All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
Now whether Jesus was a divine being, sure that picture depicts the evidence of that. But we "know" that a man named Jesus certainly existed and was crucified.
Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don't believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don't believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn't exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it's convenient.
Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist.
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.
I do as well and I am still waiting for the evidence that he wasn't a myth.
Consensus does matter when it's a consensus of experts in a specific field. When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists. When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I'm not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that's true for everyone outside of their expertise.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a "scholar" believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn't trust that scholar.
All I'm saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion. Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject, the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn't the case. But acknowledging that this is the case doesn't threaten my belief in materialism.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists.
We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?
When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?
I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion.
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject,
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case.
In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can't do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.
But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Alright? Does that make the claim true?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn't care less about historical proof; they've already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it's a meaningless hill to die on.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Very well. You must believe in ghosts.
Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed.
It also means that we can't assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn't exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can't disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.
Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepting everything on faith.
If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn't mean we have to.
If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.
but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.
I disagree.
Bro you should sue whatever educational institution you went to. They fucking duped you lmao
You are in a bad spot here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
It doesn't even take that long to find credible sources to demonstrate that denying the historicity of Jesus is the fringe theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
This is a meaningless hill to die on. You are simply wrong and you should move on to things that are actually valuable.
Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???
I am pretty hardcore atheist and I have a huge bias against Christianity. But you are either taking your bias too far or ignoring evidence.
Which is ironic because you’re making your belief more important than the existing evidence.
Please present your evidence. On my side I have a century of textual analysis that shows that everyone involved in the documentation process was a liar, as well as legendary figures such as William Tell, John Frumm, and Ned Lud.
Do you mean all of the writings that included him? The Dead Sea scrolls they found even disparaged his name. Regardless of my desire to believe he didn’t exist, it is unlikely that people made him up at that time, then had random people talk and write about him.
By your standards, Alexander the Great did not exist, Socrates was a dream, and Siddartha Guatama was a fable.
That’s just not how it works.
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
This is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. These scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes. Until you have evidence that either disproves his existence or disproves all the historical records, this is contrarian nonsense with no basis in how historical research is done.
hese scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes.
That is untrue. The consensus that he likely existed isn't founded on any contemporary evidence, because there is none. They assume he existed from events and sources that all stems from a period after he purportedly died.
The fact that there isn't any contemporary evidence is an indisputable fact, acknowledged by the historians who believe that Jesus existed as well.
The fact that there isn't any contemporary evidence is an indisputable fact,
Citation needed.
You want a citation that there is no evidence? Isnt this reversing the burden of proof? Claims require evidence, lack of evidence is not something that has to be demonstrated.
Well a good place to start is the citations at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on the historic figure of Jesus I know many others have posted and you are quite conveniently ignoring. After that it's probably lots of googling and going to libraries and archives to find the information you're looking for.
And you sound like you are comparing medical science to the bible.
I am fully vaxxed and boosted, my wife and kids are fully vaxxed and boosted. When the new booster comes out we will all be getting that one. I also make sure the entire family has the flu shot each year. Vaccines are freaken awesome.
Now, do you want to present evidence for the historical Jesus or do you want to try another personal attack? I have a receding hairline you can poke fun at that if you want. Me personally I would rather discuss historical truths instead of the personal flaws of people in a debate.
The problem with all of this "evidence" is that Christians don't want to officially recognize any of it because it proves Jesus or Joseph as he was probably called. Was just a normal guy.
I am still waiting for the evidence. We have Paul who didn't see anything, despite being in the area when it all supposedly went down, we have him call into question the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and despite spend decades with Christians only seems to know 11 facts about Jesus. Then we get complete silence for 50 years and an off-hand mention of the some hearsay by a man who believed in a literal Adam and Eve as historical fact.
Meanwhile every single part of the Jesus con is found in the stories and history that was around at the time. It is a hacky unoriginal derivative work with all of the evidence conveniently missing.
His name was Joshua, or Yeshua, not Joseph. Joseph was his father's name. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua or Yeshua
That wiki article presents zero historical evidence and is full of references to biblical scholars claiming there was s areal historical Jesus because the bible says so. Pure garbage source.
Thats literally not true. It provides multiple non-christian historians (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus). Theres all kinds of charismatic leaders today that people ascribe religious meaning to, I'm not sure why some people have a hard time believing a charismatic dude had followers who believed he was god.
Is the implication here that a bunch of Jewish people started pretending there was a guy named Jesus and that he was the messiah, and pretending that he lived a few decades back, and that multiple different sources very quickly picked up the same general story of this pretend man's life, and that's more plausible than people following a charismatic leader and deifying him after he died?
The written record we have only mentions two eyewitnesses by name. Both of which were saying this guy died. You don't need a cast conspiracy, only two people to keep a secret. The written record was authored by a person who was there when things were happening but saw nothing and heard nothing until years later.
What is more likely a charismatic leader vanishes from the entire historical record, the one person who writes the events down doesn't seem to know anything about what happened, and then silence for over 50 years? And when the records do start they just happen to be pulled from other popular myths of the time and place?
Ffs if they had copyright law back in the day the authors of the Gospels would have been sued for violating it.
This argument is like saying “some guy named john did in fact live and was sentenced to life in prison in Louisiana”.
There was, in fact, lots of jeshua’s and Jehoshua’s that were alive at the time- and many of them executed. That’s not credible evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. It was a very common name, after all.
