r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 • 2d ago
Did Jesus truly exist? Christianity
From what historical documentation tells us, the answer is yes.
The sources outside of Christianity are: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Marco Valerio Marziale (Martial).
Brother of Jesus, James the Just, former skeptical, converted after seing Jesus risen from the dead. Sources: Josephus, Hegesippus, and Eusebius of Caesarea.
Paul of Tarsus, former persecutor of Christians, converted after seeing Jesus risen from the dead. Sources: his evangelic missions, his letters, Council of Jerusalem. Both died for him, amongst many other eyewitnesses, in an historical era where Christians were persecuted from the Romans and lying about the rise from the dead of Jesus would not give any benefit, but on the contrary, ensure you certain death.
Testimonies of Christian persecutions: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Dio Cassius.
What is your opinion about this? Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers, in order to have a meaningful debate.
Thank you!
EDIT: Since this post has gotten so much resonance, I decided to add the passages and citations and some personal considerations:
Paolo of Tarsus, his letters:
Galatians 1:11-12 (ESV):
"For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 9:1 (ESV):
"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?"
1 Corinthians 15:8 (ESV):
"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
Acts 9:4-5 (ESV):
"And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' And he said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.'"
About his death, 2 accounts:
1. Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter 25):
"Paul, who had preceded Peter in every city, preached the word of God in an extraordinary manner, was martyred in Rome under Nero. He, who had Roman citizenship, suffered decapitation, and his death is attested by the Church."
2. Clement of Rome (1 Clement, Chapter 5):
"Paul, the righteous one, was put to death and took the way of martyrdom, reaching eternal glory."
About the death of James the Just:
- Flavius Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" (Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1):
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
But the younger Ananus, who, as we said, had great authority among the Jews, thought he could have a favorable opportunity to give an account of this matter. And he assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but the tribe of Christians has not been extinct even until now.
- Eusebius of Caesarea - "Ecclesiastical History" (Book 2, Chapter 23):
Now James, the brother of the Lord, who was surnamed the Just, was the first to be made bishop of Jerusalem. He was so holy and just that he was called the Just by all, and was known to be of such a character that he would not even take food in the same way as others, but he continued in a condition of constant asceticism, refraining from all indulgence in worldly pleasures. And the people of the Jewish faith were so envious of him, that they conspired to throw him down from the pinnacle of the temple, and so he died by stoning, but some say that he was thrown down, and others that he was stoned by the people.
And after his death, the leadership of the church passed on to another. His martyrdom was an important event, and it was recounted as a testimony of the faith.
Ecclesiastical History 2.19 (Eusebius, translation):
"James, the brother of the Lord, took the leadership of the Church with the approval of the apostles. His life was one of asceticism and righteousness, so much so that even the Jews greatly respected him. He was called 'the Just' because of his devotion and moral life."
Ecclesiastical History 2.20 (Eusebius, translation):
"James, who was of the lineage of David, was considered the only one worthy, by his purity of life and righteousness, to govern the Church of Jerusalem. His martyrdom is testified by many writers. After his death, the leadership position was assumed by another, but his memory remained indelible."
Ecclesiastical History (2.23.5), (Eusebius, translation), quoting Egesippus:
"Egesippus, recounting the things that were done by James, writes that after Titus (the Roman emperor) had destroyed Jerusalem and the Jews had been dispersed throughout the world, the descendants of Jesus, who belonged to the house of David, were examined. In fact, because a rumor had spread that the descendants of Jesus still existed, the Jews themselves had brought them before the Roman judge. When the descendants were interrogated, they were asked: 'Who among you is of the lineage of David?'"
3. Tacitus' Annals 15.44:
"Nero fastened the guilt of the fire (of Rome) on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate; and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of setting fire to the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of wild beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."
About the persecution of Christians:
The passage from Pliny the Younger in his letter to Trajan where he mentions Christians is found in Letter 10.96, written around 112 A.D. In this letter, Pliny, who was governor of Bithynia (a Roman province in present-day Turkey), writes to Trajan seeking advice on how to deal with Christians, who were being persecuted because of their faith. The letter provides important information about Christians and their religious practices, as well as how they were treated by Roman authorities.
Pliny the Younger's Letter 10.96 to Trajan (translation):
"It is said that some individuals belong to this superstition (Christianity) and have been condemned for not offering sacrifices to the gods, but instead chanting hymns to Christ as if he were a god. Also, they meet regularly in secret, which makes us suspicious of the legitimacy of these practices. It is not a matter of personal concern to me, but there is ample evidence supporting the presence of a rapidly expanding Christian community."
Life of Claudius, 25.4 (Suetonius):
"Since the Jews at Rome, on the instigation of Chrestus, were causing continuous disturbances, he expelled them from the city."
Dio Cassius, Roman History 68.32 (Translation):
"At this time, the Christians, who were accused of being a wicked sect, were persecuted very harshly. Their faith, which rejected the cults of the gods and Roman traditions, was seen as a threat to public order. Many Christians were condemned to death and subjected to torture, including some who were of noble origins."
Dio Cassius, Roman History 72.25 (Translation):
"During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Christians were persecuted in a particularly violent manner. Because they refused to participate in public rituals and worship the Roman gods, many were arrested, tortured, and killed. Their faith was seen as a threat to peace and public order."
Marco Valerio Marziale, even if he didn’t mention Jesus directly, in his Epigrams XI, 56, refers to a religious/moral community which doesn’t follow the roman traditional rituals of the Roman Empire. Since it’s not clearly specified, it sure could be open to interpretation on whether it’s Christians or another community, but the timeline and the customs of Christians in his context and era are consistent and very likely would point to them, and it includes also both a praise and a criticism:
“Illa pudicitiae non est aliena ministra:
teste deo, sed te non tamen illa probat.” = “This purity of yours is not foreign to modesty: but you are still not approved of the god."”
