There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[dybmh]

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.

Please reread my quote.

There is A benefit to belief. It is not always a benefit in all situations. This is THE benefit that I said in the post just a few sentences away from what you quoted:

"belief permits a wide diverse audience to have a 100% true relationship with an infinite formless being."

Unless you object to this benefit and can link it to Google maps, your reply isn't very useful.

 

[nPeace]

Relying on what one writer said one hundreds years after the setting of the story to say it is real, how pathetic is that?

No Not pathetic at all What would be pathetic, is the suggestion you just made.
Anyway, nPeace promised himself to be gentle... until certain people show us. Then they get a scathing message.

Consider... in case you weren't paying attention... which reminds me, did you do any research on the last exercise?
The most detailed records of Jesus' existence - the four Gospels and other New Testament writings, are borne out by later non-Christian sources which corroborate portions of those New Testament records.

Clear enough?
Perhaps research what Christians and those professing Christianity say, rather than make these... um... statements.
Here is one you can enlighten your mind with.

Something to think about...
Would you consider, as rubbish, a book written about George Washington?
Would you consider it pathetic for anyone to recommend persons read it?

What would be pathetic, would be to dismiss it, simply on the basis that someone wrote it over 200 years after.... maybe because the person thought it was the first and only writing on Washington.
This is how we preserve history, actually.

Today, they use DVDs and USB sticks... but people still write. Writing is a beautiful gift.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

That's true. There isn't anything you can do about it since the omnipotent God only does what He desires to do.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You are wrong. Just as Paul speaks of the suffering of Jesus Plutarch says the sufferings/passion (pathemata) of other savior gods were spoken of in other mystery cults.
Justin Martyr explained that Jesus was exactly like all the other Greek deities. He had to claim the devil made it look that way to fool Christians into thinking Jesus was just another Greek deity.
At a similar time when Jesus stories were beginning, Romulus stories were popular. He is the founder of Rome, he was the son of a God, born of a virgin, an attempt is made to kill him as a child, he is saved. raised by a poor family, became a lowly shepard, then beloved by the people and hailed as a king. He is killed by the elite, raised from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to the people and ascends to heaven to rule from high. Plutarch tells the story.
Just like Jesus. There is your normal person with "magic bits".

The Jesus myths follow tropes but with a Jewish spin on them. Many other demigods underwent their passion in the lower celestial realm and later stories on earth were set for them.

What astonishes me is the glaring dichotomy between ordinary rational people and Christians with their heads in the sand. Show an ordinary rational person how there's no evidence for Jesus and how his life reads EXACTLY like the lives of a half dozen earlier mythical man gods and they'll conclude what the evidence plainly dictates: Jesus was a mythical avatar man god invented in the mold of earlier Greek and Roman man gods. But not Christians. The more evidence you show that Jesus was a created man god the more they will push back against the evidence and insist Jesus was real.

Just to compare Jesus to Trump for a moment: Christians remind me of Trump's loyal base: the more crimes that surface against Trump the more loyal his followers become to the point they deny Trump committed any crimes despite the mountain of evidence he did. These are all the signs of a cultish figure like Jim Jones and David Koresh--blind loyalty toward a leader for whom they would go any lengths, even facing death. It's chilling to think how brainwashed people can be when they are willing to follow a cult figure through the gate of hell out of blind loyalty to them.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The scholars don't publish papers without evidence. You just don't LIKE the evidence they have, but that doesn't make it non-evidence.

"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.

If the shoe fits wear it.
Whether I am a parrot or not is irrelevant to the point at hand. Calling me a parrot is just deflection.

 

[Thrillobyte]

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

Which takes me back to the exact same question I asked you before: if Jesus was willing to prove himself risen to thousands of followers back then, why is he so camera-shy today? He certainly wasn't worried about preventing them from living by faith or violating their free will to accept or reject him then. So why now is he suddenly worried he's going to upset their living by faith or violate their free will today?

