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 accepting everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.
You sound like an anti vaxxer
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.
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.
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.
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
Show me the evidence, not what theist apologists argued later via tampered hearsay decades removed from the facts.
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.
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.
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?
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.
But… There’s like three or four hundred possible tombs!
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.
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.
