There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[YoursTrue]

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.



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.

I am glad you mentioned the harshness of what we see around us. Or as you said, the harshness of reality. It isn't pleasant. There are therapists and drugs, etc. to help some people cope I suppose. I suppose religion helps others as well. I feel pretty certain there are also those who claim to be happy who are not religious. OK, so they're happy. I personally (not speaking for anyone else) am better off now knowing what I have learned from the Bible and what the future holds than I was before that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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?

I agree that there are countless different "side" to the Jesus story. The one thing that I would not do is to make the mistake of thinking that only atheists are mythicists when it comes to the existence of Jesus. There could very easily be quite a few non-Abrahamic Jesus mythicists. I do think that he probably existed, but that is about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

The problem I find with your summation is that in the Bible itself, it says that many did not believe Jesus was resurrected. It already made note of the disparate opinions of that time. Therefore, it reflects what you are saying -- some believed and others did not. This strikes me (maybe not you) as reality. A realistic portrayal of what happened.

 

[1213]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period....

Probably because it all turns into nonsecular, if it is pro Jesus. I think it would be impossible to have secular positive historical evidence for Jesus, even if all what the Bible tells is true.

 

[syo]

Jesus is myth. Nothing historical.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Depends on what sort of historical evidence you refer to. Places, yes. The NT mentions Jerusalem. We know Jerusalem exists. The apostles? Can you find a single secular historical entry for a single apostle? I'd love to know it if you can. Even the Bible doesn't mention what happened to the apostles. All the church has is "Tradition says he was......" That's not historical evidence by any stretch.

Only two key events are agreed upon to be historical but this is enough to establish that Jesus was a real historical person.

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus by critical historical methods, in contrast to religious interpretations.[1][2] It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.[3][4][5] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[6][7][8][9][10]​

​

Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the gospels, while several non-biblical sources also support his historical existence.[11][12][13] Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[14][15] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and crucified.[16][17][18][19]​

​

Source:

​

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[PearlSeeker]

Some additional info:

The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof Exists? | HISTORY

Some argue that Jesus wasn't an actual man, but within a few decades of his lifetime, he was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians.

www.history.com

 

[blü 2]

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 argument against the existence of a human historical Jesus in based on the absence of evidence, as you say, starting with the datum that none of the gospel authors or Paul ever met one. To that I'd add that there are five different Jesuses in the NT ─ Paul's (written 20-30 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion) , who as Paul states clearly at Galatians 1:11-12 comes out of Paul's head, and who, for Paul, preexisted in heaven with God and created the material universe (ideas from gnosticism); Mark's, the first gospel (say 45 years after), in which Jesus is an ordinary Jew in a Jewish family who think he's nuts, and who is expressly not descended from David; Matthew's (say 55 years after), whose Jesus is brought into being by divine insemination of a virgin (the virgin state is implied, not explicit), and who (absurdly) is 'descended from David' via two equally fake and wholly irreconcilable genealogies for Joseph, expressly not a blood relation of his; Luke's (taken to be shortly after Matthew's), who is similar, though here Mary's virginity is express, and there are no silly genealogies , just the bare mention of descent from David in unexplained / unexplainable fashion; and John's (60-70 years after), who like Paul's, pre-existed in heaven, created the universe, and since he's said to be descended from David, is presumably the child of an unidentified Jewish couple into whose zygote the Jesus spirit slipped, in order to be embodied.

The two strongest arguments in favor of there being an actual human around which the stories are spun are, in my view, that in all four gospels Jesus fights with his family and in particular his mother (solely excepting the command of John's crucified Jesus that the 'Beloved Disciple' look after his mother) ─ what historians call the criterion of embarrassment, a detail a fiction-writing and idealizing author wouldn't think to invent.

And (as Bart Ehrman notes) none of the early critics / enemies of Christianity uses an argument that there never was an historical Jesus, that the man is a fiction.

So I used to think it was more likely than not that there was no historical Jesus, but these days I'm inclined to think it's say 50-50 that there was.

 

[Colt]

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. 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.