 

[Colt]

Which takes me back to the exact same question I asked you before: if Jesus was willing to prove himself risen to thousands of followers back then, why is he so camera-shy today? He certainly wasn't worried about preventing them from living by faith or violating their free will to accept or reject him then. So why now is he suddenly worried he's going to upset their living by faith or violate their free will today?

He appeared to believers, he strengthened their faith. He didn't appear to enemies.

Judas spent a lot of time with Jesus but lost faith!

 

[dybmh]

What astonishes me is the glaring dichotomy between ordinary rational people and Christians with their heads in the sand... The more evidence you show that Jesus was a created man god the more they will push back against the evidence and insist Jesus was real.

Speaking of putting heads in the sand... I asked repeatedly about this 20 out of 22 score you gave Jesus and used that compare him to Hercules. Since you didn't answer, I researched the Rank-Raglan rating of Jesus. It appears I was correct about that. Confirmed by James F. McGrath PHD, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature Butler University. Notice the PHD? That defeats @joelr's Pretty Hopeless Defense of Carrier "uh, uuh, ya got a PHD?"

You can read about it here.

Rankled by Wrangling over Rank-Raglan Rankings: Jesus and the Mythic Hero Archetype | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

What you'll read is that Jesus ranks an optimistic 4 on the scale. With extreme optimism it's a 9. That's a huge difference from 20, and Carrier adjusted the Rank-Raglan scale reducing its precision to permit the exaggerated 20 similarities. Carrier responds ( link below ) with name calling. That's pretty much it. He admits to changing the scale, but doesn't say much about why or how he did it. Only something like "prove that that the scale's wrong, you Christian apologist!" Changing it isn't the problem really. It's changing it, but at the same time leaning on the reputation of the original list.

McGrath on the Rank-Raglan Mythotype • Richard Carrier Blogs

Yesterday I addressed McGrath’s confused critique of portions of On the Historicity of Jesus (in McGrath on OHJ: A Failure of Logic and Accuracy). He has also published a second entry in what promises to be a series about OHJ, this one titled “Rankled by Wrangling over Rank-Raglan Rankings...

www.richardcarrier.info

It would be true to say, "According to Carrier's self-developed list of mythical qualities, Carrier has determined that Jesus is a myth like Hercules and many others." OK. Carrier made up his own ranking system. That's true. It has much less impact than claiming "Jesus scores 20 points out of 22 on the Rank-Raglan scale." because saying that implies some sort of non-biased accounting. And this ignores the more serious problem, claiming Jesus scores 20 out of 22 is a lie. And it's an easily discoverable lie.

The most serious problem, beyond the original exaggeration, beyond the easily discoverable lie, is doubling down on the lie. If you scroll down into the comments on Carrier's blog post, you'll see he claims that Moses is a Rank-Raglan myth. Ummm, wot? I counted 5 points on the scale, and I was being optmistic with my counting. If the argument for mythicism REQUIRES reducing precision, lying about the metrics, and then doubling down and personally attacking critics of the theory...

Doesn't that indicate the argument for mythicism is weak???? Why not just skip the lie, skip the exaggerated metric? If the argument can't survive without it, that means something.

Lastly, now that it's known Carrier is a liar. Why should anyone take him seriously? Everything he says is suspect. It needs independent known-good reliable sources for verification. And if that's the case, why should anyone spend any time reading Carrier's opinion's, if they have another known-good reliable source? I suppose if they don't have any other source, but, then Carrier is still an unreliable liar.

If YOU consider yourself a rational person, do you still consider Carrier reliable? If so why? You just made an argument against Christians who deny evidence put in front of their face. I put the evidence in front your face before about this scale. Now I just did it again with PHD support. What are you going to do? Are you going to deny it? Ignore it?

Please reply.

Show an ordinary rational person how there's no evidence for Jesus and how his life reads EXACTLY like the lives of a half dozen earlier mythical man gods

LOL. As if that actually exists. EXACTLY like the lives of half dozen earlier mythical man gods? Yeah right. An ordinary rational person would be ignoring that statement. It's too exaggerated. Come back to earth Mr. Thrillobyte. Come put your feet on the ground and come out of the clouds...