There is another author, the historian Mara bar Serapion, who mentions Jesus in his letter:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime.
What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment, their land was covered with sand.
What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.
God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion.
But Socrates is not dead because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera.
Nor is the wise king because of the new laws he laid down."
Important to mention is also the Talmud, which represents the main opponent faction of Christianity at the time, which in more than one passage, discredits the figure of Jesus as a sorcerer and sinner. In an intellectual honest mind, this represents a strong piece of evidence about the true existence of Jesus, who was viewed by Hebraism as a major threat to their worship and forced their rabbi authors to confront him.
Another historically verifiable martyr is Peter: although there are no contemporary Roman documents describing Peter's death, the convergence of testimonies from Clement of Rome, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius, along with the archaeological tradition of St. Peter's Basilica, provides a consistent and historically plausible account of his martyrdom in Rome during Nero's persecutions.
Note that all this historical evidences are consistent in referring to the timeline of Jesus’ life and death, and are mostly brought by non-Christians, since it's true that Eusebius and Hegesippus were Christian writers. I never mentioned the Gospels, but only cited the verifiable historical sources of information.
If in your opinion the historical sources I mentioned are not authentic or present some sort of fallacies, please argue and explain clearly why by citing evidences and sources which have – objectively - at least the same level of reliability. It’s not good enough just saying: “they are dubious, moot and non-credible” and just linking a wiki-page. A very common point which many of you try to make is: there are no first-hand accounts. Fine. Paul of Tarsus was a first-hand account, but it’s not essential to have this kind of accounts if the solid historical evidence is consistent and coming from different non-affiliated sources. What I mean to say, it’s not enough to disprove the existence of Jesus and his actions.
Also take in account that at the time most of the common people were illiterate and the oral tradition was the main method to pass knowledge between generations, as already someone in the comments stated. I’d also like to cite from the comments that it’s true that the term “historical miracles” is contradictory: at Jesus’ time, even the concept of “resurrection” was something nearly impossible to imagine and very far from the reality of people. They surely didn’t have access to all the fiction movies we have today. So why are suddenly this consistent claims coming from different, non-affiliated people of something so far from reality which surely wouldn’t benefit them? How can people, not disciples, who first doubted strongly or even were against Christianity develop such strong beliefs that they are willing to die for them? That’s for you to explain, if you don’t believe the supernatural.
The claim: “there has never been a proven supernatural event in the history of this planet” is intellectually dishonest, since if an event is considered supernatural, it consequently becomes impossible to frame it with the available resources of that time. If then in a later time it becomes possible to frame, it won’t be supernatural anymore.
4
u/TBK_Winbar 2d ago
My personal belief is that there was an apocalyptic preacher (likely yeshua) on whom the biblical Jesus is based.
Remember, of all your sources outside of the Gospels, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc, none are first-hand accounts.
I'd repeat the tired arguments that even within the Gospels, first-hand accounts are vanishingly rare.
Is there tentative evidence that a man existed and was crucified by the Romans, potentially for incitement?
Yes, I'll accept that.
Is there evidence that supports the claimed acts of miracles and ressurection etc?
No. I don't believe there is. To even entertain that idea, I'd first have to accept that the Abrahamic God exists in the first place, which I don't, and that supernatural miracles - magic - are also possible, which I don't.
I'll happily debate further, but in order to do so, I'd respectfully request you clear up the following:
What constitutes "evidence" in your mind?
If the level of evidence you require is met in another religious text, such as the Islamic ones, or even Hindu texts, will you accept that these are equally likely to be true?
Are you prepared to first debate the existence specifically of the Abrahamic God?
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 1h ago
What constitutes "evidence" in your mind?
The different historical non-biased sources which we have until today and their consistency in context and timeline, as well as the strong growth of Christianity after Jesus' death, in an hostile environment, where non-believers and skeptikals arrive to the point to die for their faith, as I mention in my main post.
If the level of evidence you require is met in another religious text, such as the Islamic ones, or even Hindu texts, will you accept that these are equally likely to be true?
Yes. It's highly possible that part of that scriptures contain true information.
Are you prepared to first debate the existence specifically of the Abrahamic God?
Yes, of course. The very existence of Jesus and his actions provide already proof of this. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all the other religious philosophies are false.
5
u/halborn 2d ago
Paul of Tarsus: Paul never met Jesus. Even the Bible only alleges that he heard a voice.
Suetonius: Mentions a "Chrestus". Apparently a common name at that time and place.
Tacitus: Mentions a "Chrestus". Seems to have been tampered with by Christians.
Pliny the Younger: Doesn't mention a "Jesus".
Marco Valerio Marziale: You're gonna have to cite this one for me.
Josephus: Does mention a "Jesus". Seems to have been a forgery. Not an eyewitness anyway.
Hegesippus: His work is lost. All we have of it is that which was quoted by Eusebius.
Eusebius: Does mention a "Jesus". Of course, he was a Christian polemicist and, coincidentally, the guy they think forged that Josephus stuff.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 1h ago
I added the passages in my main post. Your claims are all based on "apparently" and "seems". Which concrete evidence do you have to support your claims? About the name changes through different texts, again, it was because it was taken from an oral account, and people would write it as they heard it. It has nothing to do with how common the name was. If you read through context, you can undoubtedly understand that it refers to the Jesus of Christianity.
•
u/halborn 1h ago
Which concrete evidence do you have to support your claims?
Which claims are you concerned about?
If you read through context, you can undoubtedly understand that it refers to the Jesus of Christianity.
Documents referring to Chrestus refer to Chrestus, not Jesus.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 1h ago
Which claims are you concerned about?
You are saying that evidence I provided is not valid. Guess you'll have to prove if with evidence as well, otherwise it's only speculation.
Documents referring to Chrestus refer to Chrestus, not Jesus.