I'm fully aware of both sides of the story. Taken in its totality, the imperfection, contradictions and conflicting human accounts, male chauvinism, ego deflation, doubts among followers, rejection by religious authorities in his day etc, all this is more authenticating than invalidating! In other words, if someone was going to perpetuate a fraud then they would have done a much better job then what we have in the NT!

There is something inexplicable in the heart of the believers in Jesus that recognizes the voice of the shepherd.

"The true shepherd gathers his flock into the fold for the night in times of danger. And when the morning has come, he enters into the fold by the door, and when he calls, the sheep know his voice. Every shepherd who gains entrance to the sheepfold by any other means than by the door is a thief and a robber. The true shepherd enters the fold after the porter has opened the door for him, and his sheep, knowing his voice, come out at his word; and when they that are his are thus brought forth, the true shepherd goes before them; he leads the way and the sheep follow him. His sheep follow him because they know his voice; they will not follow a stranger. They will flee from the stranger because they know not his voice. This multitude which is gathered about us here are like sheep without a shepherd, but when we speak to them, they know the shepherd's voice, and they follow after us; at least, those who hunger for truth and thirst for righteousness do. Some of you are not of my fold; you know not my voice, and you do not follow me. And because you are false shepherds, the sheep know not your voice and will not follow you." UB 1955

IMOP

 

[Windwalker]

I agree that there are countless different "side" to the Jesus story. The one thing that I would not do is to make the mistake of thinking that only atheists are mythicists when it comes to the existence of Jesus. There could very easily be quite a few non-Abrahamic Jesus mythicists. I do think that he probably existed, but that is about it.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure there are a few in other religions who may find the pure mythicist view of the historical Jesus of being completely ahistorical to be compelling to them for various scholarly reasons, even though that position is extremely rare amongst scholars.

Earl Doherty was the first amature historian I believe to offer his views on this in "The Jesus Puzzle", and the trained historian Richard Carrier who for a long time rejected that now seems to be in favor of it. But most other scholars, both religious and secular don't go that far. They recognize the mythic elements woven into the Jesus stories, but still see a real historical person behind the myths. There's too much evidence against him being a total fabrication out of whole cloth, or simply some 'heavenly' being the whole time.

I think that extreme view of a completely ahistorical, pure mythicist Jesus is mainly more attractive to novice anti-theists who find it easier to deal with, because it eliminates any possible threat of there being a real Jesus who might be seen as indirectly validating the abusive fundamentalist teachings they had experienced in church. In other words, it's less about scholarship as it is about what feels safer to them which inspires them to find rational validations for that view.

For others, there is that middle ground region located between the extremes of the "He never existed and it's all made up to control the masses" group, and its flipside of the extremist coin, "Every word of bible is literally true, and Jesus literally was born of a literal virgin, literally walked on water and through walls, and literally rose up into the clouds".

Extremist views are simply flipsides of the same coin of literalist black and white thinking. One side is 100% literally true, the other side is 100% literally false. Both are doing the exact same thing. I'm fond of saying that "you can take the true believer out of the fundamentalist church, but you can't take the fundamentalism out of the true believer".

It's just simply shifting the same type of black and white thinking to different things they are now believing in. Now they are on a mission to save the world from religion, rather than save the world with religion. "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth!" It's really now what we believe, but how we believe that makes the real difference.

 

[Thrillobyte]

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.

Incredible as it sounds, most hardcore Christians simply say, "I choose to ignore the evidence no matter how strong it may be". It's almost like withdrawing into this bubble of denial is a defense mechanism to keep their psychological health intact because the shock of learning their beloved Jesus is a fraud would rock their world back to the day they were born.

The dean of apologists is a theologian named William lane Craig. This guy's IQ is off the charts. Watch any of his debates on YouTube and you'll see why. Here's what he said about evidence:

"The way I know Christianity is true first and foremost is the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. This gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true apart from the evidence. And if in some future circumstance the evidence should turn against Christianity I don't think that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit."

Lane Craig is saying: "I don't care what the evidence says. I believe the testimony of the Holy Spirit in my heart more than I believe solid historical evidence that controverts that testimony."

