There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

Jesus - 19? No way.

I think so.

1. Mother is a royal virgin - yes, mother is a virgin, royal in the Christian sense
2. Father is a king - Yahweh, supreme deity, this works
3. Father often a near relative to mother - nope
4. Unusual conception - yes, virgin birth, supreme God impregnates mortal
5. Hero reputed to be son of god - uh, that's a hard yes
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather - Soon after the visit by the Magi, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him to flee to Egypt with Mary and the infant Jesus since King Herod would try to kill him
7. Hero spirited away as a child - yes, fled to Egypt
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country - technically yes, Yahweh is his father
9. No details of childhood - yup
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom - returns and establishes the kingdom of Yahweh
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast - he becomes victor over Rome and Satan by defeating death
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor) - nope
13. Becomes king - King of kings is used for Jesus often
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully - he has a missionary and for a while it's peaceful, then things get troublesome
15. He prescribes laws - 100%, Sermon on the Mount and so on
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects - loses favor with some and is sentenced to death
17. Driven from throne and city - executed
18. Meets with mysterious death - crucified but many strange things happened during death, lost body is also mysterious
19. Often at the top of a hill - bingo
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him - exactly, no children succeeding him
21. His body is not buried - another hit
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs - why yes, he does have a tomb.

That is 2 no. So 19 out of 21. Overall it's very clear that the Jesus narrative is following the mythotype very closely. You could disagree with a few but most are spot on, 18 points is Romulus which was one of the sources Mark appeared to use. Even if you gave him 16 you are in Heracles level. But these all fit except the 2 obvious misses.

 

[joelr]

What I said was of value, but I understand why you don't like it.

No, it's skipping most meaningful questions. I don't care for it because it's engaging in nothing. You are reaching to make silly accusations.
What actually happened is I led with "we don't know the source"

So, you don't know that Tacitus got his information quote from a Christian who bought into the stories unquote
That sounds pretty valuable to me.

No, no person knows. But it was written after the Gospels. So you want to say it's correct and extra-biblical of Christianity or is just something he picked up from someone.

You have 2 options:

1) It's correct. Jesus was crucified by PP. But he was a man because it's also a harmless superstition and a most mischievous superstition. Remember, he's the best historian of the time, right? He wouldn't write it if it wasn't true?

2)it's not correct. Which offers no extra evidence.


And we have other Gods he's writing about, known fictitious Gods. So now we have evidence he writes about fictional deities. He already said Christianity was also fiction?

So exactly what sounds valuable to you at this point regarding Tacitus, who you are pushing as if he lends any shred of credibility to your superstition?

 

[joelr]

I was? Something must be wrong with my brain and eyesight.
Let me double check.

I'm interested in hearing why you reject the majority opinion in this case. Is it something you normally do?
Why are you against their opinions, here?
Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.

I thought so. It's definitely not my brain and eyesight that's the problem.
No wonder your link was off.

You thought wrong. Go back to your post

• #1,203

and look at your words. You are directly implying that since Tacitus is "widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars." his quote is NOT " just 200th-hand hearsay likely gotten from stories he heard Christians repeating in Rome." but actual proper historical information.

So, yes, you are actually doing the exact thing you are now pretending you are not. YOu are using those credentials about Tacitus to say he is correct and is presenting information about Jesus that is extra-biblical and "a threat to atheist worldviews".

Hilarious. He says it's a harmless superstition? So if he is correct, as you are arguing, it's a silly made up cult.
Wow, "a harmless superstition", blowing my atheist mind worldview so much?

That's the beauty of records.
We should be careful about people who come along, and claim they know more than those who actually wrote the thing, knew what they wrote, from where and why.
when people make claims otherwise, we ought to know better than be swayed by their agenda.

EXACTLY (all Christians I'm looking at you)....clearly we have RECORDS of him telling us it's “a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome,....."

So do not be swayed by fundamentalist agenda! It's a bunch of made up stories. As Tacitus says, and as you argue for his properly researched input.

No, but there is.
I don't have that info to hand, but I will try to dig up some for you.