I already answered this
12
u/leekpunch Extheist 2d ago
Mate, this comes up all the time. All those sources you list bear either no actual testimony to Jesus (Tacitus doesn't say anything about Jesus, just about what Christians believe, for example) or are highly dubious. Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, altered his quoted sources and made some stuff up himself. This is all fairly accessible knowledge.
There's no corroborating evidence about Paul either. And the epistles and Acts accounts don't match so that's problematic too.
Martyrdom doesn't make you right. In Christianity or any other religion.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 1h ago
There's no corroborating evidence about Paul either. And the epistles and Acts accounts don't match so that's problematic too
What in your opinion doesn't match?
Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, altered his quoted sources and made some stuff up himself. This is all fairly accessible knowledge.
Source?
All those sources you list bear either no actual testimony to Jesus (Tacitus doesn't say anything about Jesus, just about what Christians believe, for example) or are highly dubious
I added all the passages, why would you say they are dubious?
27
u/togstation 2d ago
< reposting >
None of the Gospels are first-hand accounts.
.
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7]
Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8]
( Cite is Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083. )
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition
The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.[45] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching).[46]
As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[47] and as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.[48]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Genre_and_historical_reliability
.
The Gospel of Matthew[note 1] is the first book of the New Testament of the Bible and one of the three synoptic Gospels.
According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9]
Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[11][12][note 2]
However, scholars such as N. T. Wright[citation needed] and John Wenham[13] have noted problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argue that it was written in the 40s-50s AD.[note 3]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
.
The Gospel of Mark[a] is the second of the four canonical gospels and one of the three synoptic Gospels.
An early Christian tradition deriving from Papias of Hierapolis (c.60–c.130 AD)[8] attributes authorship of the gospel to Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter,
but most scholars believe that it was written anonymously,[9] and that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to an authoritative figure.[10]
It is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.[11][6][b]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
.
The Gospel of Luke[note 1] tells of the origins, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.[4]
The author is anonymous;[8] the traditional view that Luke the Evangelist was the companion of Paul is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[9][10] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[11]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
.
The Gospel of John[a] (Ancient Greek: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, romanized: Euangélion katà Iōánnēn) is the fourth of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament.
Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[9][10]
It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[11][12] and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[13]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
.
-13
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
None of the Gospels are first-hand accounts.
That wasn't the question at hand.
The question was did Jesus exist. Not having eyewitness records doesn't mean someone didn't exist, especially given the rates of literacy and how long ago it happened.
There are no eyewitness accounts of Pontius Pilate. Did he exist? If not, who was the governor of Judea during that time?
7
u/togstation 1d ago
Not having eyewitness records doesn't mean someone didn't exist,
Okay. Then what is the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did exist?
-14
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
The best evidence is Christianity. What is your alternate hypothesis for how that came about, and what evidence do you have?
7
u/Literally_-_Hitler Atheist 1d ago
A religion cannot be evidence for its claim. The whole point is the Christian writing is not eyewitness and cannot be used as if it is.
-9
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Are eyewitnesses evidence? Joseph Smith had witnesses. Why don’t you accept that evidence?
5
u/Literally_-_Hitler Atheist 1d ago
That is not an answer to my comment. I don't believe this claims about eyewitnesses either. And eye witness claims are the least reliable. So can you back up you claim that Christianity proves Christianity? Or did you realize that is a crap argument so now your dodging?
-3
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Since your comment wasn't a question, it can't really have an answer.
So can you back up you claim that Christianity proves Christianity?
Your strawman isn't my claim. Don't make things up and lob insults just because your own position is weak and poorly supported.
5
u/Literally_-_Hitler Atheist 1d ago
You claimed the best evidence for Christianity was Christianity. I'm sorry if you realized how bad of an argument that is so now and don't want to defend that claim but do not blame me for your stupidity. Why even respond at this point?
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
You claimed the best evidence for Christianity was Christianity.
I did not. I'm sorry, but you misread what I clearly wrote.
I said "The best evidence [for Jesus] is Christianity."
Jesus =/= Christianity
I'm not sure how you conflated the two very different things, but I won't blame you.
I'm responding to correct your ignorance.
→ More replies4
u/Chocodrinker Atheist 1d ago
Then it's about the same standard of evidence as for Hercules' existence. Not much to hold on to, tbh.
-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
I don’t see Herculanity anywhere. Did you forget something?
4
u/Chocodrinker Atheist 23h ago
Do you REALLY need a religion to be named after a mythical figure that is intrinsically related to said religion for the argument to count? Are you being disingenuous or is it that this is the cognitive level at which you normally operate?
1
u/EtTuBiggus 14h ago
Don’t get hostile with me just because I’m pointing out your flawed logic and misconceptions.
If your baseless claim is that Jesus is mythical, where did Christianity come from?
26
u/wooowoootrain 2d ago edited 2d ago
Probably not.
Scholarship over the past couple of decades has demonstrated that:
(1) There is no mechanism to extract anything veridically historical about Jesus from fiction of the gospels, so even if there is anything true in there it may as well be fiction as far as being evidence, and
(2) The supposed extrabiblical evidence (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) is either reasonably argued as being dubiously authentic or whatever part of it can reasonably be argued as being authentic cannot be determined to be independent of the only source for the Christian narratives that we know existed, the gospels, in which case see "(1)".
So there is no good evidence for a historical Jesus. It's at best, 50/50.
However, Richard Carrier and some other scholars have noted that:
(3) Linguistic analysis of Rom 9:12, Gal 4:23, Gal 4:29, 1 Cor 15:45, 1 Cor 15:37, Gal 4:4, and Phil 2:7 and the most parsimonious reading of 1 Cor 2:8 suggest that Paul believed in Jesus as revelatory messiah found only in scripture and visions, not a guy wandering Judea with followers in tow, built whole-cloth by god, like Adam, not birthed, and then killed by Satan and his demons, not Romans. This likely original Jesus of the earliest Christians, before being historicized in the later messaging of the gospel fictions, would not be historical to us (but would be to them). Which tilts things over into Jesus probably not being a historical figure.
