• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.
I think Christians would not still BE Christians if they believed that Jesus was only a mythical figure. Most Christians really believe that Jesus was as depicted in the gospels, lock, stock, and barrel.
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.
I think that's true, but I don't think that is why they remain Christians. They remain Christians because they 'believe' that the Bible is an accurate depiction of Jesus.
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.
But most Christians don't obey them, so they are no different from atheists. If they obeyed them there would be no Christians having sex out of wedlock, and there would not be so many Christians getting divorced, but we all know that is not the case. Christians do whatever they want because they believe they are 'saved and forgiven.'
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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?
I would never claim that all Christians have those beliefs. I know many Christians that don't believe any of that. You are describing fundamentalists and most apologists there, not Christians in general.
 

Thrillobyte

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



Once again, I will have to repeat myself:

Christians claim: "Every scholar agrees Jesus lived". True. But which Jesus?

1. the ordinary man who was likely a rabbi and zealot and was crucified by the Romans for sedition? Yes, this is the Jesus scholars are referring to when they say a Jesus existed. They are NOT referring to

2. a divine son of a god born of a virgin who was spirited away to a foreign land as a baby because a king was trying to kill him, who returned to do great thing, suffered an ignominious if strange death on a hill who then rose and ascended into heaven.

Which Jesus are you referring to?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Christians claim: "Every scholar agrees Jesus lived". True. But which Jesus?

1. the ordinary man who was likely a rabbi and zealot and was crucified by the Romans for sedition? Yes, this is the Jesus scholars are referring to when they say a Jesus existed. They are NOT referring to

2. a divine son of a god born of a virgin who was spirited away to a foreign land as a baby because a king was trying to kill him, who returned to do great thing, suffered an ignominious if strange death on a hill who then rose and ascended into heaven.

Which Jesus are you referring to?
Maybe Jesus was neither one of those two. Maybe Jesus was 'some' of what the gospels say but not everything.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
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.
We are supposed to be having a faith experience. God is spirit and within you. That’s the only way to connect with God.
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
143 posts!

Don't feed it, folks. Intractable bombast is, first and foremost, intractable.​
It’s archetypal — the story of the person raised fundamentalist Christian who, when they place their hope in the “freedom” of the secular world, find further disappointment. In an effort to stave off the disappointment, they become convinced that the reason they’re not yet fulfilled is because that evil Christianity from their past is clinging to them still, and if they can just manage to completely free themselves from it, then paradise awaits on the other side.

Anyone perpetually victimized would make an enemy of that which is oppressing them, but is it actually true? Is it only the secularists with a Christian background who are un-fulfilled, while all the others who were raised secular are in bliss due to being untainted by Christianity?

Perhaps it’s a deeper, more fundamental problem. A difficult problem, but one that can be overcome if the anti-theists are willing to dig down into themselves.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
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.

Well, how powerful is god allowed to be?

How about if everyone heard (literally heard) a voice saying that at exactly (time) on (date) something miraculous would happen? Then at that exact time the foretold "thing" happened? I'm not sure that a literal miracle would be required. Just something extremely difficult to predict might do. Then people continued to get these messages, perhaps tailored to their individual lives. Of course, in a sense this would be sending messengers, just that we would all be messengers, and would all get the same message, allowing for different languages of course. And it would be worded plainly, not in some difficult to understand way.

The idea is that everyone could compare notes, which would tend to validate the fact that the messages came from one source, and the foretold event would confirm that it was something pretty powerful. The continuing communication would support this, as the messages, and replies to questions, worked out to be helpful and reliable on an individual basis. Questions would be answered honestly, and if the answer was "that's beyond your ability to understand", then that would be it. Once everyone was convinced, and only a total idiot would not believe at this point, god could move on to handing down a universal morality for us to follow and so on. Prayer would always be answered, and people asking for help would always get it, as appropriate of course.

Now that would be a god that I could believe in and admire!
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
We are supposed to be having a faith experience. God is spirit and within you. That’s the only way to connect with God.
Yeah.

I see that as a rationalization. There's this ultra powerful being that made the whole universe and will one day judge us according to our actions on Earth. But there is no obvious evidence to validate the existence of this being or what the heck it wants from us, just a confused muddle of scriptural writings that often contradict each other. How can it be that we don't clearly experience this amazing being?

