All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
135 points (67.4% liked)
Atheist Memes
5632 readers
2 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
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?
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 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.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
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.
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.
Very well. You must believe in ghosts.
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.
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.
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???
Right so you will be producing that historical evidence when exactly?
I already provided evidence for my position. If you would like to provide references that refute the Wikipedia pages on these topics I will be happy to read them.
Dumping a link is not providing evidence. Let's start with something basic:
Please show me a single contemporary record of his life or even a single record of someone after his death who personally saw something.
Not what someone heard, not a fifty year old oral account, not a Bayesian analysis. A direct peice of evidence. Which should be really easy for you to provide since the gospels make it clear that he was famous.
When you find that piece of evidence let me know.
That's not how this works. Go gish gallop elsewhere.
To refute your only relevant point in this post:
I made a claim and I linked a specific article as a source.
You are making a fringe claim. Even if you were an expert, which you are not, the claim you are making is a fringe argument.
I backed that position up with a specific article (which also has sources) explicitly stating backing up my position.
If you have a relevant source refuting this, I will happily continue this discussion.
Right so if you could just point out the evidence instead of link dropping that would be great. Something like a single eyewitness account written during the time he was alive. You do have evidence for your claim, yes?
Once again, I already provided evidence for my claim. What about my evidence is unsatisfactory?
You really didn't. You link dumped but whatever.
I want a contemporary record of the man. Someone alive when the events went down and wrote down that they saw Jesus.
It sounds to me like you want to argue about the second point more than the first one.
You appear to have issues with how historical research is performed, and you have difficulty accepting secondary sources in historical records. You have repeatedly asked for primary sources. It appears that you, falsely, believe that primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources in historical context. (A reasonable discussion of how and why neither is more valuable/reliable than the other: https://www.historyskills.com/2023/05/02/primary-or-secondary-sources-which-are-more-reliable/ )
The issue, primarily, is that any and all probable first hand accounts of Jesus are part of the new testament, but have been so heavily edited as to be removed from being reliable first hand accounts. Basically we can't trust the recorded "first hand accounts" because the people who copied them had very heavy imputes to embellish or rewrite them to create a convincing first hand narrative.
Tl;Dr: the first hand accounts were edited by secondary sources creating an unreliable first hand narrator. Basically what we always say, the people who wrote the new testament a couple hundred years after Jesus life lied and wrote a bunch of garbage and obliterated any reliable first hand account.
To be crystal clear, what this means is that first hand accounts probably existed but were so heavily editorialized that they became invalid.
Basically, what you are asking for no longer exists (or does and is intentionally hidden by the Catholic church, since they are the ones who might have any documents that old) in any credible form.
That only leaves us with secondary sources. Of which, one is the bible itself. We know that the bible does contain some historical events, but that it is also a fairly poor source for historical accuracy. We know this because we can compare it to other secondary sources and we evaluate their congruency.
There are only two pieces of information that all known secondary sources agree upon with respect to Jesus.
there was a man who was baptized by John the Baptist.
that same man was executed by the Romans via crucifixion.
There is enough secondary evidence to have reasonable certainty that this man existed, was baptized and was crucified.
That's it.
This is a reasonably small claim and this requires reasonably small evidence to accept.
Under no circumstances am I asking you accept or believe that any of the other claims about Jesus life are real or valid. There is no other corroboration for any other events.
The argument is a pointless one to have for most of us as it holds no bearing on anything. There are a couple million people named Jesus today... And some of them probably think they are the son of god. That doesn't make their existence less real. It doesn't make their delusions more real. It doesn't mean a god exists.
Historical Jesus most likely existed. So what?
With regards to your assertion that "You link dumped."
Your arguments were poor and continue to be poor. Poor arguments don't deserve more than a cursory dismissal. I dismissed your argument, made positive statements and provided sources for my position.
I know you feel strongly about this, but that doesn't mean jack shit.
I know what you want, but asking for it shows a distinct dismissal of historical research and the way you demanded it demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate, if not an intentional facade to advance a tenuous position.
Either you already knew that any primary sources that might have existed for Jesus were obliterated in the churches re-write of the new testament during its construction by the secondary authors and instead of engaging in a good faith argument as to the validity of secondary sources cross referencing or the validity of using the christian bible as a secondary source at all you demanded a thing you knew to be impossible to obtain... Or you were ignorant of the existing historicity discussion.
At the end of the day, you were either ignorantly defending a fringe position or you are actively baiting people into a bad faith discussion trying to further a fringe position.
A fringe position that is irrelevant to the discussion of if the historical Jesus has anything to do with a god.
Jesus H Christ man. What the fuck do you want? At this point you are an asshole either way. Either you are willfully ignoring the arguments people are making (not just me) or you are actively trying to make them mad.