There other hints as well. For example, Ignatius wrote:
"Stop your ears when anyone speaks to you at variance with the Jesus Christ who was descended from David, and came through Mary; who really was born and ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who really was crucified and died in the sight of witnesses in heaven, and on earth, and even under the earth; who really was raised from the dead, too, His Father resurrecting Him, in the same way His Father will resurrect those of us, who believe in Him by Jesus Christ, apart from whom we do not truly have life."
This is often argued to be a response to so-called "Docetism", which is claimed to be a belief that Jesus was an illusion. But, a careful reading shows that we cannot conclude that is what Ignatius is arguing against. He doesn't claim that these opponents said Jesus only “appeared” to descend from David, be born to Mary, eat and drink, get crucified to death by Pilate, and rise from the dead. He says that they denied anyone witnessed these things. In other words, the implication is that Ignatius's opponents are arguing either 1) these events occurred but they occurred outside of the sight of man or 2) that they are allegorical narratives for cosmic truths and not literal events (which is effectively a variant of "1").
We see this also in 2 Peter and New Testament verses where itms said to express concern that there were Christians claiming that these stories were allegories (“cleverly devised myths") and not literal events. But, in fact, there is no good evidence to conclude with confidence that they are arguing that these events - the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection - never happened. 2 Peter, for example, never makes that claim specifically. Instead, they can be understood to simply mean that no one witnessed these events. Or, again, that these things happened in some distant realm, known only by revelation.
So there is at least a reasonable argument that there were some who believed in the existence and passion of Jesus as events that occurred in some domain other than Judea. As noted, Paul's writings suggest this was the earliest Christian doctrine, and the arguments of Ignatius can at least reasonably be understood to be arguing against that doctrine, working from the position of the newer doctrine that arose during the 2nd half of the 1st century. There is also the Ascension of Isaiah, which was a multi-vocal writing composed over a long period but which contains an early redaction that is well-argued to be from the 1st century and in which Jesus descends from heaven to be incarnated in a body of flesh in the firmament, there killed by Satan and his demons who did not know who he was (1 Cor 2:8), buried there and resurrected in a body of spirit, and ascends back up into the upper heavens. This way of thinking appears to have existed early.
So, there is a good argument that the dea of Jesus being a "real" historical person from the perspective of earliest Christians but who would not be a historical person to us, was in circulation even as the gospel stories were gaining traction.
18
u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2 2d ago
The sources outside of Christianity are:
Tacitus - born 56.
Pliny the Younger - born 61.
Suetonius - born 69.
Marital - born between 36 and 41.
Josephus - born 37.
Hegesippus) - born 110.
Eusebius - born 260.
Dio Cassius - born 165.
It is not physically possible that any of these people met Jesus and so would have relied on second or third hand accounts at best. Word of mouth or prior writing.
Both died for him, amongst many other eyewitnesses...
Which eyewitnesses?
“The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death, by people who didn’t know him, didn’t see what he did or hear what he taught, and didn’t witness any of the events they narrate.” (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium)
“The Gospels are not eyewitness testimony but represent later layers of storytelling and mythmaking.” (Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus)
Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching notes that the Gospels are based on oral traditions and do not represent firsthand accounts of Jesus or the resurrection.
Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry - “The resurrection appearances cannot be considered historical events witnessed by multiple people but rather as visionary experiences by individuals like Paul.”
“The accounts we have of Jesus’ resurrection are layered with theological reflections and shaped by decades of oral transmission.” The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History, Dale C. Allison.
-6
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
You realize that most people were illiterate back then and surviving writings are rare, right?
Most of the records we have of the Roman administration from the time come from Josephus. The Roman administrators left no records themselves. Does that mean they didn't exist?
8
u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2 1d ago
You realize that most people were illiterate back then and surviving writings are rare, right?
I'm not sure what your point is? No matter whether people were literate or not, the fact remains that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus life and resurrection.
Most of the records we have of the Roman administration from the time come from Josephus. The Roman administrators left no records themselves. Does that mean they didn't exist?
This is not analagous, there are indirect evidences of Roman administrators like coins, inscriptions, and references in historical documents that align with administrative activities. By contrast, the earliest references of Jesus (e.g., Paul’s letters) are decades after his death, and they focus on faith and theology rather than offering eyewitness testimony of his life or deeds.
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
No matter whether people were literate or not, the fact remains that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus life and resurrection.
This ‘fact’ is unlikely to be true. The surging gospels are likely a written record of a contemporary oral history.
there are indirect evidences of Roman administrators like coins, inscriptions, and references in historical documents that align with administrative activities
Some are only mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews, decades after their rule, which also mentions Jesus. Therefore, they are on the same level of historicity as Jesus.
Your misconceptions about historical analysis have led you to incorrect assumptions.
rather than offering eyewitness testimony of his life or deeds.
You seem confused. Paul (Saul) is a witness.
He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied.
Acts 9:4-5
If you need another witness, Paul repeatedly brings up Peter (Cephas) who knew Jesus. Peter is all over the gospels.
6
u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2 1d ago
This ‘fact’ is unlikely to be true. The surging gospels are likely a written record of a contemporary oral history.
Oral tradition is not the same as as contemporary documentation. Oral traditions evolve over time and are subject to embellishment and interpretation. The gospels were likely secondary, tertiary, who knows.
Some are only mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews, decades after their rule, which also mentions Jesus. Therefore, they are on the same level of historicity as Jesus.
False equivalence. Coins. Stones. Caiaphas Ossuary. Dead sea scrolls, Herodian architecture, etc and etc.
Your misconceptions about historical analysis have led you to incorrect assumptions.