The reduction Jesus doesn't even work. Even if you reduce him down to some guy named Jesus who pissed the Romans off you wouldn't be able to account for the community that popped up. Additionally you still can't prove that this diet Jesus event happened, you just lowered the claim so much that it is not plausible instead of impossible.
What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.
What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.
It's a lot easier to convince people you're the successor to the of some kind of deity rather being some kind of deity yourself. A LOT easier. Also... sets up plausible deniability if things get caught out. "I DIDN"T KNOW, HONEST....! he duped me too!"
Yeps. Even Tacticus mentions how weird it was that the leader was dead but yet the movement continued. If the leader is very much alive and making up stories about his dead brother for decades it makes more sense.
Also had a precedent in Jewish history. When the temple was closed the leader of the revolt died and his son (so many references to Peter being the successor to Jesus) took over and eventually did restore the temple.
I disagree. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so starting from that common ground shows Christians that you are following the consensus views and are discussing in good faith with them
I am not interested in consensus, if I were I would still be a theist. I am interested in what is true.
Under that narrow circumstance you'd start writing out many more historical figures than just Jesus i'm pretty sure....
Well first off that really isn't my problem. If there is no evidence that someone in history existed it is not my fault. Go dig in the dirt and find it.
Secondly you will notice that every time this argument is brought up they always reference a historical figure who we do have evidence, while they were alive, that they existed. Julius Ceaser is usually cited.
Third, even the reduced to the minimum non-supernatural Jesus is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the minimum Jesus is to believed he came from a one-horse town with no one literate. Mastered the arts of illusions. Migrated. Within six months convinced a bunch of people to abandon their families. Got several people to help him with his tricks. Figured out the rock formation under Gallie. Convinced all of them to follow them to what was definitely suicide.
Now the fun part is what happens next. Pilat decides for no reason at all not to go after the rest of them, they form two separate communities, become a threat to the Pharisees on their own turf, inspire Paul to attack them, convert him, get him to start his own counter-counter movement off the original movement. All the while they are able to survive attacks by everyone around them for well over a century. The timeline for all these movements, counter movements, counter counter movements, multiple communities? 1-3 years.
Could you do this? Do you think with the clothing on your back you could go to a backwater of a backwater and pull all this off in the same time period? Could anyone do this?
...Umm...did you ever consider that instead of all those extraordinary magic tricks and social engineering occurring...
...That they just lied and embellished in an era where people told tales of gods and the supernatural? Like you're assuming we need proof that all the things Jesus was said to have done happened in some form, when in reality the only thing that had to happen is that he was persecuted in Rome during a time when we know Rome was doing that.
Like you're focusing so much on this that it looks silly and detracts from much better arguments against Christianity....
I did consider it. The thing is the Gospel miracles are all variations on common magic tricks in the area at that time. If someone made them up decades later why not make up bigger ones? To me it made more sense for James to claim his non-existent brother did those same tricks that way it would sound familiar. You always want to tell the most minimum lie you can get away with. If I told you I was late for work because of a flat tire you are more likely to believe me than if I said because I was defusing a hostage situation.
Additionally if you look at the formula school you notice a repeating pattern to the miracles. Jesus is asked to solve a problem, no one thinks he can, he does, everyone is shocked. All these repetitive stories hints at a core one a core lie.
Plus you still have Paul to worry about which your reduced Jesus doesn't cover.
Show me the evidence, not what theist apologists argued later via tampered hearsay decades removed from the facts.
Ok, Pompeii. Less than a century later, before Constantine reskinned the Roman religion with the Christian label, we've found hidden shrines and symbols used by followers of Jesus. And uncovered very recently - not much room for it to be falsified. There's also contemporary accounts that spread extremely fast throughout the Roman empire and beyond, but those weren't buried under ash until the modern era.
That's a long way to go in very little time - that's only maybe 3-4 degrees away from the original source. Not nearly long enough for a mythical figure to develop organically
You can dispute the details, but someone must've been the figurehead at the very least. The gospels themselves hint at the events being staged to some extent by a small group spreading an ideology according to a literal plan - the public events literally start with Jesus's cousin gathering support for the movement, and then Jesus goes around recruiting specific people as apostles
The Romans also kept records - there's a lot of corroborating evidence for certain events spread too far and wide for a pre-information age society to fabricate. Even things like his birthdate - I think they've been able to narrow it down to a few days in July, during the census, where we had accounts of a temporary new star in the sky
Even the papers that are given clickbait-y headlines like "historians dispute the existence of Jesus" generally dispute certain aspects, there was almost certainly a historical figure named Jesus who was killed by the Romans for inciting a resistance movement
That is just wrong. There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity. Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him, and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts, but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up, and is still enough that it’s widely believed that he was a real guy. If what he taught was true or not is another story.
Secular scholars consider the historical account of Jesus existing in the writings of the Roman Jewish Historian Josephus. There are extra biblical references to him. Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person. His ministry wasn't even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.
Roman Jewish Historian Josephus.
Repeating stories he heard decades later. Hearsay by people who had an incentive to lie. Josephus also said things like this:
Now Adam, who was the first man, and made out of the earth, (for our discourse must now be about him,) after Abel was slain, and Cain fled away, on account of his murder, was solicitous for posterity, and had a vehement desire of children, he being two hundred and thirty years old; after which time he lived other seven hundred, and then died. He had indeed many other children, 1 but Seth in particular. As for the rest, it would be tedious to name them; I will therefore only endeavor to give an account of those that proceeded from Seth. Now this Seth, when he was brought up, and came to those years in which he could discern what was good, became a virtuous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.