Like I said. You are at a bad place here in the discussion.
Your entire argument first argument is that evidence standards should be lowered because it is difficult. You have no primary evidence. No amount of arguing that you don't need it will get rid of that statement. If you had primary evidence would you maintain that it didn't matter? If I was sitting here with secondary and you had primary your argument would change to suit that. Sour grapes thinking.
I see. Can you please show me in the 7 undisputed Pauline letters where Paul says that Jesus Christ was Baptized by John the Baptist. Also the Gospel of Thomas if you feel up for it. Please remember that you said "all". Watch as this quitely doesn't get mentioned again.
Pseudoscience and pseudohistory over time makes smaller and smaller claims. The newest snake oil cures baldness to cancer, a generation later it "makes you feel well". Aliens are getting harder and harder to find as camera technology improves. God goes from creating the universe to appearing in driveway oil stains or even worse an abstract diest god.
Things that are real make bolder and larger claims as time goes on. You are doing the same here. You start out with hundreds of claims about Jesus and weaken them one by one until you can create an itty bitty claim that no one can disprove or prove.
Instead of trying to sneak a conclusion in why not just follow the data to where it leads? The data we do have shows a doctrine that benefitted the people who spread it, pulled from cultures of the areas, and massive inconsistents. All the hallmarks of liars and grifters who made up a story.
Evidence please.
You are not a mind reader.
Nope haven't done it. I have noted the total lack of primary evidence that very conveniently doesn't exist. Maybe you can just go ahead and produce your sources instead of trying to analyze me? You know, attack the argument and not the person.
Dang you really like making this about me instead of the data. Kinda reminds me when religious folks tell me that I just want to sin.
Primary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Was I not clear?
I should have realized engaging with you was pointless.
About as pointless as defending any idea that lacks evidence, such as God.
That's essentially what the gospels were - the story and beliefs of Jesus passed on in the oral tradition of the rabbis before being written down a few generations later
As for like, bureaucratic forms? It was 2000 years ago, so by the time we started to care we basically are left with only whatever happened to be preserved in a collapsed building no one cared to demolish or rebuild - libraries and record halls tend to get burned down over the years. This is at a time when writing was expensive and a rare skill - it would be extremely strange for a record of a trial of a revolutionary run by a Pontius (basically the lowest rank of administrator sent to back water provinces) to have kept detailed records of executions (the Romans were extremely hierarchical and did a lot of executions)
Plus, the movement grew big enough to catch the attention of the local ruler (and the collaborating religious leadership who pushed for his execution) in the span of months. There was every incentive for uprising to be suppressed - it would be an embarrassment that they'd have every incentive to keep quiet
By the time anyone even started to consider that this Jesus guy was more than a run of the mill revolutionary in some backwater the empire barely cared about, it was because the ideas had spread to the point they started to threaten Roman rule. Probably through the Roman legions, who were largely conscripts sent to the other side of the empire "earning" the right to be Roman (part of the reason why there were so many uprisings)
During the time he was alive, no one took up arms or disrupted trade. By the time the nobility even heard his name, it was decades later - and at this point, we do have the odd surviving correspondence mentioning the issue
Frankly, I would be extremely skeptical of any document describing Jesus when he was alive - I think the only record there was a Pontius Pilates is some military discharge record of someone with that name in the right time and with enough honors to corroborate his existence
That's the thing, we really don't have evidence of that. The Gospel of Mark shows borrowings from the letters of Paul, Greek and Roman stories, and Jewish writings. We can even see parts where the author looks to be siding with James over Paul like the curtain ripping.
As for the other three they all borrowed from Mark and again from different stories around. There just isn't a need to invent an oral tradition when we have a written one.
That really isn't my problem. You can't produce evidence doesn't mean I have to lower my standards of evidence. Besides which the Gospels you are invoking mention word of Jesus spreading all over the province and yet silence. Everyone likes to quote that one sentence in Josphius but no one likes to mention that he went into multiple paragraph details about other would be Messiahs. And again Paul was in Jerusalem during the events and yet he saw nothing.
Oh? Because we have letters of Pilot's enemies talking about other acts of cruelty. What evidence do you have that the Romans would have destroyed records of an uprising? They don't seem to have a problem with noting other ones.
Speculation. You have no proof of this bonfire of the evidence.
That doesn't prove that there was a Jesus that proves that Christians existed a century later.
Ok? I mean we have more than that might want to look into Pilot a bit.
I am not following your logic here. I am too accept lower standards of evidence because if better evidence exists it would be too hard to find so...yeah help me out with this one. If tomorrow someone digs up say a family genealogy that lists Jesus being born in Nazareth that would disprove he existed? This sounds a bit like the Babble Fish logic in the Hitchhiker's guide to the universe.
