There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Audie]

Shoghi Effendi translated it that way. What is your point? I don't see how the style it was written in affects the meaning. It can make it sound strange to your ears, but we got used to it.

In standard English it would just fill a ppamphlet.

The style is used to hijack gravitas.

 

[Audie]

If it wasn't evidence, they wouldn't be studying it as if it were. I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand what evidence is.

And there are all kinds of scholars specialized in all kinds of methods of investigation. But not a single one of them was there, and not a single one of them knows what actually happened. And neither do you or I.

But clearly something extraordinary did. And the evidence is the story and it's legacy. Which is why all those experts are studying it.

You dont know what happened but
you know it was "extraordinary".

Same should apply to Joseph Smith.

 

[PureX]

You dont know what happened but
you know it was "extraordinary".

Same should apply to Joseph Smith.

You dont know what happened but
you know it was "extraordinary".

Same should apply to Joseph Smith.

The interesting abput the Smith story is that it's whole purpose seems to be to justify altering the story of Jesus the Christ.

 

[Audie]

The interesting abput the Smith story is that it's whole purpose seems to be to justify altering the story of Jesus the Christ.

To me what is interesting is that people
actually believe it.
But it's no more outlandish than any other of
Christian magical realism.
Considerably less so than much of the bible.

The Mormon missionary I met in China,
I asked him how he could believe it.

He said he had had doubts but after fervent
prayer God told him it's all true.


Could you tell me what you found
extraordinary?

 

[Colt]

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

One reason that there wasn't much written about Jesus by whatever Jewish historians that there were in his day is that they didn't like him! They tried to get rid of him and his influence! After Jerusalem was sacked a great deal of secular Jewish history was lost! Thats why we have found hidden scrolls in caves, those critically important artifacts were hidden for just such a tragedy as the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Listen to you! Wow! The person who started a thread asking for real evidence, and is now asserting how life goes for hundreds of millions of Christians. Yeah, OK. *eye-rolls*



Pounded. Tortured with love and patience... oh how awful to have that impressed on them, like a hot poker in the groin.



Uh, on their knees? All of them, we've alredy established you don't know what prayer is mentally, and now it doesn't seem you kno what it is physically.



Why would they turn down opportunites? That doesn't make sense. Hundreds of millions of Christians, all of them, not going to College, not getting jobs, not going on vacations, not buying homes, or cars, or writing books, or anything.

Something tells me this is your rear end speaking.



Most Christians I know have reported some sort of answer. Even non-Christians get their prayers answered sometimes. It's just not like a light switch.



No fun? Are you kidding, Christians are lots and lots of fun. You never went to Christian summer camp. Strange but true, I wasn't raised in a very Jewish environment, and yes, I went to Christian summer camp, and it was great. I grew up in a very Christian area, many PKs, preacher-kids, went to my school, and many of them were friends of mine.



Ohhhhhh, you're talking about YOUR life experience and pretending that it's the same for hundreds of millions of other people. I mean it MUST be true for everyone, since it was true for you.



That's how it goes, maybe you were meant to be an atheist. Everyone has their lot in life, maybe this is yours.



What a minute, wait a minute, you just contradicted yourself. All this timw time you were writing a sob-story about being pounded wih Christianity, and skipping opportunities, having no fun, and being sterile. And NOW it was "feel-good" stuff. Make up your mind. Was it torture being a Christian, or was it feel-good stuff? I mean if it felt good, maybe you're just sore because your prayers for stuff werent magically conjured.



Yes, eat drink and be merry ex-Christians. Of course, if your idea of merriment is coming to forums and preaching, it's kind of sad/funny to see that.



OK, this is pretty funny. What am I even looking at here? There's no scale at all on the left. This could be a ripple in a pond. Don't you know that stats can be fudged to look like anything? And the author, who's that? A blog? J. T. Grant is a politicol scientist, this reseach is out of their expertise. They're not a statistician either. If one goes to look at the actual data, and method, of course, you can't. The academic journal is for profit; all you get is an abstract. According to that, the data only goes to 2005. So what is this graph showing data to 2021? That's pretty suspicious. And just because it's "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean anything.

The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science

Publication bias resulting from so-called "p-hacking" is pervasive throughout the life sciences; however, its effects on general conclusions made from the literature appear to be weak.

journals.plos.org

This happens all the time, people publish nonsense, and until the research is read to see what methods were used and the sample size a graph like this doesn't say anything. If you go to read the article on the blog that published this, J T Grant wrties the tiniest bit about how th data was collected. It amounts to "we collected data and stuff, and ran it through a computer, and I can't tell you what the scale is because all the data has different scales, but... look at that decline."