It's interesting to me that you consider him a valid source for one thing you can't prove but reject pretty much everything else the man said especially since you can't really disprove the Adam and Eve story.
Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person
Interesting because your boy Josphius was in the area and wasn't aware Nazareth even existed. In any case truth doesn't depend on how many people assert something.
His ministry wasn’t even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.
And?
Thank you. I was looking for a place to point out that the evidence is the bible and historical figures saying that these people say this. I mean if there was actual roman data from a census (which supposedly was being done when he was born) and government paperwork around the crucifixion that would be different.
but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed
How do we know this?
Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him,
Spiderman must exist as well. Also all the books about him were written multiple decades later.
and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts,
You mean the Gnostic stuff written two centuries later or the Talmudic stuff written only a mere 150-400 years later?
but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up,
Means motive and opportunity. Means, the early stories are all ripped off. Motive, sex and greed. Opportunity, if Paul is to believed in his 7 undisputed letters the only two people to see the resurrection are Peter and James and "the twelve" who he doesn't name and never met.
We know this because a group of followers doesn’t just form and grow without someone they are following. The entire teachings of everyone within his group revolves around Jesus, and if he didn’t exist then Christianity never began. People need a leader to form a group, they don’t just all be together and say hey, let’s make up a dude and then follow what we made up. They believed enough to die for their group, and they believed enough to dedicate themselves to growing it. That doesn’t just happen if you made it on a whim or made up a key point of your story which could be validated. Additionally just because books were written multiple decades later doesn’t mean that they were completely made up. People can live multiple decades, and stories of experiences and knowledge of people can survive this long easily too. We also don’t know what they knew at the time because lots of information about Jesus that would have survived had been altered much much later by kings who wished to use Christianity for control, we of course know he didn’t completely make up Jesus as there are books referencing him from before this happened, however it does mean our information now is more limited than theirs, so we can’t assume they made this up based upon the same information we have now. It is both logical and just true that they would have had access to more valid information than we do today. They where also often scholars who’s job it was to write about true people and to prove together missing info and validate this sort of thing is even real. With all the information that was available at the time they still believed he existed. We can’t say just because such evidence was lost doesn’t mean that they all came to an invalid conclusion or all made it up. It’s just illogical. As for actual biblical events that had few witnesses, it’s fine to believe that that was made up, or information was lost so it was believed that something happened when in reality there is an entirely different reality that we just don’t have what we would need to piece together today. As we are assuming many stories are being made up or are incorrectly accounted throughout it, it’s not fair to say any events in his life happened based on the book alone, so this a mute point.
TLDR Jesus was real because he formed a group that still exists and followed his teachings from the beginning. Groups don’t just form and follow a fake persons teachings and still believe it and constantly lie about his existence. Scholars closer to his life who had more information than we do now believed he existed, and we can’t invalidate multiple scholars with more information than us just because we don’t have that information anymore.
Right so here is the thing. We know someone kicked Christianity off, it couldn't have been fully organic. This doesn't mean that because you have established that there must be a founder the founder is of the form you want it to be.
James could have made up the whole story. There is more evidence pointing that way than a historical Jesus.
There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity.
We actually don't know any of that, and that is not what the historical consensus is either.
I am always curious about how the Jesus was real crowd explains all these things Jesus supposedly taught that no one seems to know about until about fifty years later. And why these things he taught just happen to be from a subset of the Greek OT that was popular at the time. Strange how an Aramaic speaking rabbi, in an area with a 1% literacy rate, would only quote from a book written in Greek. And no one is aware of these parables and sayings.
According to Paul these are all the things that Jesus taught:
Don't get divorced and if you do the woman is never to marry someone else
Pay your preacher
The second one is debatable as well.
Yeah i mean sure, but that's like saying a guy named Chris existed and died in a car accident. That doesn't mean he had superpowers and can turn into Optimus prime
Not really. There isn't any contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. The historical consensus that he was likely real was constructed from later sources.
Just let us have fun with memes.
I don't believe in magical books either. I do think a dude had a god-complex and was murdered by the Roman state. Just enjoy the ride. And now for the real reason I came to this thread:
But I saw that guy selling an autographed copy of His book yesterday on Lemmy!
You easily could've just said God instead and avoided a lot of controversy. Leave Christians to ignore the history books. Don't go down to their level.
It's pretty bold to say that there's no evidence for him.
For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn't too remarkable. This means that we don't need a ton of strong evidence. Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it's not expected that he'd leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.
Since there seems to be a consensus by experts that he existed, and since neither of us are experts (probably, I don't actually know about you), you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.
I'm not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it's validity. Thus I need to trust other people's findings.
If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they're religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree), then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.
There’s no surviving records of his (or anyone named Jeshua or any variant there of,) ever having existed.
In fact if any such record were to be found, it would almost certainly be fraudulent.
There are records of people saying he existed well after his reputed death… but those records are pretty universally from individuals with extensive motive to lie- what with being cult leaders and all that.
Even if there were records of someone with his name existing, matching them to jesus-of-the-bible would prove almost impossible- the best would be a “well maybe it was him” kinda deal.
It would be like finding some guy named “John” had been incarcerated in Louisiana and insisting he was John Coffey and here to save us all.
There probably is, the irony is just that it's a document all churches will fight tooth and nail against recognizing as partially authoritative over their own records.
In general, I've found that the best evidence for a historical Jesus having existed is in the history of the "other versions of Jesus" Paul makes mention of in 2 Cor 11:4. A city where only decades later they deposed appointees from Rome in a schism.