 

[Audie]

No Not pathetic at all What would be pathetic, is the suggestion you just made.
Anyway, nPeace promised himself to be gentle... until certain people show us. Then they get a scathing message.

Consider... in case you weren't paying attention... which reminds me, did you do any research on the last exercise?
The most detailed records of Jesus' existence - the four Gospels and other New Testament writings, are borne out by later non-Christian sources which corroborate portions of those New Testament records.

Clear enough?
Perhaps research what Christians and those professing Christianity say, rather than make these... um... statements.
Here is one you can enlighten your mind with.

Something to think about...
Would you consider, as rubbish, a book written about George Washington?
Would you consider it pathetic for anyone to recommend persons read it?

What would be pathetic, would be to dismiss it, simply on the basis that someone wrote it over 200 years after.... maybe because the person thought it was the first and only writing on Washington.
This is how we preserve history, actually.

Today, they use DVDs and USB sticks... but people still write. Writing is a beautiful gift.

Detailed except no idea where or when he was born
dunno how old when or where he died.
And a few other lil details like about 30
years unaccounted for.




G Wash?
if it had the cherry tree story and the one
about the silver dollar told as Truth, not
so much. If the G Wash book had him
doing miracles, yeah. Dumpster.

 

[leroy]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the propaganda Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record, it is just disinformation disguised as truth to keep Christianity afloat. The truth is there simply is no secular historical evidence an avatar god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived--nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one.

The two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having little to no value in trying to prove Jesus existed. Here are some pertinent facts that Christians should consider before they try to pass off these passages as proof of Jesus:

* The Testimonium Flavianum is never quoted by anyone until the 4th century (c. 324), when Bishop Eusebius begins quoting it. Scholars believe it was Eusebius who doctored the passage with references to Jesus' supernatural nature.

* It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a Jew working in concert with the Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

* Josephus is on record that the Emperor Vespasian was the messiah and had fulfilled prophecy.

* The second passage of Josephus, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” is a scribal interpolation. There are several indications that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was not original to the text.

Here is a link to some research that will help to clear up the controversy surrounding the Josephus passages:

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the fictional apostles. The gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus purportedly was crucified in 30 AD by anonymous Greek scholars who couldn't have known Jesus and certainly were not familiar with Israel's geographic terrain as evidenced by the numerous errors they made about towns' proximity to each other and to other natural terrain. The Romans were excellent record keepers of their trials but a trial of Jesus ben Joseph or similar name who was crucified under Pilate's order simply doesn't exist. The name Yeshua ben Joseph or Yeshua Moshiach (Jesus Christ) doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. A few historians like Tacitus made reference to a man referred to as "Chrestus" but we have no idea who that is nor can we know or reasonably ascertain if they were referring to Jesus, the son of God or another Chrestus who had a following. What we Do know is that Christians are constantly trying to pass off this passage and similar ones using the term, "Christ" as proof secular historians mention Jesus. But they don't. There were dozens of "Christs" in Jesus' time. Any of them could lay claim to being the Messiah.

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise.

But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. God, if he exists, shows himself to not interfere or participate in human affairs. Thus, he could not have left any evidence for this Jesus fellow and this is exactly what we see in the secular historic record--NO mention of Jesus or the apostles.

An unassailable truth: prayers do not get answered, in contrast to what Jesus promises in the gospels. Millions upon millions of people pray every day for their sick loved ones to get well and their loved ones do not recover. If a person recovers it is usually on the order of 10% and here is the key thing: it occurs across all demographics with the SAME rate of frequency. Thus, a small percentage of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all recover from serious illness at exactly the same rate. This proves without a doubt that praying to God has nothing to do with it; some humans are going to recover from their illness but ALL terminally ill people are going to die at some point in the near future. No one is cured as a result of prayer. Study after study has borne this fact out.