The graph was updated for 2013, and look what happens when the scale is adjusted:

View attachment 78198

Hey.... it went from 80, whatever that means, to 70, whatever that means. Compare that to the faux-graph that makes it look like the line is falling off a cliff. And we still don't know what's actually being measured.

Let's see what Pew has to say about it.

5 key findings about religiosity in the U.S. – and how it’s changing

Our new report finds that whether U.S. adults are becoming more or less religious depends, in part, on how religious observance is measured.

www.pewresearch.org

View attachment 78199

So, the pros who actually do this sort of thing, are saying the complete opposite of what that faux-graph was describing. Imagine that. And I'm wondering, did you even think to question that graph, even though it had no scale, and came from a blog? Of course not. Because you know what hundreds of millions of Christians are experiencing all over the world. *eye-rolls*

My God, dym, your indignity and outrage are palpable. Why so much anger coming from a Jewish person? This is all about Christianity.

 

[Audie]

My God, dym, your indignity and outrage are palpable. Why so much anger coming from a Jewish person? This is all about Christianity.

Seriously.

 

[Windwalker]

Your last claim may be a bit of a strawman. The claim was more likely that early Christians lifted parts of various myths. They did not copy them word for word.

What I was avoiding late last night in posting that right before bed was getting into the more nuanced response of what I was thinking when I posted that. That is, there are certain themes in the 'spiritual psyches' of human beings that you will find arise naturally on their own, without being transmitted by direct communications, such as spices from the East following the silk road into the West via travelers.

For instance, you will find parallels between the teachings of the Buddha and the teachings of the Christ, or between Jesus and the teachings of India. This leads some to speculate that Jesus spent those hidden years over in India learning from the sages, and brought that back to Israel. But the reality of it is more likely to be that there are certain realizations, or ways of understanding the deeper truths of our humanity in the depths of our own spirituality, that are naturally common, and of no huge surprise that people anywhere, at any place, or any time on this planet come up with the same ideas through their perceptions, without any contact with each other whatsoever.

So themes of death and resurrection for instance, do not need to be thought of as being 'lifted', or copied, or borrowed, or even inspired by the teachings and practices of another religion they came into contact with. They can arise all on their own with no contact at all. And when they do meet, lo and behold, they see things similarly, surprise suprise. You can find this being touched on by what is called the Perennial Philosophy: Perennial philosophy - Wikipedia

The perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis),[note 1] also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in philosophy and spirituality that views religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.​

There is another layer to this I could mention, where you see this same thing in regards to other great ideas in human evolution arising at the exact same time in history in different parts of the world where there was no contact between the people who came up with them. You find that in philosophical views, mathematics, technological innovations, and so forth. I see that as much more akin to that 'spooky action' of what we see in nature with Convergent Evolution:

Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different periods or epochs in time. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.​

As you can see, 'copycat' religions, or borrowing ideas from other religions, is not necessarily the only, or best explanation for what we see in similarities. Patterns arise in nature, of which human ideas is a part of, all the time. You see a spiral in a galaxy, and in the shell of a snail. Does that mean the snail copied the spiral galaxy? Or did both arise from the same Source?

 

[Windwalker]

So pretty much any word can mean anything.

Not when they are strung together in specific orders. When they are strung together with an intelligence behind them pointing to some cohesive idea, then others can pick up the meaning being communicated, if they have they understand the basic context of the speaker is using that is.

If however, they lack the context within which the speaker is stringing those words together, they'll get lost. Then for some, in order to not feel embarrassed by this, they attack the speaker, rather than asking what was meant instead. But at that point, it's no longer about meaning, but emotions of personal insecurities being brought into the discussion.

 

[Thrillobyte]

History is concerned only with fully human Rabbi Jesus who lived and died. Theology is concerned with divine Son of God, resurrection etc.

From a debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig on resurrection (Ehrman said):

/... / historians cannot presuppose belief or disbelief in God, when making their conclusions. Discussions about what God has done are theological in nature, they’re not historical. Historians, I’m sorry to say, have no access to God. The canons of historical research are by their very nature restricted to what happens here on this earthly plane. They do not and cannot presuppose any set beliefs about the natural realm. I’m not saying this is good or bad. It’s simply the way historical research works.​

​

Source:

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman

www.reasonablefaith.org

You're right. That had totally escaped my reasoning. So historians being concerned with history and not theology and always referring to a non-supernatural ordinary man.

Yet the other part of my observation still holds true: historians say Jesus was real and Christians seize on that and say, "You see? Historians admit our Lord and savior, Jesus really lived." Their cunning is reprehensible, but this is what Christians do when they come out on the short side of evidence for Jesus. An example:

Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? | GotQuestions.org

Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? Is there any proof outside the Bible that Jesus even existed?

www.gotquestions.org

But if people want to prove Jesus is imaginary it is very simple to do in less than 1 minute: (actual video less than 5 minutes)

 

[Thrillobyte]

One reason that there wasn't much written about Jesus by whatever Jewish historians that there were in his day is that they didn't like him! They tried to get rid of him and his influence! After Jerusalem was sacked a great deal of secular Jewish history was lost! Thats why we have found hidden scrolls in caves, those critically important artifacts were hidden for just such a tragedy as the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.