The assumption that if a historical Jesus existed that the surviving tradition of that individual would be the one that succeeded against its rivals centuries later is grossly irresponsible, and yet a common scenario unexplored to avoid upsetting modern day believers in that version of the history.
The odds are much, much higher that the most accurate picture of a historical Jesus would be found among the competition. Particularly given the available evidence that the church's monetary fundraising practices were at odds with the earliest versions of Jesus.
What's more likely to survive the filter of the Roman empire?
A version of Jesus against dynastic rule and religious fundraising, or a version pro-fundraising and pro-dynastic monarchy?
Which version would be more likely to have the temple or Rome wanting to execute them?
Does no one think it odd Peter, the founder of the modern church, denies him three times around the time Jesus is brought to trial around three times, at least one of which Peter is allegedly seen firsthand being let by the guards back to where the trial was taking place?
Or that Paul, who never met him and was known to be actively persecuting Jesus's followers, shows up to areas he can't persecute in telling people he's one of them and to ignore other versions of Jesus?
People argue back and forth about a particular version of history when it comes to the Bible that's both less interesting and less likely than other options for historical events and people that just may have been less attractive to people in power when editorial choices are being made for the current collection and editions of them.
There probably is, the irony is just that it's a document all churches will fight tooth and nail against recognizing as partially authoritative over their own records.
No. There probably isn’t. Romans were only meticulous in keeping records of their citizens. He was not a citizen, was if not uncomfortable still working class, but probably poor.
The Jewish authorities were far more interested in stamping out a heretical cult.
That’s the thing. There is no surviving records. What existed is pretty much all destroyed. Every account comes decades after the fact- and can only say that Christian’s existed and that they believed christ existed. There is no evidence that anyone named jeshua existed- and even if it did, it would be impossible to verify he was that particular jeshua.
If I’m wrong, drop the proof. But don’t make assumptions on hope. The good news (pun intended,) is that the lack of evidence goes both ways. Which is why I’m not saying he didn’t exist and only that there is no evidence of existence.
Make sense?
The inability to execute without Roman approval had nothing to do with citizenship.
The rights to capital punishment were taken away over a period in which Jesus was killed.
But the accounts of Jesus's death are extremely unusual given the other reports of messianic upstarts in Josephus who were killed by Roman forces without trial, immediately upon gathering, and where followers were killed too.
The allegation of it being at the Sanhedrin's urging would be extremely unusual if true. And Roman reluctance even more so.
One might even look to alternate charges that were publishable by death under Jewish law but accepted in Roman society for the kind of charge that might lead to such an outcome.
Such as the charge of homosexuality. So if there were reports of kissing or feeding a close male disciple food at dinner right around when Jesus is arrested, we might want to entertain the possibility a historical Jesus was killed by his own people for allegations related to that, which wouldn't have been an easy decision for a Roman authority given the rumours even the Emperor at the time was engaging in some behaviors.
Another might be rejection of intelligent design in favor of Roman philosophy, like Leucretius's "seeds of things" scattered randomly where only what survived reproduced, and the seed that fell by the wayside of the path did not. Those are all Leucretius's words, and yet it sounds very similar to a saying by Jesus which is offered up a secret explanation for its public utterance in canon. Whereas in the tradition of the document I think with greater connection to the historical origin, they believed that parable was about indivisible points which make up all things and were the originating cause of the universe (their words).
That document says things like:
Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."
In fact, the saying immediately before the parable in this work was:
The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!
So a tradition of Jesus that was engaged with the ideas in Leucretius's De Rerum Natura - the only extant work from antiquity to explicitly describe survival of the fittest - might also be a tradition that was deemed by the Sanhedrin to be 'heretical' but not one so easily dismissed by Roman authority in a time Leucretius's book was still quite popular across Rome.
It would be incredibly unusual for a made up tradition to have also made up a schism where their devout Jewish messiah figure was paraphrasing the brightest Roman mind on what was wildly transgressive at the time yet since proved to have been true. Or to have added in intimate moments with his supposed betrayer and public denials by his supposed successor.
But these are exactly the kind of details we might expect from a version of events contending with living witnesses of actual events that need to be addressed and spun in a different way.
It's a bit like Perseus and Medusa. The only way to spot what was really going on is in the reflection left behind by its opposition in the writings of the victors. But that reflection can actually reveal quite a lot.
You’re confusing the ability to do a thing… with the recording of said thing. Pilate might have made a note of it in his personal records, but it was never sent back to rome. Being a citizen entitled one to a full trial which comes with records of that trial.
As a non-citizen he would have never constituted more than a footnote.
As for the Sanhedrin…. They had a long history of having upstarts knifed by “loyal” mercenaries. Makes one wonder, right?
Of course this changes nothing- there are no records contemporaneous to jesus that survive today indicating the jesus-of-the-bible actually existed.
Again, there are leftover parts that very likely do remain, it's just their recognition is obstructed by the faithful.
For example, saying 81 in the Gospel of Thomas seems like it's pretty relevant to Tiberius's inheritance and then abandonment of the throne without passing power to another. And given the reinterpretation decades later where it is combined with saying 1 as appears to be referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 4:8, a letter with several overlaps with the work and a number of which are clearly referred to as present in Corinth pre-Paul.
That document wouldn't have survived to today if the church had its way, and modern analysis over the decades since has been mired by the church's influence. But luckily it was buried in a jar for nearly two millennia and publicly accessible.
Socrates didn't write anything. The oldest surviving fragment of Plato dates to the oldest fragment of the Gospel of Thomas and was found in the same place.