There is no reason for people to believe in Jesus as the savior son of God when we haven't a single entry in the secular historic record testifying that he is. People who choose to believe in Jesus as their savior are doing so in ignorance of all the above, or they are doing it on pure faith without any evidence for Jesus. It's a crying shame that people can throw their lives away so carelessly for a myth, but it's a free country and people are permitted to squander their lives on anything they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

View attachment 77669

• The gospels (and Paul and acts) where written by well informed people who where trying to make an honest account of what actually happen.
• 
  
• 1 we know that they were well informed because almost all the testable facts that they report are true
• 
  
• 2 we know that they were being honest because they reported embarrassing stuff that go against their agenda.
• 
  
• To me this is enough to establish the historicity of Christ or any other event form ancient history. Labeling the sources as “secular” is irrelevant and useless.
• 
  
• Secular sources are just bonuses that confirm what was already known. Historians don’t dispute that Josephus mentioned Jesus , they only dispute on weather if there were additions of not or alterations

 

[lukethethird]

No Not pathetic at all What would be pathetic, is the suggestion you just made.
Anyway, nPeace promised himself to be gentle... until certain people show us. Then they get a scathing message.

Consider... in case you weren't paying attention... which reminds me, did you do any research on the last exercise?
The most detailed records of Jesus' existence - the four Gospels and other New Testament writings, are borne out by later non-Christian sources which corroborate portions of those New Testament records.

Clear enough?
Perhaps research what Christians and those professing Christianity say, rather than make these... um... statements.
Here is one you can enlighten your mind with.

Something to think about...
Would you consider, as rubbish, a book written about George Washington?
Would you consider it pathetic for anyone to recommend persons read it?

What would be pathetic, would be to dismiss it, simply on the basis that someone wrote it over 200 years after.... maybe because the person thought it was the first and only writing on Washington.
This is how we preserve history, actually.

Today, they use DVDs and USB sticks... but people still write. Writing is a beautiful gift.

None of the New Testament writings about Jesus has been verified except in your dreams. No one that wrote about Jesus ever met him. No one even quotes from a copy of the New Testament until Justin Martyr writing in the mid second century. We don't even know who wrote the gospels, when they were written or even where they were written, so good luck with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• The gospels (and Paul and acts) where written by well informed people who where trying to make an honest account of what actually happen.
• 
  
• 1 we know that they were well informed because almost all the testable facts that they report are true

I would disagree with that. Many of the testable claims appear to be false. Would you care to name some testable beliefs that you think are true, I can follow with some that are false.

• 
  
• 2 we know that they were being honest because they reported embarrassing stuff that go against their agenda.

No that is one of the worst of arguments. Why denigrate the story tellers of the past. They knew back then that putting such items in their stories made the characters seem more real.

• To me this is enough to establish the historicity of Christ or any other event form ancient history. Labeling the sources as “secular” is irrelevant and useless.

I would say that it is at least evidence to an extent that there was a Jesus. But I am not sure that he is totally arguing for a mythical Jesus. More of an "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" Jesus.

• Secular sources are just bonuses that confirm what was already known. Historians don’t dispute that Josephus mentioned Jesus , they only dispute on weather if there were additions of not or alterations

There were clear additions to the work of Josephus. But I do agree that he probably did mention his existence.

One of the problems of Jesus is that there are no contemporaneous eyewitnesses to Jesus. Bu t that speaks more to the accuracy of accounts about him, rather than whether there was a Jesus or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of the New Testament writings about Jesus has been verified except in your dreams. No one that wrote about Jesus ever met him. No one even quotes from a copy of the New Testament until Justin Martyr writing in the mid second century. We don't even know who wrote the gospels, when they were written or even where they were written, so good luck with that.

We know roughly when from various sources of evidence, and none of those dates are good for believers.