You assume authority without providing justification. Historical analysis relies on multiple, independent, and contemporaneous sources which are lacking in the case of Jesus.
You seem confused. Paul (Saul) is a witness.
It seems you are focusing on me rather than the points I raised. My confusion is irrelevant to whether I'm correct or not, which you have not established.
Paul never met the living Jesus. He states that his knowledge of Jesus comes from visions and revelations (Galatians 1:11-1 for example). If visions are accepted as evidence, why not accept the visions of other religious figures, like Muhammad or Joseph Smith, as equally valid?
If you need another witness, Paul repeatedly brings up Peter (Cephas) who knew Jesus. Peter is all over the gospels.
The Gospels mentioning Peter does not constitute independent or corroborated evidence. The Gospels are anonymous writings, not firsthand testimony, and were written decades after Jesus’ death.
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Oral traditions evolve over time and are subject to embellishment and interpretation.
So is contemporary documentation. Do you think contemporary things can't be embellished or misinterpreted?
False equivalence.
Thanks for providing false equivalences. The prutah's don't even mention Pilate's name. We have coins with dragons on them. Are dragons real? Herod isn't Pilate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls mention Pilate in connection with with crucifixion, what Pilate is said to have sentenced Jesus to. Did you even read your source on the Caiaphas Ossuary? (Clearly not)
The Caiaphas Ossuary, Pontius Pilate's Caesarea inscription, proof of crucifixion, and historians also naming Pilate and Caiaphas corroborate that the tale of Christ's crucifixion is by no way a fairy tale.
Historical analysis relies on multiple, independent, and contemporaneous sources which are lacking in the case of Jesus.
What multiple, independent, and contemporaneous sources exist for Marcellus, governor of Judea? Your misconceptions exemplify the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Paul never met the living Jesus
How do you know Jesus wasn't alive if you don't accept the evidence for the crucifixion? You need to be consistent.
The Gospels mentioning Peter does not constitute independent or corroborated evidence.
Paul bringing up Peter is independent corroboration. Paul isn't said to have written the Gospels.
The Gospels are anonymous writings, not firsthand testimony
Again, you lack consistency. If they're anonymous, you can't claim they aren't firsthand testimony. By the definition of anonymity, you can't know that.
were written decades after Jesus’ death
People write books about people after they die all the time. Does that mean they can't be true?
At least we agree with this. Great source.
5
u/I_Am_Not_A_Number_2 1d ago
Thanks for the chat. I don't have the patience to deal with the fallacies, ad homs and red herrings. You're clearly not engaging in good faith.
2
4
u/iamalsobrad 1d ago
Josephus: The big one. The scholarly debate is around how much it's been changed by later hands and not if it has or not.
Tacitus: Doesn't mention Jesus by name and the part of Annals covering the crucifixion is neatly missing.
Pliny the Younger: Doesn't mention Jesus by name and was a good friend of Tacitus. It's entirely possible that these two are simply reporting what Christians believed at the time.
Suetonius: Another of Pliny's mates. Doesn't mention Jesus by name and only really says that Christians were punished as part of a crack-down which also took in chariot drivers and pantomime acts.
Marco Valerio Marziale (Martial): Doesn't seem to mention Jesus at all. In fact the first Google result if you search for him + Jesus gets you this post.
Brother of Jesus, James the Just is not 'outside of Christianity'. Hegesippus and Eusebius are actual Christian apologists.
I'll raise you another; Philo. Who said diddly squat about Jesus despite Eusebius claiming he'd met one of the apostles in Rome.
Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers
That is the interesting thing isn't it? There are none. These texts come to us through the Christian church and many (if not most) have been edited by well meaning and pious believers over the years.
Any actual evidence of a historical Jesus is long gone.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 10h ago
Any actual evidence of a historical Jesus is long gone.
That's incorrect. Just because there aren't evidences to disprove his existence it doesn't mean there is none. Your claims about the sources I cited are just suppositions, without any evidence supporting them. About Tacitus, I added in my edit the exact part about Jesus. As well as the other ones: Plinius mentions the Christian community and Suetonius mentions the name of Christ. To keep intellectual honesty I would as well specify that since the main vector of information was the oral tradition, it's not shocking to have different writings of the name of Jesus, clearly referring to the same person, if the context is analysed. So it's not about historical inaccuracy, rather than about people writing a name as of how it was heard verbally, since at the beginning of Christianity there was obviously no written source.
I'll raise you another; Philo.
The fact that Jesus' life and actions can be subject to allegoric interpretation as well, doesn't exclude they never took place in reality. It can be very likely both, without having contradictions.
These texts come to us through the Christian church
This is not true, if you did your research correctly about the sources I mentioned, you would understand that.
8
u/Dobrotheconqueror 2d ago edited 1d ago
I think both sides of the argument are correct. Was there an apocalyptic wandering rabbi in the guise of a sage like figure who started a blood cult that later became Christianity,seems pretty likely as cults are typically started by charismatic individuals. I think the very talented writer Alex Beyman makes a good case that early Christianity was most obviously a cult here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/wtC7nerX2N
Your references at best only supports his existence. But I feel like you tried to sneak in more with casual references to Paul and James being martyred, and their martyrdom giving evidence to Jesus being divine. At least you didn’t reference anybody besides Peter in this argument, because the evidence for the rest of the apostles being martyred for their beliefs is weak sauce. In addition, we don’t know if James and Paul were given the chance to re-cant and didn’t. Furthermore, their martyrdom simply may reflect the veracity of their beliefs and not whether or not they were true.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence outside of the biblical text that there was a Godman that came back to life as a Jewish zombie carpenter and shortly after coming back from the dead flew off into heaven like Superman. We have no idea what he actually said. We can’t confirm if he got pissed at a fig tree, created demonic pigs, and supported his mother’s drinking problem.