And yet I'd imagine you don't doubt that Socrates really existed, do you? In fact, we have a much more ancient full version of Thomas than we do any of Plato's works.
The question of whether content dating to a given person's life survived is a very different question from if actual physical media from that person's life survived.
Nice whataboutism.
I would agree with the statement no contemporary evidence exists for either Socrates or Plato as well. Though it does seem we have fragments of papyrus dating to the time of Plato…. And we have plenty of first hand accounts of Plato’s existence as well as people responding with criticism etc. not to mention, they’re from a time 300+ years before Jesus was purported to have been born.
You will note this conversation isn’t about them, however. I don’t worship them, either. And to be blunt, there are no works attributed directly to Jesus. The gospels all purport to be written by their namesakes, though that’s mostly rejected. The non canonical gospels like Thomas are well after Mark. And mark itself was not written by mark, and was written around or a couple years after Peter probably died. Keep in mind mark was supposed to be a translator for Peter.
Oh and the gospel of Thomas was written sometime between 60 and 250- kind of depends on who you ask. Even at the earliest, it would have been 30 years after the cruxifiction, give or take.
The point being, they’re complete hearsay about what happened. Second- and third- hand accounts at best, all pushed by people who have a reason to lie about it. Jesus himself has no writings that are directly attributed to him (or, “attributed”… early Christian’s have a problem with faking it for “authority”) and the earliest accounts of his life are 30 or so years after he died, and the only things they agree on are that the Roman’s killed him and John the Baptist baptized him.
There is no evidence of him that exists and we have. It's possible that it will be found one day but given how much people have looked I have my doubts.
For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn’t too remarkable.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread even the reduced claim doesn't match the data we have on early Christianity.
Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it’s not expected that he’d leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.
That really isn't my problem. You can't tell me to accept no evidence because it is to hard to find any.
Since there seems to be a consensus by experts
Not interested in consensus.
you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.
Sure! The person who was most close to the events didn't seem to know anything about the events. The stories we have contradict each other and show clear borrowings. They also show the type of borrowings we would expect. For example the idea that God has a former human buddy working with him in heaven was a heresy that the Pharisees were trying to kill (book of Enoch). Go reread Paul and see how he describes Jesus going to heaven and now working with God.
I’m not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it’s validity. Thus I need to trust other people’s findings.
Neither men were alive when the supposed events happened and every book we have of them comes through Christian scribes. Even those scholars you are referencing mostly reject the big passage of Josphius.
If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they’re religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree
Nope, no desire. I am not a mind reader. Nor do I think it is appropriate to attack someone for disagreeing with me. I attack ideas not people.
then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.
Nope. The burden of proof does not follow by majority rule it follows on the person making the claim. If it did every atheist would have to give up now because the majority of the experts on God(s) in human history have been believers and it would be on us to disprove God.
Just making shit up now? Folks there are plenty of memes to be had without fabrication of patently untrue comments.
Dang you got me. There is so much evidence for the man existing such as ummm some "historian" writing 150 years later describing what other people said.
You don't read a lot of history do you? Look into what kind of "evidence" we have for entire cultures in the ancient world. The guy definitely existed. The question is wether or not he had super powers.
I see. What culture in particular are you discussing that we have this little evidence for? Also can I ask, if a low bar of evidence was accepted for one thing does that mean a low bar of evidence must be accepted for another?
Maybe don't go off the top of your head. You said "Look into what kind of “evidence” we have for entire cultures in the ancient world. " now you are talking about kings. Can you move the goalposts back please? I want a list of cultures that have less evidence of existing and are as widely accepted as existing as Jesus.
Well let's start with some.
Sorry I don't click random YouTube links. You got an argument you make the argument.
I normally don't go in for this kind of thing, but why not?
Firstly: you need to clarify your position, because, right now, it's so vague I don't even know where to start. If you're arguing against the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" then the only thing I can say is that 'Jeaus' was, then as now, a reasonably common name. It's like denying the existence of "Steven from Philadelphia". Even without the presence of crucifixion records from Calvary, it's a near statistical certainty that one existed.
If you're more specifically arguing against Jesus of Nazareth being the one true son of the one true God, then, ya, I think we're on the same page there, but that's purely conjecture, because you never cared to clarify.
I do think you would enjoy the video that I linked though, if you can fit it into your schedule. It's from the channel "Today I found out" and the video is titled "Is there any hard evidence that Jesus actually existed?" In case you need to look it up independently.
Tl;dr: your argument is too vague to even be considered wrong.
Paul found a group and took them over. The group had a founder. The founder was not a man named jesus. The stories that Paul was told, and ultimately came to be the Gospels, were fabrications.
Arent historians pretty sure jesus existed? You know he just couldnt walk on water and turn water into wine and everything else they say about him lol.
Don't care about pretty sure, I care about evidence. Please show me primary evidence of his existence.
How do you know anyone existed in history? You cant have the bodies of every historical figure. This happened 2000 years ago.
How do you know anyone existed in history?
For instance Independent contemporary reports, preferably 1st hand. There are none for Jesus. Not even 2nd hand. The oldest parts of the Bible are from 50 years or later after the fact, and written quite some distance away from where it should have allegedly happened, by anonymous writers. The names we apply are fake.
This lack of evidence, is despite the search for evidence of Jesus is by far the greatest ever undertaken. The Catholic Church have spend almost 2000 years now looking for it (since about 2nd century). They have spend huge amounts of money and manpower. That alone is more than anything else, but on top of that, you have for instance Later Day Saints, who have also attempted to find historical evidence. Along with many many other Christian and even non Christian organisations.