There is not. Just as nothing about the Quran "destroys" secular thinking. Nothing about the NT mythologies does either. We have been through some of this. You couldn't even try to debunk it, you just accused me of using too many sources or something.

Problem is, there are SO many lines of rational empirical evidence to demonstrate this is nothing more than a religious fiction. You will dig nothing up because it doesn't exist. Apologetics is crank.

Yes. Many conflicting opinions. Yours and @Thrillobyte's morass of truth.

No, not many conflicting opinions based on evidence. Only 2. Both are in the historicity field.
1) Jesus was a human Rabbi mythicized into a Greek deity because that was the trend going around.

2). Jesus was completely a mythical person/demigod to give Judaism a Greek deity because that was the local trend.

Right... A whole mouthful from the infallible.

No opinions on Tacitus from 2 PhD scholars who actually read him and know FAR more than any of us. A person interested in what is actually true would pay attention.
A person who only cares about their personal "truth" will label them all "infallible"

So the majority of scholars do not consider Tacitus' writing authentic, and genuine?

Ehrman finds it to be information from a non-Christin and Carrier points out since we cannot know it isn't evidence. The majority of scholars don't know the source. That is it. Fundamentalists like to pretend it's confirmation Jesus was real while at the same time taking the "harmless superstition" and cherry-picking that right off the tree. Isn't it fun to create your reality, what's true is whatever you want!

That question depends on your answer to the question above, so I'll have to wait and see how you answer.

I can answer to any question, or find out. Once I thought questions might lead to evidence of the supernatural. Doesn't look that way anymore. I'm always looking.

 

[joelr]

I find MOST people will believe anything because FEW people choose to follow what Jesus taught.
Jesus even forewarned us that MANY would even 'come in his name' but prove false to Jesus - Matthew chapter 7

You may be one of those people who believe anything.

Yup, the Bible has a story in it.
Eden lost to Eden regained.
What Adam lost for us (Eden) Jesus will restore (Eden)
At Jesus' coming Glory Time he will separate humble meek people to live to enjoy a beautiful paradisical Earth as the original Garden of Eden was.
- Matthew 25:31-34,37

The Persians believed that first in their religion.

 

[mindlight]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the propaganda Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record, it is just disinformation disguised as truth to keep Christianity afloat. The truth is there simply is no secular historical evidence an avatar god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived--nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one.

The two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having little to no value in trying to prove Jesus existed. Here are some pertinent facts that Christians should consider before they try to pass off these passages as proof of Jesus:

* The Testimonium Flavianum is never quoted by anyone until the 4th century (c. 324), when Bishop Eusebius begins quoting it. Scholars believe it was Eusebius who doctored the passage with references to Jesus' supernatural nature.

* It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a Jew working in concert with the Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

* Josephus is on record that the Emperor Vespasian was the messiah and had fulfilled prophecy.

* The second passage of Josephus, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” is a scribal interpolation. There are several indications that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was not original to the text.

Here is a link to some research that will help to clear up the controversy surrounding the Josephus passages:

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the fictional apostles. The gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus purportedly was crucified in 30 AD by anonymous Greek scholars who couldn't have known Jesus and certainly were not familiar with Israel's geographic terrain as evidenced by the numerous errors they made about towns' proximity to each other and to other natural terrain. The Romans were excellent record keepers of their trials but a trial of Jesus ben Joseph or similar name who was crucified under Pilate's order simply doesn't exist. The name Yeshua ben Joseph or Yeshua Moshiach (Jesus Christ) doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. A few historians like Tacitus made reference to a man referred to as "Chrestus" but we have no idea who that is nor can we know or reasonably ascertain if they were referring to Jesus, the son of God or another Chrestus who had a following. What we Do know is that Christians are constantly trying to pass off this passage and similar ones using the term, "Christ" as proof secular historians mention Jesus. But they don't. There were dozens of "Christs" in Jesus' time. Any of them could lay claim to being the Messiah.

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise.

But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. God, if he exists, shows himself to not interfere or participate in human affairs. Thus, he could not have left any evidence for this Jesus fellow and this is exactly what we see in the secular historic record--NO mention of Jesus or the apostles.