40 years was plenty of time for the legend to grow and now we have a caricature of Jesus as described in the Bible. So at best we have a character loosely based upon a real person. Similar to other characters in the Bible such as Moses for example. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the character as illustrated in the Bible never existed, unless you are content with accepting the claims in the good book based upon faith.
Also, there has never been a proven supernatural event in the history of this planet. The Bible is also full of miraculous claims with no outside evidence. This also makes believing that Jesus was anything other than an apocalyptic religious fruitcake who started a cult very difficult.
26
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Did Jesus truly exist?
We don't know.
Christians and Christian scholars sure like to claim he did. But I'm aware of the evidence for this, and it's scant, and problematic in various ways.
In any case, it really doesn't matter, does it? Even if this person existed, he was clearly just a regular preacher doing what they do. And the stories were built up around that and have zero credibility or support.
From what historical documentation tells us, the answer is yes.
Nah.
Now you're about to bring up the very evidence I just mentioned, no doubt, which is dubious. And entirely moot. I don't care if a regular guy this mythology is based upon really existed. It doesn't matter. A guy is a guy.
(predicted dubious hearsay claims omitted)
Yeah, like I said. The mundane claims are hearsay and scant and dubious, and don't matter. The non-mundane claims have zero veracity or credibility.
Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers, in order to have a meaningful debate.
Exactly. That is what is needed for such claims to be considered. There isn't any.
14
u/jnpha Atheist 2d ago
RE it's scant
I'm also told in historiography that "historical miracles" is a contradictory term. When judging historical facts, historians go for the plausible, not the implausible. Imagine 2000 years for now it is told the Allied forces in Europe used armies made of zombies cloned in laboratories and animated by a secret spell.
7
1
6
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 2d ago
The mundane claims are hearsay and scant and dubious, and don't matter.
And every one of them is consistent with Jesus being a mythical character on a propaganda story.
-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Occam's razor says it's more likely there was a person associated with Jesus than not. Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard were all real people, no?
5
u/Purgii 1d ago
Probably based on a few people kicking about the region at the time. Seems more plausible to me that stories passed orally became more fantastical on each telling in an attempt to convert people before they were written down.
That doesn't mean the Gospels are an accurate retelling of that person/people.
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Which means Jesus most likely existed. That's the subject, not the accuracy.
If the stories were designed to be as believable as possible, why wouldn't they have just made up a bunch of witnesses to quash 90% of the anti-Christian argument?
5
u/Purgii 1d ago
It means an apocalyptic preacher at the time, or perhaps more than one were the basis of the stories? Sure. That's also how we have stories of a man who enlists elves to work all year round at the North Pole so he can deliver toys to children.
Witnesses, you mean like 500 of them that witnessed Jesus after he resurrected? Yeah, I wonder why they didn't make witnesses up.
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
That's a peculiar qualifier.
St. Nicholas was a real person too. Learn some history.
you mean like 500 of them that witnessed Jesus after he resurrected
So you agree there are hundreds of witnesses? Atheists are inconsistently all over the place.
5
u/Purgii 1d ago
St. Nicholas was a real person too. Learn some history.
Correct! Which is my entire point. Fantastical stories emerged around a real person!
So you agree there are hundreds of witnesses?
Good grief, are you even following this conversation?
You stated 'why wouldn't they have made up a bunch of witnesses'? They did. They pulled '500' witnesses out their arse to try and demonstrate that Jesus must have come back from the dead - because 500 people saw it.
And it worked, I've lost count of how many Christians believe Jesus coming back to life is the most plausible explanation because how could 500 eyewitnesses be wrong?
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Good grief, are you even following this conversation?
It’s hard when you go off on irrelevant tangents about Santa.
You stated 'why wouldn't they have made up a bunch of witnesses'? They did.
How do you know they’re made up?
I've lost count of how many Christians believe Jesus coming back to life is the most plausible explanation because how could 500 eyewitnesses be wrong?
Zero?
If those people exist, their reasoning is no worse than your own.
4
u/Purgii 1d ago
It’s hard when you go off on irrelevant tangents about Santa.
A man who had mythical stories written about him after he died is an irrelevant tangent? Ok.
How do you know they’re made up?
Well, how can we confirm them? Did any of them make an account? How does someone that wasn't there know there were 500 witnesses?
Zero?
Here's some so, not zero.
→ More replies2
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
That works just as good for Harry Potter and spiderman, which we know for certain don't exist
-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
But it doesn’t work for George Washington.
3
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
There's plenty of evidence for George Washington that is inconsistent with him being fictional.
-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
What specifically proves that he wasn't fictional?
2
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 19h ago
His corpse
1
u/EtTuBiggus 14h ago
How do you know that’s Washington’s corpse and not someone else’s?
Are people whose corpses get lost or destroyed fictional?
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 13h ago
How do you know that’s Washington’s corpse and not someone else’s?
It is consistent with the records and the evidence we have and we can be very confident that's his corpse.
Are people whose corpses get lost or destroyed fictional?
No. But that's kind of a red herring because that doesn't make evidence for Washington not inconsistent with him existing or evidence for Jesus not consistent with mythology.
→ More replies
2
u/leekpunch Extheist 1d ago
Oh, wow, you just pasted the Testamentum Josephus into your edit without acknowledging that even many Christian scholars admit it's a later interpolation.
How to tell me you've never read a single book about church history without telling me... etc etc
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 11h ago
Do you have evidence to support your claim? This post is not about church history, but the existence and life of Jesus, so I would ask you to stay on topic, thanks!
•
u/leekpunch Extheist 10h ago
OK. Well if you don't know that the bit in Josephus is widely regarded to be affected by later interpolations into the text I would direct you to any book covering the topic of Josephus's comments on Jesus. Or if that's too much for you, there's a fair summary on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#:~:text=The%20Testimonium%20Flavianum%20(meaning%20the,most%20discussed%20passage%20in%20Josephus.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 2h ago
A Wikipedia page and as well the the content of it doesn't provide proof of your claims.