To be frank, it's amazing nobody haven't been able to make fake evidence that is widely believed. The so called evidence there is, is only called evidence by Christian historians, and does not pass the requirements for actual historical evidence.
Jesus is a fairy tale, It's very clear if you investigate the history of Christianity, that Jesus was a myth.
It's also clear if you investigate philosophy at the time, that it was widely believed that something imagined could be believed to be real if you believed it hard enough. We even have some of it today, with for instance faith healing, prosperity gospel, and the idea that if something is imagined to be perfect it must exist, otherwise it isn't perfect.
Unless you already know, people 2000 years ago, on average, weren't exactly smarter and more enlightened than people of today. They didn't even have the scientific method, to show how real knowledge about our world can be achieved way more reliably than with religion. So superstition was widespread to the extreme, and myths were easily believed.
Christianity being probably the most powerful myth of the time, was believed exactly because it seemed powerful. The same way some Africans name their children Hitler, because it's a name of power.
So Jesus and god were imagined as being perfect, ergo they must have been real. That's what it basically boils down to. And there is a surprising LACK of evidence for his existence, making the only rational conclusion that he probably didn't exist. Not even as one or more normal humans, that have later been build a story around.
Not sure if this a strawman or hyperbole, maybe both.
For most people we have very reasonable claims, consistent stories, and first hand accounts. For Jesus we have absurd claims, inconsistent stories, and hearsay accounts.
They are no consistent and are not firsthand.
Not firsthand: they are all written in Greek not in Aramaic, they reference an event that hasn't happened yet, none of the apostles (don't even try Luke) were literate, the Gospels show sophisticated use of writing techniques and references to myths the apostles would not have heard, stuff is missing that should be in there, exact copies of text are found word for word across them, you can see traces of the arguments that were going on decades later, and the godpels dont even claim to be first hand. Oh and the geography of Mark is totally off.
They are not consistent: go ahead and answer these questions
These are all off the top of my head. There are hundreds out there.
"They are not consistent..."
No history is consistent. It is the nature of history being derived from human perspective. As the line goes in Memento "Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the colour of a car." This is true. Good historians analyze a wide variety of sources and then corroborate them to discover the truth. Sure there are inconsistencies in the Gospels, but if you measure their accounts to the same standard that other histories are measured, the Gospels are remarkably consistent compared to other historical texts that we trust anyway.
"...and not firsthand."
Have you any grounds for such assertion? An honest approach to history tells us that three out of the four Gospel writers would have known this Jesus of Nazareth in person, and the fourth interviewed hundreds of people who did experience Jesus of Nazareth and the surrounding events firsthand. Unless you have reason to doubt the dozens of historical accounts that corroborate the existence of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John we have all reason to believe that the Gospel accounts are first or second hand.
. "Not based on firsthand accounts because the events happened in Aramaic and then written in Greek."
If this is how a "firsthand account" is measured, then we have no reason to trust a practically all of Roman history. Romans wrote in latin, even if they were writing about events that transpired in other languages all across the Roman empire. Josephus then, should be tossed out, and Tacitus, and Plutarch, and others who all wrote latin histories of non-latin people founded on firsthand accounts--not to mention much English contemporary chronicle. The traditional style of history of that day--founded by the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides--was based on interviewing hundreds, even thousands, of firsthand witnesses. I do not even comprehend how a chronicle being written in a different language than in which the events occurred would in any way disqualify it from being validly sourced. One must always consider the audience of a text, and the Gospel writers weren't writing books for a relatively small portion of Aramaic-speaking people, but for the entirety of Asia Minor--which spoke Greek.
It's also important to note that all historical dialogue not recorded on an audio recording device or a direct transcript is more likely than not a paraphrase. Paraphrase is the important note here, it is highly likely that dialogue has been changed in some respect (like the language), but that the content of the dialogue would be largely the same.
"An event that has not happened yet."
What event "has not happened yet." There are no grounds for this assertion unless other historians date the life of Jesus of Nazareth to a different period. Even if there were such accounts that exist firsthand, they would be of a minority historical opinion.
"On 'sophisticated' writing.
The Gospels are somewhat unsophisticated as they are written in Greek and not Latin during the Roman Empire, but I agree that they are remarkably sophisticated in technique. Now again, we have no grounds to assert that the Gospels are not firsthand accounts because the people that wrote them were "unsophisticated." We know who the Gospel writers were, and even if they were illiterate, it is highly likely that they dictated the work to a scribe--who would have been well trained in sophisticate writing. Why not "try" Luke? It sounds like you are simply trying to invalidate him as an option as he is the most likely of the four to be educated. There's also Matthew who was a tax collector who would have likely been literate. John himself claimed to write several books after as well (1,2,3 John and Revelation)
"There are myths in the Gospels the Apostles would not have heard.
I don't know what "myths" you believe you are referring to nor how this would prove anything. It is simply impossible to prove that an individual did not hear a myth. It is possible to prove if someone heard a myth, and it is proven by if they recount that myth. It then follows that if the Gospel writers are who they say they are, they would have heard said myth even if it was unlikely. Since myths are usually oral tradition, it is strictly impossible to date their origin accurately.
"Stuff is missing that should be there."
What is this "stuff"? How do you know it exists? How do you know that it should be in the Gospel accounts. There are all sorts of "stuff" historians leave out for various reasons mostly indiscernible to the modern reader. Why would something not being there also change the nature of whether or not an account is valid historically. History is built on the selection of important events and the leaving out of unimportant ones. Different historians believe different events are more or less important, which is how we get vastly different accounts of the same histories.