Answer: Well, um, yes I see the problem. Nevertheless I have to cling to the original premises. So, um, what's the answer? Of course! God doesn't want us to have evidence, as he values a lucky guess higher than intelligent reasoning. Yes, that'll do. Next question?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
It should be a lot easier to prove that Jesus was based on a real person than that God exists. An added bonus is that the former would address the original OP. :)
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
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.
I'm going to propose that scholars of antiquity know a fair bit more than the non-scholars. This, for me, should be the end of the debate and anyone convinced they can overturn the opinions of "virtually all" the relevant scholars should sumbit their work to an appropriate journal.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Once again, I will have to repeat myself:

Christians claim: "Every scholar agrees Jesus lived". True. But which Jesus?

1. the ordinary man who was likely a rabbi and zealot and was crucified by the Romans for sedition? Yes, this is the Jesus scholars are referring to when they say a Jesus existed. They are NOT referring to

2. a divine son of a god born of a virgin who was spirited away to a foreign land as a baby because a king was trying to kill him, who returned to do great thing, suffered an ignominious if strange death on a hill who then rose and ascended into heaven.

Which Jesus are you referring to?
Yes, historical Jesus is different from Jesus of faith but there is historical evidence for Jesus and this is in opposition to the title of this thread.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
How about if everyone heard (literally heard) a voice saying that at exactly (time) on (date) something miraculous would happen? Then at that exact time the foretold "thing" happened? I'm not sure that a literal miracle would be required. Just something extremely difficult to predict might do. Then people continued to get these messages, perhaps tailored to their individual lives. Of course, in a sense this would be sending messengers, just that we would all be messengers, and would all get the same message, allowing for different languages of course. And it would be worded plainly, not in some difficult to understand way.

The idea is that everyone could compare notes, which would tend to validate the fact that the messages came from one source, and the foretold event would confirm that it was something pretty powerful.
I suppose God could do that if God wanted to do that but how do you think that 'everyone' could compare notes in order to validate the fact that the messages came from one source?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
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
Say we assume for the sake of argument this is true. How do you explain how Christianity survived, persisted and even thrived to the present, and has now has a billion followers?

To create a contrast, does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup, where a team of con artists and liars made up a story, convincing millions of people of an conspiracy illusion. Once it was found out it was a scam, why didn't that illusion last?

What makes these two sets of illusions different, in terms of their ability to linger in time? Things that last, tend to be timeless and will always remain relevant. Things that are temporal will become a short term fad. After the hot air is turned off, it sinks. What last, affects people deeply inside, while what is a fad reach stays in the shallows of the mind.

The Old Soviet Union leadership, which were Atheists, did away with religion, since religion makes it harder for dictators; human rights are given by God not dictators. Books were burnt, history revised, propaganda was pushed and dissenters were purged. That should have ended it.

After the Atheist Soviet Union broke up, unable to make their experiment last, what had been forced to go underground; religion, reappeared again. Those who try to undermine religion, come and go, but religion is that fire that keeps burning.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Say we assume for the sake of argument this is true. How do you explain how Christianity survived, persisted and even thrived to the present, and has now has a billion followers?

Islam has also survived, persisted, and even thrived to the present and now has over a billion followers. The same can be said about Hinduism, which dates back over 4,000 years, has over a billion followers, and is the third largest religion in the world behind Christianity and Islam (see here). What's your point?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Islam has also survived, persisted and even thrived to the present, and now has over a billion followers. The same can be said about Hinduism, which dates back over 4,000 years, has over a billion followers, and is the third largest religion in the world behind Christianity and Islam (see here). So, what's your point?
Indeed, the same can be said for those other religions, and I believe it can be said for the same reason. They all originated from God.
 

Thrillobyte

Active Member
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?
Atheists don't mock, at least they shouldn't. But it's possible there's a thin line between mocking and informing. I try to inform. I never try to mock.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
.........................The Old Soviet Union leadership, which were Atheists, did away with religion, since religion makes it harder for dictators; human rights are given by God not dictators. Books were burnt, history revised, propaganda was pushed and dissenters were purged. That should have ended it.
After the Atheist Soviet Union broke up, unable to make their experiment last, what had been forced to go underground; religion, reappeared again. Those who try to undermine religion, come and go, but religion is that fire that keeps burning.
Yes, even Jail can Not stop today's Russia (Bible's modern King of the North) from the good news of God's Kingdom being spread - www.jw.org
Back in Germany's concentration camps they could Not stop the preaching of those who wore the 'Purple Triangle' .
How true the words of Matthew 10:22; John 15:18
 
Top