WL Craig's beliefs are based on the "witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart" and are independent of evidence and reason.

Many if not most apologists practice a method of what could be termed "selective cherry-picking"--choosing to believe those pieces of evidence that support their beliefs and deliberately shunning those that contradict their beliefs. Here's another example:

"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but SECONDARY in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field including history can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

And this

"Where physical evidence from the creation can be used to confirm the Bible, this evidence must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The Written Word must take priority [over evidence] in the event of any apparent conflict." Mark Ramsey's Greater Houston Creation Association

It is astonishing how the Christian mind can completely blot out reality and truth in the service of such a flawed contradictory document as the Bible but there you have it, people.

 

[Windwalker]

Incredible as it sounds, most hardcore Christians simply say, "I choose to ignore the evidence no matter how strong it may be". It's almost like withdrawing into this bubble of denial is a defense mechanism to keep their psychological health intact because the shock of learning their beloved Jesus is a fraud would rock their world back to the day they were born.

This is true of anyone who has a strong emotional investment in their chosen beliefs, be those religious or secular in nature. Just look at the MAGA believers in Trump who still think the election was stolen, despite zero supporting evidence. It's the same thing as the Answers in Genesis black hole of reason.

The dean of apologists is a theologian named William lane Craig. This guy's IQ is off the charts. Watch any of his debates on YouTube and you'll see why. Here's what he said about evidence:

"The way I know Christianity is true first and foremost is the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. This gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true apart from the evidence. And if in some future circumstance the evidence should turn against Christianity I don't think that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit."

Lane Craig is saying: "I don't care what the evidence says. I believe the testimony of the Holy Spirit in my heart more than I believe solid historical evidence that controverts that testimony."

WL Craig's beliefs are based on the "witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart" and are independent of evidence and reason.

Many if not most apologists practice a method of what could be termed "selective cherry-picking"--choosing to believe those pieces of evidence that support their beliefs and deliberately shunning those that contradict their beliefs. Here's another example:

"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but SECONDARY in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field including history can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith

And this

"Where physical evidence from the creation can be used to confirm the Bible, this evidence must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The Written Word must take priority [over evidence] in the event of any apparent conflict." Mark Ramsey's Greater Houston Creation Association

Yes, fundamentalists are particular prone to denialism, be those Christians or atheists who selective see what they want to, and dismiss or mock as "woo woo" anything that doesn't comport with their beliefs.

It is astonishing how the Christian mind can completely blot out reality and truth in the service of such a flawed contradictory document as the Bible but there you have it, people.

And what of the atheist who mocks anything that contradicts a materialist paradigm? Aren't they doing the same thing, just with a different object of belief?

 

[Thrillobyte]

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.

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?

When I was a dumb as a rock Christian I believed the typical Christian line that "Jesus is better represented in history than Julius Caesar." I now know that to be completely false. We have busts of Caesar, we have reliefs of Caesar, we have the words of his contemporaries mentioning Caesar, we have Roman records in which Caesar is mentioned, we have Caesar's own words in a number of original texts he wrote, we have coins with Caesar's profile on them. We have none of this for Jesus. The Christians' statement about Caesar is an outright lie.

There are any number of outright fraudulent claims made by Christians such as:

1. "All the apostles were willing to die for their faith." A complete fabrication. There is no historical record of any of the apostles.

2. "Noah's ark has been found on Mt. Ararat." A complete fabrication. Nothing has been found.

3. "There are no mistakes in the Bible. It is the perfect word of God." A complete fabrication. The Bible is riddled with errors and contradictions as any human-inspired document would be.

So yes, I say confidently that all four claims can be soundly refuted by atheists and if atheists are telling the truth then it's the Christians that are being untruthful.

Let's test it:

Windwalker, do you content that all the apostles died for their faith in Jesus? Yes or no?