 

[lukethethird]

• The gospels (and Paul and acts) where written by well informed people who where trying to make an honest account of what actually happen.
• 
  
• 1 we know that they were well informed because almost all the testable facts that they report are true
• 
  
• 2 we know that they were being honest because they reported embarrassing stuff that go against their agenda.
• 
  
• To me this is enough to establish the historicity of Christ or any other event form ancient history. Labeling the sources as “secular” is irrelevant and useless.
• 
  
• Secular sources are just bonuses that confirm what was already known. Historians don’t dispute that Josephus mentioned Jesus , they only dispute on weather if there were additions of not or alterations

Acts is a fable wherein angels of the Lord partake and have speaking roles, people witness Jesus bodily rising up into the clouds, sure, what is embarrassing is that believers point to Acts as proof of anything other than a fable.

 

[Audie]

• The gospels (and Paul and acts) where written by well informed people who where trying to make an honest account of what actually happen.
• 
  
• 1 we know that they were well informed because almost all the testable facts that they report are true
• 
  
• 2 we know that they were being honest because they reported embarrassing stuff that go against their agenda.
• 
  
• To me this is enough to establish the historicity of Christ or any other event form ancient history. Labeling the sources as “secular” is irrelevant and useless.
• 
  
• Secular sources are just bonuses that confirm what was already known. Historians don’t dispute that Josephus mentioned Jesus , they only dispute on weather if there were additions of not or alterations

And we know the book of Mormon is true coz
Etc

 

[leroy]

And we know the book of Mormon is true coz
Etc

• Keep going………………can you show that the book of mormon was written by well informed people?

• Can you show that it was written by people that where honestly trying to report what actually happened?

 

[lukethethird]

• Keep going………………can you show that the book of mormon was written by well informed people?

• Can you show that it was written by people that where honestly trying to report what actually happened?

Acts contradicts Paul and the differences Paul wrote of (epistles), between his message and the Jerusalem group, so much for honesty since it appears to be written in order to gloss over the split in the early church. Acts is second century church propaganda.

 

[leroy]

I would disagree with that. Many of the testable claims appear to be false. Would you care to name some testable beliefs that you think are true, I can follow with some that are false.


No that is one of the worst of arguments. Why denigrate the story tellers of the past. They knew back then that putting such items in their stories made the characters seem more real.


I would say that it is at least evidence to an extent that there was a Jesus. But I am not sure that he is totally arguing for a mythical Jesus. More of an "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" Jesus.



There were clear additions to the work of Josephus. But I do agree that he probably did mention his existence.

One of the problems of Jesus is that there are no contemporaneous eyewitnesses to Jesus. Bu t that speaks more to the accuracy of accounts about him, rather than whether there was a Jesus or not.

I would disagree with that. Many of the testable claims appear to be false. Would you care to name some testable beliefs that you think are true, I can follow with some that are false.

According to the gospels (acts and paul)

There was a guy named Jonh( the Baptist)

A guy named James (the brother of jesus)

A guy named Pontius Pilate

A guy Named, caiphas

A guy names Jonh (apostle)

A guy Peter (Apostle)

Etc.

These are all historical people whose existence is verifiable and that where accuretly described in the gospels.

So if the authors of the gospels (acts Paul) claim that there was a guy named Jesus (who was crucified, had disciples etc.)

Then the historicity of this person(Jesus) is likely to be real.

Please ether grant or refute the argument,

 

[Trailblazer]

None of the New Testament writings about Jesus has been verified except in your dreams. No one that wrote about Jesus ever met him. No one even quotes from a copy of the New Testament until Justin Martyr writing in the mid second century. We don't even know who wrote the gospels, when they were written or even where they were written, so good luck with that.

How can that be? An entire religion with 2.6 billion followers based upon unverifiable stories written by unknown authors?
Yet one more reason for Christians to become atheists.

Well, my religion does not teach that the NT is verifiable so I am sitting pretty....
The facts about Baha'u'llah ARE verifiable so I am sitting double pretty.

 

[leroy]

Acts contradicts Paul and the differences Paul wrote of (epistles), between his message and the Jerusalem group, so much for honesty since it appears to be written in order to gloss over the split in the early church. Acts is second century church propaganda.

Ok, but why don’t you refute my actual argument, for why I grant these sources as historically valid?