With the gospels, I don't think there's any debate that it comes from an oral history. As for their influences - ever notice the old testament has 2 overlapping creation stories? People spend their lives analyzing the text through various lenses, there's tons of material on how Jewish oral tradition worked and picking apart the markers of it. The rest of the new testament starts to diverge, there's a pretty stark difference between them and the rest of the books
As for lowering your standards of evidence, I really don't understand your point. There's no pictures of Caesar or George Washington, if they existed today the lack of pictures would be pretty suspect.
Jesus was an artisan and orator from an age when writing was expensive and only available to the nobility, and the vast majority of it was lost to time. It's expected that there's no written records of him during his lifetime - he was just some backwater carpenter whose importance wasn't clear until after his death
Context is everything in history. It's like asking "where is his birth certificate?" when someone is born in a time and place where that wasn't a thing
The time frame matters because Pompeii is a time capsule - human hands couldn't have manipulated the evidence past that date up. That's one generation - there would have been people around who met the guy (or should have).
And yet, neither followers or opposing institutions ever questioned his existence, details of the account of his life line up with historical records
Ultimately, what's more likely: there was a man known as Jesus of Nazareth (even if he took up the name and role in someone else's plan), or there was a conspiracy to fake the existence of a man who was a threat to both the Jewish leadership and Roman rule, and neither of those parties (who had people still alive as the movement became a problem) "what do you mean I had him executed? I never met the guy"
Maybe he died, maybe a stand in died, maybe he faked his death with the help of Roman soldiers and fled to Asia. But someone had to have played the role - otherwise a lot of people would have had to flawlessly keep up a conspiracy, many of which weren't believers
You can spend hours digging into every single detail I've brought up, it's literally the most studied historical subject ever with a ton of secular historical work done in the last century. But the consensus is that he definitely existed, there's just too many corroborating details that line up
I didn't mean to imply that there was an oral component I mean I don't see a need for one. You can pretty much trace every single thing those authors said to texts. Also you are comparing writing that was about 900 years apart from each other. 900 BCE Israel Kingdoms are not 1st century Roman province.
Not really. You see the NT writers constantly referencing the OT. In fact most of the Jesus story is an combo of Jeremiah, Elisha, and (especially in Matthew) Moses.
We have contemporary records of both men.
Show me where I asked for one.
Again. I just explained this to you. The two events are separated by decades. You are about as far from the Moon Landing as they were from supposed Jesus. And again Paul did a missionary trip there.
And can people be wrong?
The group James led was never a threat to Rome which is why he was left alone. He was a threat to the Pharisees but being a threat doesn't mean that they could do anything about it. Making up a dead leader would have made perfect sense.
Maybe James and Peter made him up. Two people can keep a secret.
And yet you can't find a single piece of contemporary evidence.
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.
Hey still waiting for you to show me the part of the Dead Sea Scrolls that mention Jesus. You weren't lying about your god were you? Hehehe
Oh really the dead sea scrolls mention Jesus of Nazareth? Please inform me. What did you find in the scrolls that mentions him?
This is going to be so amusing.
You mean the way people did with Ned Ludd going so far as to write letters claiming to be him? Or the way they did with John Frumm? Or William Tell? In any case we don't actually need that to happen. Of the 27 books of the OT 23 follow the traditions of St. Paul directly. A man who admitted that he never once saw Jesus. The remaining borrowed from Paul and a theoretically community (no evidence for) founded by James. We don't need random people to do it. We have a charismatic well spoken leader who spoke of his visions.
You don't know what my standards are. You are assuming not asking. Also we have a physical inscription written contemporary about the man from a disinterested party.
I wonder what blog you are copying now. He could have been but the claim of the man is ordinary so it unlikely to be a forgery. Besides the stories of him were written for an audience that knew him and no one is recorded objecting.
You really should cite the blog you are copying and posting from. We have some evidence that he existed. Since we have the Sangha and that shows signs of having one person creating it. We have relics such as the tree sapling of his tree. We have references in the Pali Canon that hint that the speaker was part of the royal lines by references. Again it isn't even a crazy claim. Wandering monks existed in the 5th century BCE and almost none of his work is unique, it was a continuation of a philosophy tradition.
"Your" entire argument is basically since humans accept bad evidence sometimes we must accept bad evidence all of the time. You can't prove that your best buddy existed so you try to prove that since I am an imperfect thinker I have to be naive and accept you on faith about everything else. Sorry but that's just not how it works.
I am looking forward to you being too embarrassed to mention the dead sea scrolls in your next comment. Really looking forward to it. Don't worry, I will remind you ;)