in the genetic code.[6] More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex compounds—such as cyanide—under varying conditions.[7]

I'm not searching for god.
I do need evidence to believe things. It's a shame that others don't.

Its actually a blessing!

John 20:26–29

• Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
  
  

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you think you are going to find evidence for God is you are not searching for God?

I used to be a Christian. It's when I realized I didn't have good reasons to believe and that I was completely lacking in evidence that I stopped believing.

I'm not looking for any gods. I've yet to see any good evidence for god(s). If god(s) want me to know they're there, they know where to find me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A strawman? You should get out a little more!

Miller–Urey experiment​

The experiment
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was a chemistry experiment carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth, in order to test the hypothesis of the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and an electric arc (the latter simulating hypothesized lightning).

At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the hypothesized conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis. It was performed in 1953 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year.[3][4][5]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in the genetic code.[6] More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex compounds—such as cyanide—under varying conditions.[7]



Its actually a blessing!

John 20:26–29

• Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Yeah, what you just described above, is a strawman explanation of those experiments. And I think you know it.

 

[Colt]

Yeah, what you just described above, is a strawman explanation of those experiments. And I think you know it.

It was sarcasm based on a real premise, and I think you know it, but you take everything too seriously!

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was sarcasm based on a real premise, and I think you know it, but you take everything too seriously!

It was a strawman, obviously meant to denigrate evidenced-based methodology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because we are supposed to be living by faith. The spiritually lazy want their homework done for them!
BTW, there were plenty of people who witnessed Jesus while on earth and still that wasn't enough!

The devil knows Jesus and still, thats not enough! Lucifer rejected faith in the unseen Father and rebelled against the rule of the Son!

Faith is unjustified belief, and therefore useless to me, because it's not a reliable pathway to truth. Anything can be believed on faith.

So no! Seeing Jesus wouldn't convince all atheists necessarily

Nonsense apologetics. Show me good evidence for something, and I'll believe it. I will have no choice but to be convinced.

 

[Trailblazer]

I used to be a Christian. It's when I realized I didn't have good reasons to believe and that I was completely lacking in evidence that I stopped believing.

You, and millions of other atheists.

I'm not looking for any gods. I've yet to see any good evidence for god(s). If god(s) want me to know they're there, they know where to find me.

Sorry, that is not how God operates. God expects us to search for evidence of Him. God is not a delivery boy who comes to find people.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, and I rebutted that. You say or imply that Jesus' words and actions were so exemplary that a world religion formed because of them. That's what "right person" implies. That would be HIS impact.

No, that is not what it means. I see that my efforts to explain my position has not been clear enough. I'll try to explain it better from a different approach.

Back to what I originally talked about as the difference between the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus, or the Jesus of faith. These are two different perspective. The former is secular. The latter religious. When I say Jesus had to have been extraordinary, I am speaking of the historical view, or the secular historian perspective. But you are hearing, and each time saying back to me the word "exemplary". I never have used that word. Yet each time, that is what you repeat back as if that is my meaning. It is not my meaning.

Now regarding "exemplary", that would be the latter perspective, the Jesus of faith, or the theological Jesus. Is the theological Jesus exemplary? Of course! That's the whole point of it. That is the Jesus of faith. But does the Jesus of faith depend upon the Jesus of fact? No. That's why is is a matter of faith, not fact. Faith is of the heart, it is about hope and aspiration. It has nothing to do with bad beliefs. I say that in all-bold because I have tried to say that in every single conversation we have ever had.

Faith is not the same thing as belief. Faith has more to do with hope, than anything else. And is hope based in fact? No, of course not. It's casting ones mind into the void, where evidence of facts are insufficient. If there was evidence, than that would be much more about a basic expectation of outcomes. A certain trust. But a lot more of course could be said about that, but it's a whole topic in itself. Back to point in hand however.

What the "exemplary Jesus" is, the Jesus of faith, the theological Jesus as distinct from the historical Jesus, is what is known as an archetype. Archetypes are that ideal example (or exemplary) model of figure of a thing. Jesus as the Christ is an archetype of the ideal human. The spiritual human, the Enlightened being (which is a Buddhist view as well as a Hindu view). So the Jesus of faith, is the archetype of one's own highest potential. Whereas biologically we are homosapiens, the idea is homo deus, or the Divine Human. That is what the incarnation theology symbolizes in us. The Divine Human.

So when I say Jesus was extraordinary, I mean historically he had to have been an exceptional person to have inspired others, like Paul, and those immediately around him, and those whom they came into contact with, with what he had inspired in them. Of course Paul grew that. No argument to the contrary. He literally moved from the historical Jesus, to the Jesus of faith through them. Through them, he moved from Jesus to Christ. The extraordinary man, became the exemplary Christ.

This is where the intersect of history and faith meet. In what a historical person inspires in others, that in them they are transformed and transfigured in a archetype, the summit of their own consciousness, in response to that faith innate with in them, reaching for the Source through faith.

I realize this is a difficult concept to process. But again, I say extraordinary in speaking of the historical Jesus, and you hear me claim exemplary as the Jesus of faith. I am able to differentiate these two, and see a relationship between them. But I clearly sense you fuse them together, unable to see these as distinct domains. So that is why you fuse matters of faith, as "bad history" or bad beliefs.

To you that makes sense. To me it ignores the entire distinction between these two. It falls way short of having any adequate explanatory power.

Paul picked the story of a largely unknown unknown at the time of his death itinerant preacher with a small following and a typical religious message - be kind and be pious. If you want to rebut that, it will need to be with evidence that Jesus was the impetus for the religion named after him, not another statement that he must have been impactful since the story told about him impacted the world, since that simply need not be correct.