"Exact copies of text are found word for word between them"
I do not know what sections you are referring to because the English translation does not have large passages that are word for word between them--which is strange because I would expect any translator with his head screwed on properly to translate passages that are the same as the same. Neither does this really mean anything as to the accuracy of the Gospels as they witnessed the same events.
"You can see traces of arguments that were going on decades later."
What arguments are you referring to? If there were arguments going on decades later, than I expect they were caused by the Gospels. Arguments don't just exist out of nothing, they come about because of differences in interpretation of texts and events.
"The Gospels don't claim to be firsthand"
The Gospels do claim to be firsthand if I am remembering properly, but whether or not they claim to be firsthand would not change whether or not the Gospels are actually firsthand.
"The geography of Mark is totally off."
If we measure Mark's account against other histories of that time, we discover that before the advent of geographically triangulated maps in the Early Modern Era all historians are pretty terrible geographers. Geography, also, in no way damages the veracity of accounts.
"The questions that I refuse to answer."
You are simply asking the wrong questions. These are detail oriented questions, which different historians with different processes of selection, will always get differently. Some are better, like "where was Jesus born" but have a fairly reasonable answer (Bethlehem) that other accounts do not contradict. These questions are unfair to ask of any historian, so why apply such a standard only to the Gospels.
These questions are all questions that automatically assume that the Gospels are incorrect, instead of being reasonably minded questions of whether or not the claims of the text are true. The question "why did the family go to Bethlehem" only makes sense if you first assume that there was no Roman census. All of these questions are loaded, it assumes that the Gospel answer is wrong, so when someone gives the fairly reasonable answer provided by historical texts that corroborate on the issue (like the Gospels) they can say 'ha gotcha! You're wrong!" There is no answer other than that, but you can always ask, how do you know this?
none of the four gospels even make the claim to be eyewitness to Jesus!
what you claim is "all the reason to believe" is literally an indirect assumption(and cope) that, "well the writers must have at least known someone who knew Jesus, because that is the only way they could have obtained that information!". this assumes the information wasn't made up narratively.
i find it weird that you attacked the very idea of asserting that the gospels never witnessed Jesus when there's nothing to directly suggest so even from the gospels themselves...
your logic is literally "4 people wrote about Nosferatu, therefore Nosferatu can be historically assumed to exist."
you can worm your assumtion even deeper by also making the claim that "anything that looks like what people describe to be Nosferatu is, IS Nosferatu", which is a massive logical fallacy.
even something like a direct eyewitness account of what appears to be a real a man transforming into a bat would not prove that man was Nosferatu....
hell, this wouldn't even prove that the man was a vampire as opposed to a zillion other narrative shape shifting ideas which are more accurate in describing what truly happened, or even that the person turned into a bat at all! it could have been an incredibly clever magic trick.
history is ultimately an incredibly unreliable source of true facts. there are some things in history we can be reasonably sure of, such as the evolution of language, in which historical texts themselves would count as a sort of evidence if we can confirm the age of the texts, but otherwise, evidence has to confirm history, not the other way around..
i heard someone put it well, that if you had to fight a court case to prove that Jesus existed, you would lose based on hear-say and a lack of evidence, as well as having a ton of reasonable doubt for anyone claiming John Wick or whoever existed based on words in a book alone.
OP, I am with you.
I have researched the historicity of Jesus in the past to try to confirm my faith, but all we have is either Christian sources or sources written more than 300 later after Jesus supposedly died.
What we are sure of is that Paul really existed, and it's him who mainly spread this new religion. That he was telling the truth, no, we will never be sure.
I am sorry for the other comments here. I thank you for you submission but seeing the response of the rest of the community here I am going to block it and move on.
A Dutch historian wrote a book that analyzed Paul's actions as if he was a Roman double agent who had to stop religious uprising against the Roman empire. If you read the bible in that way it gets hard to ignore it. The romans were treated as an instrument of god, whose taxation should be payed without disagreement.
It's my personal favorite interpretation of the christian faith ever. How a disinforming operation became bigger than the institution it was meant to protect and eventually overtook it.
Oh thanks.
Yeah you know I have decided to just trust Paul was telling the truth about things as far as he knew it. A bias on my part. I like the guy. Always felt something for the larger than life types. Besides he really does seem to struggle with the events he heard and the prophecy he expected. So if he was lying he could have saved himself a lot of effort and avoided squaring the circle.
He said he met James so I will go with that. Pretty sure James and Peter were running a grift that Paul got suckered into. Among other things it explains why the Romans were ignoring them for decades. Rome had no problem with charity work/mystery cults. They let them do their thing. If they had killed Jesus they probably would have finished the job especially since the community was in Jerusalem.
Who is this for? What point are you trying to make? There is arguable evidence for a jesus-like character (as seen in the comments), so this post really helps no one and makes you look like an uninformed, angsty, immature person.
And maybe you are and will grow out of it to be helpful to any sort of community, but this post isn't part of that.
There is arguable evidence for a jesus-like character
May I see it?
so this post really helps no one and makes you look like an uninformed, angsty, immature person.
Will personal attacks produce the evidence?
Simple Google search. Feel free to read a bit at your leisure.
will personal attacks produce evidence
No, but elementary Google searches and critical thinking will
Is the plural of opinions evidence? Is something about history true because the majority of people say it is true or because it did happen?
Why not just present evidence instead of an argument ad populism?
That's like saying there's no evidence of Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare. Sure we don't have photos or anything, but we assume the historical records is accurate enough.