An unassailable truth: prayers do not get answered, in contrast to what Jesus promises in the gospels. Millions upon millions of people pray every day for their sick loved ones to get well and their loved ones do not recover. If a person recovers it is usually on the order of 10% and here is the key thing: it occurs across all demographics with the SAME rate of frequency. Thus, a small percentage of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all recover from serious illness at exactly the same rate. This proves without a doubt that praying to God has nothing to do with it; some humans are going to recover from their illness but ALL terminally ill people are going to die at some point in the near future. No one is cured as a result of prayer. Study after study has borne this fact out.

There is no reason for people to believe in Jesus as the savior son of God when we haven't a single entry in the secular historic record testifying that he is. People who choose to believe in Jesus as their savior are doing so in ignorance of all the above, or they are doing it on pure faith without any evidence for Jesus. It's a crying shame that people can throw their lives away so carelessly for a myth, but it's a free country and people are permitted to squander their lives on anything they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

View attachment 77669

The post contains enough links to historical evidences to undermine its central premises and render the question nonsense. Also the global consensus is that he did exist and that the historical evidence supports that: The question of what constitutes evidence when the question of Gods existence or indeed that of Julius Caesar is out of scope of the scientific method also seems to indicate an inadequate epistemological methodology here or perhaps an empty toolbox when it comes to the difficult questions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Regardless of what some scholars say, these were records in many cases of eyewitness accounts. Furthermore the historicity of Jesus is there. The gospel accounts themselves speak of the controversy of Jesus, leading to his death.

How did they witness the parts where they were not there? That alone would invalidate any of their claims.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Otherwise, you wouldn't have so-called Christian killling another so-called Christian in political and national wars over the centuries.

They ARE Christian. A rotten apple is still an apple.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In Christianity, the main spiritual leader, although claimed to be the Son of God, allows himself to be abused and even killed by humans.

That’s weird because he often ran off when in trouble.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Some atheists do, just as some Christians do

Sacred clowning can be a vital element of religion. Sometimes you just have to lighten up.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

like Pharaoh for example who hardened his own heart and became un-moldable clay - Exodus 8:32

God cheated. HE hardened the guy’s heart.

 

[Thrillobyte]

This isn't even a point worth responding to, of all the issues I raised you decide to go with the most meaningless issue?

I will respond, it's not hard to point out why this is nonsense.

"When someone tries really hard to say they know the facts about something they really don't know,"

The facts that are known are not hard to understand. One of those facts are, we don't know his sources. I led with that.
There are theories on his sources, which I touched on and you called that "losing touch with reality". So when you stop following apologetics crank and actually follow history you have lost touch with reality?

Two scholars speculating he got his information from Christians -

" Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians"

The other theories are:

"he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; "

"Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources."

In which case Roman archives and official Roman documents said Christianity was a most mischievous superstition.


The point here is Tacitus is learning the information from a source. He wasn't there, it isn't confirmation of anything except that some information about Christianity could be aquired at that time. Unless you want to say it's accurate first hand information, then we have first hand account that Christianity is a most mischievous superstition.

Do you have anything of value to add because this is really a non-issue.

nPeace said that it's irrelevant whether or not Tacitus had any documentation to reference when he wrote his infamous passage on the Christians. In other words, nPeace feels it would be perfectly fine for Tacitus to willy-nilly make up details on the fly when writing historical treatises--as long as it supported his contention the divine Jesus was real, of course. I think this demonstrates the level of scholarship he's willing to sink to in defense of his religion.

Thrillobyte said:

Who specifically did Tacitus get his info about the Christians from?

Irrelevant.

 

[Thrillobyte]

God cheated. HE hardened the guy’s heart.

And God had no regard for violating Pharaoh's free will in choosing to let the Israelites go. And Pharaoh decided to let them go but the Bible admits that God hardened Pharaoh's heart yet again for God's own selfish ego. Some god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And God had no regard for violating Pharaoh's free will in choosing to let the Israelites go. And Pharaoh decided to let them go but the Bible admits that God hardened Pharaoh's heart yet again for God's own selfish ego. Some god.