Good historians are not concerned with personal bias against one religion or another. They stake their honor on giving the unvarnished truth as the historical record would show. Take a look at the list of nearly 200 historians who were active in the era. You're going to try to say that all of them had an ax to grind against Jesus and so deliberately withheld what they knew to be true about him? It's not credible, Coulter.

 

[F1fan]

First, if you can recognize it would be more spiritual if understood symbolically, then you have your answer to your own question of what great truths it may teach.

I'm asking you what YOU think it teaches. I don't find anything useful in the Bible, nor in any of the many diverse interpretations of the Bible.

Whatever you just had in mind that Christians could see if they just saw it symbolically. I agree.

My point was that a literali interpretation of sin through the Garden myth, into the other OT stories, and into the story about Jesus, including his execution and gift of salvation, doesn't make any sense. It suggests a God that is cruel, or incompetent. Even heaven and hell make more sense if interpreted as states of being while alive versus places after death. The literalists often seem to believe that their *** is saved, so they can behave any way they damn well please.

I guarantee there are more than just one out there. While I don't like to identify myself as any religion, I don't not see myself as Christian. It is my "native tongue", and I certainly have a great deal of respect for it, once your strain off all the bathwater that pollutes it, particularly the bathwater of literalism and anti-modernity.

Well that there is ANY bathwater is a huge failing of the religion. The loftty attitude and reputation religions has certainly doesn't get met by religion and many believers. How many believers have such arrogant contempt against atheism is quite humorous given the Christians made the Holocaust happen. At no time they didn't stop and wonder "is this wrong?", or if Jesus wouldn't approve?

Perhaps I get what he is saying right away because I can hear the way he thinks, as it reflects my own understanding. I suppose there are certain things we are aware of that I take for granted, such as the nature of mythology and symbolism, for instance. To some people, when they hear "mythology", they think falsehoods, bull****, or lies. But nothing could be further from what we are talking about. It's hard to communicate truths when you can't penetrate a lack of basic understanding of the nature of what religious mythologies are all about like that.

I don't see critics saying mythologies are lies or falsehoods. The better educated understand that ancient lore was part of the basic thinking of these old cultures. They didn't have the broad areas of knowledge that modern people take for granted. These ancients probably really thought gods directed nature, they had no other explanations. The question today is why modern peolpe believe similar things in the 21st century. There is no real data behind the healing power of crystals, but some have been attracted to the idea and believe. The popularity of many religious ideas adds social and peer pressure to adopt them. Accepting these religious assumptions without consideration of whther they are justified allows religious conclusions, and the code talk by other religious people will make sense because of the shared assumvtions. Critical thinkers are seeking truth, not belief, so the code talk is vague and doesn't make sense, and religious assumptions aren't accepted due to lacking foundation.

So there is a big difference between understanding lore and mythology to accepting and adopting religious assumptions. If a person assumes a god exists anyone else talking about their idea of god will resonate.

First off, I am very much a critical thinker. I'm highly analytical, as well as creative.

Yes you are, about some things. So is @PureX if we are talking politics. But religion? You two use and apply assumptions that aren't justified in critical thinking. Many folks compartmentalize a skill to reason versus irrational faith. There must be some sort of natural impulse for many to be attracted to religious ideas, and they just don't question it like critical thinkers do.

I will critically deconstruct understandings and deep dive into a multitude of different discipline in trying to put together a cohesive framework. So, no lack of critical thinking on my part. The problem is, as you touched on, some don't have the same contexts or access to understandings that someone like he does or I do. But it certainly is not because you're not dealing with critical thinkers that is the problem.

I've seen you apply critical analysis on many issues, and then will state beliefs that are little more than blind faith, and I always find that a curiosity in folks, how they manage these two ways of thinking, and if there is inner doubt and dialog about it, or if they are just two different minds that are kept apart from each other.

And to clarify strongly here, I'm certainly not meaning to toot my own horn, as I really don't need to. I'm just saying, be real about this. Plus, it's a bit insulting to presume you are a critical thinker and others are not, which is what you just said.

As I have noted some show excellent ability at critical thinking, like @PureX in politics, but where it comes to religion it's like dealing with a whole other person.

If you aren't clear about something, ask for clarification. Don't assume we're not as smart as you.

That's what I tend to do. I'm sharp as attack!!

 

[Audie]

Not when they are strung together in specific orders. When they are strung together with an intelligence behind them pointing to some cohesive idea, then others can pick up the meaning being communicated, if they have they understand the basic context of the speaker is using that is.