Except we have evidence of those men existing and in the Socrates the story is believable enough and consistent and there is a direct eyewitness. We can't say either about Jesus
The only evidence that Socrates existed are the writings of Plato. Socrates can also be interpreted as a purely Socratic device rather than a literal person.
Which is more than what we can say about Jesus. Name a single eyewitness of him while he was alive who recorded it. Paul admits never seeing Jesus while he was alive, the twelve wrote no books, the Romans have no notes on the events. No one who supposedly saw any of the events managed to find quill and parchment. And what's more no one who heard second hand during the events recorded it. The Gospels are clear that news was spreading all over Judea and yet people writing about other would be Messiahs and political rebellions are silent about Jesus.
Besides, and again this important, Socrates is a consistent believable story. We don't have multiple versions of his life that all go against each other, often within the same text.
Exactly. There was a recent episode of Within Reason where the guest discussed the methodology for piecing together historical fact about Jesus.
In his (expert, mind you) opinion Jesus is a real historical figure who likely claimed to be a prophet.
i don't think it matters how expert of an opinon one has when considering confidence on whether someone truly existed or not.
being an expert in history wouldn't help you confidently confirm that anything you read wasn't part of a big popular information conspiracy unfortunately.
their examples of Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. are much more strongly suggestive of being true because of a larger sample size of "historical evidence" from people claiming to exist at the same time as those who wrote about them, and the several events popularly known to be directly caused by them, and not some 50 years removed gospels which may very possibly have been hear-say. (told indirect information, then made a claim based on that)
regardless, it pretty much doesn't matter in philosophy whether someone exists or not since the important thing is the idea associated with the person. the issue is that theology is associated with Jesus, and since theism is a confident belief position, it just doesn't make a ton of sense to live and believe by historical evidence alone. i think complimenting historical evidence with empirical science is a lot more reasonable
to me this would be like if someone had a box, and i really wanted to know what was in it, and they told me it was a carrot and sent me off. now i can believe it was a carrot because they were right there and if they were honest then it should be a carrot in the box, but to personally commit myself to that belief, i would have the see inside the box myself.
How did this expert determine which model of the events was true vs which was false? What experiments did they run? What primary evidence did they study?
There are as many versions of historical Jesus as there are people studying the subject. All of them can't be true, but all of them can be false.
It was Within Reason #35 that I was referencing, if you have time I would highly recommend it.
So this is all bad faith then, eh? What would qualify as evidence for you?
* or we can cut this short. I'll concede you have a good point and are correct if you will agree that viruses aren't real cause we have no evidence to your standards in this thread for them.
The polite thing to do is mention when you edit your comments, just a fyi.
What I would like is a contemporary written account.
concede you have a good point and are correct if you will agree that viruses aren’t real cause we have no evidence to your standards in this thread for them.
non sequitur. Also I am curious why the first part of your comment was asking me what my standards were while the second part is you telling me what they were. Is this an example of arguing in bad faith? Maybe ask the "majority of scholars".
If anything, what I did was a false equivalence. God, you sound like me 15 years ago, and I was a twat. You also sound like my mum and she's an antivaxxer.
I marked my edit with an asterisk, as is/was standard for the Internet for a long time.
I assumed your position from the rest of your comments: groups of experts (or a consensus of experts) are not reliable, contemporary sources as considered in the general field are unreliable unless you want to use them to further your point (tacitus or Josephus). And contemporary sources are the only thing that matter.
So by these standards, what do we know of history? Not much, I'd argue. And I'd also bring it back home: what's the fuckin point of your post except to be an angsty lil kid? Who are you impressing here
If anything, what I did was a false equivalence. God, you sound like me 15 years ago, and I was a twat. You also sound like my mum and she’s an antivaxxer.
Attack the argument and not the person.
I assumed your position from the rest of your comments
You know what they say about assumptions. Why not just ask me? I am right here.
groups of experts (or a consensus of experts) are not reliable, contemporary sources as considered in the general field are unreliable unless you want to use them to further your point (tacitus or Josephus).
Neither men were contemporary.
So by these standards, what do we know of history? Not much, I’d argue.
Really not my problem that historical research is difficult. Theist complain about this a lot, that it is really difficult to prove God.
what’s the fuckin point of your post except to be an angsty lil kid? Who are you impressing here
Attack the argument and not the person. You don't want to give people the wrong idea.
Now, how is that contemporary evidence of Jesus going, find it yet? Also I noticed you neglected to answer my questions in the last comment. Feel free to have a go at it again.
It's mostly due to inertia, because the entire system used to be 100% Christian, historians obviously believed in Jesus. This has carried over as fact, although it clearly is not.
Christian dominance has resulted in the scholarly consensus carrying over until today, plus many places you can't work, if you deny the existence of Jesus.
It would be interesting to see what the consensus is among scholars from Japan, or some other non traditionally Christian country.
jeez you gotta close some tabs, but also "existing historically" literally means that it's essentially hear-say whether Jesus existed or not, which in my opinion is incredibly weak evidence.
historical evidence never claims to be proven evidence, you're incorrectly interpreting it to be that way.
Good point it should read: all the evidence that wasn't written hundreds of years later based on nothing.
Nope, it's spot on, there is no evidence, contemporary or otherwise. There is only hear say.
"The signs are all there, is your lack of faith to stop you from seeing them" - [ Says every religion EVER]
News to St. Paul. Paul thought Jesus was buried in the ground not placed in a tomb. The Jesus was real crowd doesn't like to mention that their only "eyewitness" disagrees with the Gospel accounts.