 

[Thrillobyte]

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'm going to qualify that by saying that if you're going to mention Tacitus and Suetonius, then I will say that historians recognize that Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT say "Jesus", they said "Chrestians". Some historians believe there was a fellow name Chrestus and it was this person that Tacitus may have been referring to. It's no stretch that this Chrestus would have been crucified since Pilate never met a Jew he didn't want to crucify if he could find any reason to do so. Clever Christian churchmen blotted out the "e" in ChrEstus and changed it to an "i". I have the proof:

 

[Thrillobyte]

Is there any evidence the average believer gets less enjoyment?

Enjoyment obviously varies from person to person. I have no doubt many Christians are perfectly happy with their choice to remain Christian, even after finding out the gospels Jesus is a mythical figure. Possible reasons would be they enjoy their fellowship with like-minded people at Church, at parties, at functions, etc. In short, they've established a certain kind of lifestyle with people they enjoy being with and they don't want to give this up by becoming a Jesus-denier.

Take into consideration that Christians must follow a litany of commands found in the Old and New Testaments and atheists are not bound by such commands. Go down the list of ten commands and realize that Christians must obey them even if their natural inclination is to want to break them. That has to create some kind of tension. Atheists have no such tension. But Christians have this dream that they will go to heaven when they die and they have the comfort that all the people who hurt them on earth will be burning in hell for eternity. That has to provide some enjoyment.

There are lots of ways and angles to take your question as you can see. What I've said is merely the tip.

 

[Thrillobyte]

The problem I find with your summation is that in the Bible itself, it says that many did not believe Jesus was resurrected. It already made note of the disparate opinions of that time. Therefore, it reflects what you are saying -- some believed and others did not. This strikes me (maybe not you) as reality. A realistic portrayal of what happened.

I only go by the historic record, True. It's all we have. I discount the New Testament as an accurate historic record because it is an accepted conclusion among Bible scholars (sans Christian ones of course) that the New Testament is NOT an accurate historic record, it is a theological statement of faith:

"After centuries of analysis, many biblical scholars now tell us that the gospels cannot be taken as gospel. Why is this so?


First, scholars explain that the gospels were created as documents of faith, not documents of history. They were not written as accurate historical biographies of the human Jesus who lived and died in the first century of the Common Era (CE). The gospels are more a record of the early church’s beliefs about Jesus than a true historical record of what Jesus actually said and did. They were written to present the message of the early church—its teaching and preaching about Jesus—and to give an overview of Jesus’ life and death to people who already believed that Jesus was the son of God and savior of the world.


The author of John’s gospel states plainly that his purpose is faith, not history."

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. (John 20:31)

documents of faith, not history

Following Jesus calls us to become troublemakers, revolutionaries, seekers of change, and agents of transformation for justice and peace in the world.

followingjesus.org

If the gospels were written not as history then it stands to reason that its authors were primarily concerned with converting people, not with getting the details accurate. Otherwise the scholars would be saying, "The gospels are historically accurate testimonies of faith." Would you agree?

 

[Alien826]

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?

OK. Basically it all goes back to the "hidden" nature of god. There's always something standing between us and actual contact with god. Sometimes it's a priest who claims to be the only category of humanity that can correctly interpret the "holy scriptures". Sometimes it's the scriptures themselves, the meaning of which seems to vary depending on who is claiming to be an "expert". Sometimes it's a "messenger" who is apparently the only person that god talks to in a given period of history.

If god simply made its existence plain to all of us, there would be no problem. It would tell us the truth and we would believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm going to qualify that by saying that if you're going to mention Tacitus and Suetonius, then I will say that historians recognize that Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT say "Jesus", they said "Chrestians". Some historians believe there was a fellow name Chrestus and it was this person that Tacitus may have been referring to. It's no stretch that this Chrestus would have been crucified since Pilate never met a Jew he didn't want to crucify if he could find any reason to do so. Clever Christian churchmen blotted out the "e" in ChrEstus and changed it to an "i". I have the proof:

View attachment 77844

It sounds like you have studied this a lot. I have not studied it, so I don't even know who Tacitus and Suetonius were.