If however, they lack the context within which the speaker is stringing those words together, they'll get lost. Then for some, in order to not feel embarrassed by this, they attack the speaker, rather than asking what was meant instead. But at that point, it's no longer about meaning, but emotions of personal insecurities being brought into the discussion.

I doubt you could give me English lessons.

 

[F1fan]

The interesting abput the Smith story is that it's whole purpose seems to be to justify altering the story of Jesus the Christ.

He might as well have been Muslim.

 

[Thrillobyte]

If it wasn't evidence, they wouldn't be studying it as if it were. I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand what evidence is.

And there are all kinds of scholars specialized in all kinds of methods of investigation. But not a single one of them was there, and not a single one of them knows what actually happened. And neither do you or I.

But clearly something extraordinary did. And the evidence is the story and it's legacy. Which is why all those experts are studying it.

So you think that not a single historian mentioning Jesus is evidence Jesus existed?

 

[F1fan]

Not when they are strung together in specific orders. When they are strung together with an intelligence behind them pointing to some cohesive idea, then others can pick up the meaning being communicated, if they have they understand the basic context of the speaker is using that is.

If however, they lack the context within which the speaker is stringing those words together, they'll get lost. Then for some, in order to not feel embarrassed by this, they attack the speaker, rather than asking what was meant instead. But at that point, it's no longer about meaning, but emotions of personal insecurities being brought into the discussion.

This can be correct in certain contexts. If the speaker is a liberal explaining why social spending, like food stamps and subsidies for housing, is beneficial for all of society it could attract the sort of dismissiveness and personal attack you mention here. The problem is not the speaker, but the audience who has ideological beliefs that don't tolerate liberalism (let's own the libs).

But if the topic is a speaker explaining how Hitler was right, and the Jews are ruining nations all over the world, well that will only attract those who operate with the same assumptions about Jews. Decent people will find this string of words offensive morally and and totally irrational because it isn't based on fact. The conext of the Antisemite is that Jews are a threat. So to add to what you say above it can be speakers who are emotional and attacking a category of people, or even a person. Discourse is a flow and process, and any part of it has to be assessed and considered. The bottom line is: are comments true (factual) or not? And: are the participants interested in truth or belief?

 

[dybmh]

My God, dym, your indignity and outrage are palpable. Why so much anger coming from a Jewish person? This is all about Christianity.

I'm not angry, I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy of criticising others for having low standards of evidence while at the same time having equally low standards of evidence. The righteous indignation is justified because I have happy healthy Christian friends, and you're speaking for them, about them, falsely.

Perhaps you're not accustomed to debating with a motivated resourceful Jew. But, that's who I am. So you need to hold yourself to the same standards you are asking from others, else, I'm probably going to expose the hypocrisy.

 

[Audie]

I'm not angry, I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy of criticising others for having low standards of evidence while at the same time having equally low standards of evidence. The righteous indignation is justified because I have happy healthy Christian friends, and you're speaking for them, about them, falsely.

Perhaps you're not accustomed to debating with a motivated resourceful Jew. But, that's who I am. So you need to hold yourself to the same standards you are asking from others, else, I'm probably going to expose the hypocrisy.

You sure exposed a lot of snark.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not angry, I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy of criticising others for having low standards of evidence while at the same time having equally low standards of evidence. The righteous indignation is justified because I have happy healthy Christian friends, and you're speaking for them, about them, falsely.

At face value this can be true in most cases. But a low standard for evidence is acceptable if the claim is: Jim ate a ham sanwich for lunch. It's not an extraordinary claim and seeing bread crumbs on a plate is enough to believe Jim did indeed eat a ham sandwich for lunch.

But if Fred claims he is the second coming of Christ, and all he has as evidence is his beard, a robe, and memorized bits from the Gospels, well, that's an extraordinary claim that will require a high standard for evidence. The more extraordinary the claim the higher the standard, even to be casually believed. This is the thing that theists want to gloss over, as they seem to think their beliefs are supported by their own assumptions. The dilemma is that critical thinkers don't hold those assumptions and require more than any arbitrary theist who already thinks some sort of god exists.

 

[Colt]

Good historians are not concerned with personal bias against one religion or another. They stake their honor on giving the unvarnished truth as the historical record would show. Take a look at the list of nearly 200 historians who were active in the era. You're going to try to say that all of them had an ax to grind against Jesus and so deliberately withheld what they knew to be true about him? It's not credible, Coulter.

View attachment 78257

Your list of names includes very few who wrote ANYTHING about the Jews, let alone an obscure Messianic claimant! Christianity was a tiny cult inside Judaism for a number of years after Jesus left. In fact, the Jews rely on Josephus for insight into Jewish culture of the first century.