Back in more tribal times anything that God did against one's enemies was thought to be justified simply because they were the enemy. No reason or logic was applied to those thoughts. Fundamentalists appear to still have that flawed reasoning. They cannot see why it would have been immoral for God to harden the heart of Pharaoh when he had decided to allow the Hebrews to leave. The terrible mixed up message of the Moses myth is just more evidence that the Bible is not the word of God.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Back in more tribal times anything that God did against one's enemies was thought to be justified simply because they were the enemy. No reason or logic was applied to those thoughts. Fundamentalists appear to still have that flawed reasoning. They cannot see why it would have been immoral for God to harden the heart of Pharaoh when he had decided to allow the Hebrews to leave. The terrible mixed up message of the Moses myth is just more evidence that the Bible is not the word of God.

Especially when you look at these passages:

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Deuteronomy 20:18

And

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword (Joshua 6:21).

And

“Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies,[1] oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” 1 Samuel 15:3

So it's not surprising that someone as despicable as William Lane Craig actually justifies God's slaughter of thousands of innocent children and babies

Craig: "God has the right to take human lives. And God taking these children's lives meant their salvation."

So in William Lane Craig's universe it's perfectly justifiable for a mother like Andrea Yates to murder her five little children because it saved them from going to hell. In other words, God was doing the kids a favor by slaughtering them.

Only in Christianity!

 

[Trailblazer]

Only in Christianity!

You can say that again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can say that again.

I am fairly sure that other religions have similar flaws. Do you seriously doubt if Islam does not suffer from that as well?

 

[Thrillobyte]

I am fairly sure that other religions have similar flaws. Do you seriously doubt if Islam does not suffer from that as well?

Yes, the Abrahamic religions are probably the most barbaric ever invented by men.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am fairly sure that other religions have similar flaws. Do you seriously doubt if Islam does not suffer from that as well?

Other religions also have flaws but Christianity takes the grand prize, Imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, the Abrahamic religions are probably the most barbaric ever invented by men.

Not all of them are barbaric, only the older ones. The Baha'i Faith is not barbaric at all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

For life in__________ .... What is __________ ?
That is why we are here physically, but we are not physical beings, we are spiritual beings, so the main reason we are here is to develop spiritual qualities.
Adam introduced spiritual death on Earth and Jesus saved us from spiritual death by offering us spiritual life, which is eternal life.
When Adam was born, he entered into the world of good and evil, the material world... The attachment to the material world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam... It is because of this attachment that men have been deprived of essential spirituality and instead have the propensity to sin. Those who acknowledged the cross sacrifice and turned toward Jesus and His teachings were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, and were delivered from the chains of bondage to the material world. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom.
Human obedience to God's teachings and laws is going to take away spiritual death on Earth.
Jesus is not going to return to Earth. Jesus never promised to return to Earth, not once in the entire NT.
Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.​

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.​

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.​

I do not believe that is what Isaiah 35 is about. I believe it is about what would happen when the Christ returned at the end of the age.
I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God, as described in Isaiah 35:2..

Isaiah 35 King James Version (KJV)​

35 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.​

2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.​

3 Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees.​

4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.​

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.​

6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.​

7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.​

8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.​

9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:​

10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.​

What are the angels in Heaven preparing for _______________ What qualities are angels preparing for _______________
Besides John 14:19 in verse 18 B please notice Jesus says, " I am coming to you. "
So, it will Not be a physical coming but as Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15 informs us that the 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked.

Yes, Jesus finished the work God gave him to do but that does Not mean his followers would Not continue what Jesus completed - John 17:18
Jesus made God's name known and says he will make it known at John 17:26

Yes, Isaiah 35 is about when Christ returns at the end of the age ( coming end of this system of things )
Meaning the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth as described at Matthew 25:31-34,37 (Isaiah 35:2)
This is why we are all invited to pray to God for Jesus to come ! - see Revelation 22:20
Jesus to come and carry out Isaiah 11:34-4; Rev. 19:14-15 and then bring ' healing ' on Earth - Rev. 22:2
Healing to the point that No one will say, " I am sick......" - Isaiah 33:24
No one sick also means No more death on Earth - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8