Paul's story is an interesting one to me. And yes, I fully agree Paul in no small way shaped the forms that Jesus took, in his much more mystical "cosmic Christ" than the messianic view of Jesus. Paul had a mystical experience, and that radically transformed his views of who and what Jesus was.

But his experience hardly was just "picking up the story" and running with it. It goes a hell of a lot deeper than that. The guy had a full out existential crisis. He had a profound crisis of faith, persecuting what he saw as a heretical cult within Judaism, which led to a conflict of what his heart was telling him versus what his actions were doing, which led to his "white light experience", his Damasicus Road, sponaneous peak experience where he "saw Christ", heard a voice from heaven, and left him basically disabled for days following.

Now, did that happen historically? I think it is more than safe to say yes. We have Paul's own words on that, as well as Lukes' take on it in Acts. It's clear he really had a life-changing experience, and it directly impacted his thoughts and ideas about who and what Jesus was.

So now Paul's Jesus, Paul's views and thoughts about it, became the new image of Jesus to others who followed his teachings. This is how Jesus moves from "Jesus to Christ". From the historical Jesus to the theological Jesus. And so forth.

There is an intersection between history and faith, that occurs in the domain of human faith. What happens in reality, is transformed by our minds, which is informed by our hearts. This is true of anything really, but especially pronounced in matters of spiritual or religious faith.

I've mentioned this already. If you are correct, you can produce this evidence. If you are incorrect, you cannot. I'm reminded of the recent news, where Hershman and Cipollone headed off Giuliani and Powell in the White House trying to get voting machines seized by the military and claiming to have hard evidence of election fraud. The good guys kept insisting on seeing it before acting, which never happened. Produce your supporting evidence. The matter is settled until you do.

If you expect the theological Jesus to be the historical Jesus, you will never find it. That is an error of logic and reason to be unable to understand the complexities of human realities.

I asked, "Christians call Jesus' life exemplary, so much so that many define Christian as being Christlike, but why?"

For the most part, they are also unable to differentiate between the Jesus of faith, the Archetypal Christ in us, and the Jesus of history. To them, and to you it seems, if the Jesus of faith is not historically true, than the symbolic value of it is lost. Essentially, you appear to see things the same way they do, except on the other side of it.

I don't know how to communicate to you that comments like yours immediately above don't satisfy my request for evidence.

I think I understand why, based on what I just explained. You are not understanding how I am able to differentiate between these things, between facts and faith, between history and symbolic truth. It seems you see them the same way as many Christians do, that if Jesus wasn't really born of a literal virgin, then it's all bull****.

I'll address the other major point of the distinction between unconditional love and conditional love in a different post later on. I need to spend some time on that, and this keeps things more focused too.

 

[lukethethird]

No, it is not a logical fallacy because I did not say Jesus existed because many or most people believe He existed.
I was agreeing with @cOLTER that it would be hard to justify the nonexistence of a man who has more effect on history than any other man in history.
That is just not logical at all.

There are hardly any scholars who will say that Jesus did not exist but whether He did everything that is recorded in the New Testament is a whole nother story!

Nice try but there is no history as regards to the protagonist in question. Not really a nice try but rather another feeble attempt on your part to provide a place for Jesus in history. Again it is a logical fallacy and a very poor argument to suggest that the popularity and the effect the narrative has on believers in the course of history requires an historical basis for the protagonist of the narrative in question. Really quite silly, but not surprising.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nice try but there is no history as regards to the protagonist in question.

Nice try, but you will never win this one, NEVER, and you only make yourself look foolish by trying. Really quite silly, but not surprising.

The question of whether Jesus historically existed is part of the study undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of his life.[1][2][3] Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was a historical figure[4][5][6][7][note 1] and consider the idea that he may not have existed at all to be a fringe theory.[note 2] Nevertheless, the historicity of numerous elements of the gospel stories of Jesus such as his miracles, what he said or did are subject to research and debate (in studies of the historical Jesus).[8][9][10][note 3]

Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives,[11][12] and only two key events are almost universally accepted, namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][8][13]

Besides the gospels, sources for the historicity of Jesus consist of Jewish and Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus, who lived shortly after the time of Jesus and referenced him and his followers in their histories.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

You, and millions of other atheists.

True that!

Sorry, that is not how God operates. God expects us to search for evidence of Him. God is not a delivery boy who comes to find people.

Too bad then, I guess. Not much I can do about it.

 

[lukethethird]

Nice try, but you will never win this one, NEVER, and you only make yourself look foolish by trying. Really quite silly, but not surprising.

The question of whether Jesus historically existed is part of the study undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of his life.[1][2][3] Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was a historical figure[4][5][6][7][note 1] and consider the idea that he may not have existed at all to be a fringe theory.[note 2] Nevertheless, the historicity of numerous elements of the gospel stories of Jesus such as his miracles, what he said or did are subject to research and debate (in studies of the historical Jesus).[8][9][10][note 3]

Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives,[11][12] and only two key events are almost universally accepted, namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][8][13]

Besides the gospels, sources for the historicity of Jesus consist of Jewish and Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus, who lived shortly after the time of Jesus and referenced him and his followers in their histories.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Parrots in an echo chamber without a stick of evidence to back up their parroting. It doesn't matter what beliefs scholars agree on if they can't provide evidence. Scholars can't even agree on who Jesus was, and neither can believers such as yourself.

"Nice try, but you will never win this one, NEVER, and you only make yourself look foolish by trying. Really quite silly, but not surprising."

So you are a parrot.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But, there's a benefit to this method, skipping over knowledge in favor of belief.

Knowledge is knowing how Google maps works. Belief is the idea that the little blue line on the map is a road and not a river and then drowning.