17
u/musical_bear 2d ago
Not a single person on that list, not a single person that we have record of, actually met a historical Jesus. It’s all secondhand accounts at best, and of the sources you mentioned, almost none are even contemporaneous.
Jesus himself wrote nothing. No writings survive from anyone who met the alleged Jesus. What is your opinion on this?
11
u/Moutere_Boy 2d ago
And it’s most reporting a belief people had, not verifying the information. If I wrote an article mention the beliefs of Scientology, it doesn’t mean I’m say Xenu existed, only that some people believed that to be true.
-3
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Does your disbelief in Xenu mean L. Ron Hubbard didn't exist?
7
u/Moutere_Boy 1d ago
Do you not see why that question is silly?
-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
It's mean to show how illogical your position is.
5
u/Moutere_Boy 1d ago
But that’s not what it does, all your question does is show you don’t understand the analogy, which is not to say they are identical beliefs, but refer to the endorsement of information.
If you can’t see that xenu and Jesus are the analogous points there. You just misunderstood… maybe deliberately? Hmmm?
-2
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
L. Ron Hubbard and Jesus are the analogous points. I'm sorry you misunderstood.
God would be equivalent to Xenu. Was your false equivalence intentional?
8
u/Moutere_Boy 1d ago
See, you misunderstood and now you’re doubling down.
It’s m not making an equivalency beyond suggesting that there are people who believe in Jesus, and there are people who believe in Xenu, and referring to either group doesn’t endorse that belief.
I am not saying they are equivalent within their silly religious structures, just that they are points of belief.
Is that clearer for you now?
0
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
suggesting that there are people who believe in Jesus
Did you need to make that suggestion? Everyone is already aware of that.
here are people who believe in Xenu
Yes, we're aware of scientology too.
just that they are points of belief
Yes, two religions are indeed points of belief. Have a gold star.
Did you have a point beyond pointing out the obvious?
Islam also has a point of belief. So does Hinduism.
So what?
7
u/Moutere_Boy 1d ago
lol.
You should have acknowledged you misunderstood.
That post is embarrassing for you.
See ya kid
→ More replies-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
Not having eyewitness records doesn't mean someone didn't exist, especially given the rates of literacy and how long ago it happened.
There are no eyewitness accounts of Pontius Pilate. He left no writings. Did he exist? If not, who was the governor of Judea during that time?
6
u/musical_bear 1d ago
I never claimed the lack of firsthand / eyewitness accounts means someone didn’t exist.
But I also think, clearly when someone like OP comes in here just rattling off a list of “sources,” they are trying to give a certain false confidence in the information we have about Jesus. None of OP’s sources knew Jesus. None of them were even writing while Jesus was allegedly alive! Some of OP’s sources, like “James the Just” are more literary characters, not actual sources.
I point this information out, that we have no writings from anyone who met Jesus, every chance I get because people who come in here and read OP’s list and know nothing else about the subject might be tempted to say “wow, that’s a lot of proof Jesus was real!” But people like OP aren’t here to hold good faith discussions and, whether intentionally or not, deceitfully obscure the actual information we have about Jesus.
-2
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
No amount of writings can prove something existed or fiction would be real.
The only actual information we have about Jesus is that there is a very large eponymous group.
Either Jesus actually existed, or someone decided to invent the idea.
Occam's razor suggests the former.
7
u/musical_bear 1d ago
I genuinely don’t care whether Jesus actually existed, and I’m not sure who you think you’re arguing with because, for the second time, I have not said I think some historical figure that the myths were based on didn’t exist. My original comment was placed to distill the deceit in OP’s post.
-2
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
You’re just here to make up deceit?
6
u/musical_bear 1d ago
I…used the word correctly, so even your pedantry fails?
remove (a volatile constituent) of a mixture by using heat. “coal tar is made by distilling out the volatile products in coal”
Don’t bother replying though, I’m not engaging further if that’s the direction you’re decided to go.
-1
u/EtTuBiggus 1d ago
There isn’t any deceit in OP’s post. You can’t distill what isn’t there.
Take your bad faith argument somewhere else.
2
u/DeusLatis Atheist 1d ago
From what historical documentation tells us, the answer is yes.
That seems like a bit of a leap. There are no historical records of Jesus outside the New Testament. However, this isn’t surprising: during his lifetime, Jesus wasn’t especially noteworthy in the broader historical context. His prominence came later, as Christianity grew. At the time, there was little reason for historians to take note of him, since he was just one of many messianic preachers in a period already crowded with such figures.
Nonetheless, we do have non-biblical accounts from not long after Jesus supposedly lived, which describe early Christians and their beliefs about him. When there is clear historical evidence that a group of people worshiped someone named Jesus, it’s reasonable to conclude that this person actually existed.
That said, we also know the Gospels embellished aspects of Jesus’ life. It’s very likely he was not born in Bethlehem, there was no census, and the story of him fleeing to Egypt is highly improbable. Still, it’s entirely possible Jesus was a real person whose biography was later embellished, these problems don't mean you need to conclude that he never existed at all.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 11h ago
His prominence came later, as Christianity grew.
Why do you think so? How could a dead person gain so much traction and followers?
It’s very likely he was not born in Bethlehem, there was no census, and the story of him fleeing to Egypt is highly improbable.
Could you explain why it would be improbable?
there was little reason for historians to take note of him
There are historians amongst the sources I cited, but I would acknowledge that it could be true. Why do you think so?
•
u/DeusLatis Atheist 10h ago
Why do you think so? How could a dead person gain so much traction and followers?
Its far easier for a dead person to gain traction and followers, alive people tend not to live up to the hype where as a dead person can be anything you imagine. This is so well understood it is a clique in movies, the bad guy musing that if he kills the hero he will turn him into a martyr and the idea of him will be far more powerful than he ever was.