But my question still stands: If there were independent historians 'who you trusted to have presented accurate history about Jesus' and if they corroborated what is written in the gospels, would that would constitute proof for you that Jesus was the Jesus depicted in the gospels, the son of God who performed miracles?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. Basically it all goes back to the "hidden" nature of god. There's always something standing between us and actual contact with god. Sometimes it's a priest who claims to be the only category of humanity that can correctly interpret the "holy scriptures". Sometimes it's the scriptures themselves, the meaning of which seems to vary depending on who is claiming to be an "expert". Sometimes it's a "messenger" who is apparently the only person that god talks to in a given period of history.

That's true.

If god simply made its existence plain to all of us, there would be no problem. It would tell us the truth and we would believe it.

How do you think God could make His existence plain to everyone, other than sending messengers to represent Him?
Hint: The answer is not that God is omnipotent and omniscient so God could do it and God would know how. I am asking you to think about how.

 

[Windwalker]

When I was a dumb as a rock Christian I believed the typical Christian line that "Jesus is better represented in history than Julius Caesar." I now know that to be completely false.

That is correct. Those apologist's arguments, like those of Creationists' arguments against the science of evolution, are poorly supported, if not just outright bogus.

There are any number of outright fraudulent claims made by Christians such as:

Are you speaking of Christians as a monolithic voice, or specifically of fundamentalists, who are not representative of the religion as a whole?

1. "All the apostles were willing to die for their faith." A complete fabrication. There is no historical record of any of the apostles.

That argument had never been satisfying to me, even when I was a 'true believer' in a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. "No one would be willing to die for their faith if it wasn't true". Even then I knew that was bogus. People die for what they believe to be true all the time, whether it is factual or not.

Take for instance that MAGA woman who got herself shot to death as she stormed the Capitol believing the election was stolen. Just because someone dies for what they believe to be true, does not make that thing they believe to necessarily be true.

2. "Noah's ark has been found on Mt. Ararat." A complete fabrication. Nothing has been found.

Correct. The story of Noah's Ark is not a story of actual history. It's a mythology that is intended to teach a story about God to the people of Israel. Mythologies are lessons in story forms, not "bad history" as some modern "skeptic" horribly misidentifies them.

3. "There are no mistakes in the Bible. It is the perfect word of God." A complete fabrication. The Bible is riddled with errors and contradictions as any human-inspired document would be.

Of course. It is a human production, albeight in many ways an "inspired" production. But inspired does not mean dictated or innerent. A great piece of music, or a play, or a dance performance may be deeply inspired, but not "flawless".

Expectations of flawlessness is purely wrongheaded thinking, on both the part of the "true believer" and the part of the so-called "skeptic". As I said, this it's all 100% right, or 100% wrong, is flawed reasoning, on both ends of that spectrum.

So yes, I say confidently that all four claims can be soundly refuted by atheists and if atheists are telling the truth then it's the Christians that are being untruthful.

They can also be soundly refuted by Christians themselves who do not see those as essential or necessary parts of their faith. Their faith is not based on thinking like that. The story in the bible can be completely fictitious, yet their faith isn't based upon it being factual to begin with. It's based upon something in their heart, and beliefs are allowed to be found flawed or wrong.

But not so with the "true believer" who rests on 'proofs', that their minds can trust because they have no faith to speak of. Those atheists who see that as a reason to throw the whole baby with the bathwater are reasoning exactly the same way as those Christian fundamentalists who think it has to be flawless and historically and scientifically sound in order for it to be valid.

Those atheists who see these flaws and therefore reject it wholly because of those, are in agreement with the fundamentalists who see it the same way. It's either all true, or all false. Black and white reasoning. And that I find to be rationally flawed on both accounts.

Let's test it:

Windwalker, do you content that all the apostles died for their faith in Jesus? Yes or no?

If they were historical persons that did in fact die for their faith in Jesus, sure. Why not? As I said, people die for what they believe in all the time. Were the stories of the disciples written in the gospels historically accurate? That's another question. But it's not either all true or all false.

I can say though that we can say that Paul was in fact a real person, since we do have his direct writings in some of the letters attributed to him, around 7 is the accepted number I believe.