Could you explain why it would be improbable?
The census that would have drawn Joseph back to Bethlehem would not have taken place like that (why would a census want thousands of people to move from where they are just for a week, that defeats the whole point of a census).
Herod would have had no interest in Jesus, and since Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem there would be no slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem. There is no record of any such event taking place (and that is the kind of thing that would get recorded), nor any record that Herod was aware of, let alone cared about, a random Jewish baby.
These stories are clearly early Christians trying to make out that Jesus was far more influential at the time than he really was, similar to the story of Moses.
There are historians amongst the sources I cited
Sure, but again they recorded Christianity rather than Jesus. None of them recorded Jesus, Jesus was not historically significant while he was alive and no Roman or Jewish historian would have bothered to make records of him. It was only decades later as Christianity grew that historians started to take notice, and they recorded what these Christians believed, including Jesus.
Its like how no one was taking notice of L. Ron Hubbard in 1930 when he was a student studying civil engineering. No one was saying "I better record what this guy is doing, some day he will lead a major religion"
12
u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex 2d ago
Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers, in order to have a meaningful debate.
You first.
You've listed precisely zero verifiable or fact-supported claims. Kind of rude to expect us to provide you with something you haven't had the courtesy to offer yourself.
1
u/Such_Collar3594 13h ago
So why are suddenly this consistent claims coming from different, non-affiliated people of something so far from reality which surely wouldn’t benefit them?
Because they converted to the same religion. I don't think they chose to convert because it would benefit them, I think they were convinced it was true.
How can people, not disciples, who first doubted strongly or even were against Christianity develop such strong beliefs that they are willing to die for them?
It's pretty common, most religions have martyrs. It's just human nature. People get convinced of things. Some people very strongly. I don't think it's a mystery why they'd be willing to be martyred. They believed if they did otherwise they'd go to hell.
1
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 12h ago
And how come do you think people get convinced of something so firmly? Do you think it's something that just happens casually? That would be a very low consideration about the overall human species.
•
u/Such_Collar3594 10h ago
And how come do you think people get convinced of something so firmly?
Wishful thinking. I couldn't be say. Why do you think most martyrs die for false beliefs?
Do you think it's something that just happens casually?
No, I think it's a big deal and people need significant convincing.
I think it's a very important issue that requires careful consideration.
9
u/Astreja 2d ago
I think it's quite possible that the Gospels are based on a real person.
I reject all the miracle claims and supernatural elements. All of them, without exception, are indistinguishable from fiction and are not confirmed by any credible independent source.
-10
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
All of them, without exception, are indistinguishable from fiction
You really can't tell the difference between Athena and Harry Potter? Because there's a difference. It's distinguishable.
7
u/Astreja 2d ago
Athena is a goddess I admire very much - I had a crush on her when I was about ten - but I wouldn't testify in a court of law that she was real.
-7
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
Because you admire Athena, I give you a Pagan Pass and wish you all the best in life!
Thanks for making me smile. :)
8
u/rsta223 Anti-Theist 2d ago
Well, yes, in that one is much older and we know who invented the newer one.
4
-6
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
Once again, your and u/Astreja 's assertion is facetious and pejorative. Unless you have a serious blind-spot in your knowledge of culture, you know quite well that Athena was not "invented" by any straightforward definition of the word, much less in the way a fictional character is, nor are the two kinds similar in any way as regards their role in human life.
Is it really necessary for the two of you to cast back-handed aspersions only to feign ignorance when your behavior is called out? Why not muster the gumption to own your actions? At least for the sake of your own dignity and self-reflection, you might as well face up to the truth.
11
u/Astreja 2d ago
I just finished a course in Greek religion. Very little is known about the origins of any of the Greek gods - some may be indigenous to southern Greece; some could be from Minos; some may have come from the north and east. They likely came out of an oral tradition, so the earliest written records of them are from Homer and from Hesiod's Theogony. That doesn't make them real, though.
-3
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
Yes, you may not believe that they're "real" but they certainly aren't fictional. Fiction is a known fixture of culture that religion and mythology do not belong to. Surely you must realize that it's irksome, if not downright offensive, to refer to someone's religion as "fiction"?
Of course, you needn't answer, because I gave you a pass, and I'm sure you meant no disrespect. You seem like a very nice person and I appreciate your interest in these subjects. Have you read the Theogony? It's really a very exciting and fascinating text.
6
u/Astreja 2d ago
I can see how gods are real to many people; I'm just not one of those people, and not for lack of trying (for a number of years I studied Asatru fairly seriously, even learning some Icelandic because it's fairly close to Old Norse). My brain just can't suspend disbelief long enough to develop religious faith, and I've been this way for as long as I can remember.
Haven't read the entire Theogony but have read sections of it online and in a sourcebook we used in class. Will probably be adding it to my Classics collection if/when I come across a copy.
6
u/noodlyman 1d ago
Its a matter of definition. Myth is, I think, a Subset of fiction. It's not true; somebody made it up around the campfire. Not all fiction is myth.
6
5
u/rsta223 Anti-Theist 1d ago
Surely you must realize that it's irksome, if not downright offensive, to refer to someone's religion as "fiction"?
Of course, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Mythology is a subcategory of fiction, and religion is a subcategory of mythology.
0
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 1d ago
Another one, eh?
Please consult this comment to quell your rebellious angst.
2
u/rsta223 Anti-Theist 1d ago
It's not angst, nor is it rebellious. It's just factual. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it doesn't change the truth value of my statements.
1
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 1d ago
My claim is backed by arguments and evidence. Your claim is simply asserted without evidence and can therefore be dismissed without evidence. Sorry.
1
u/New-Length-8099 16h ago
Athena was not "invented" by any straightforward definition of the word, much less in the way a fictional character is,
Evidence of this?
1
u/VinnyJH57 1d ago
There is no account of James the brother of Jesus converting as a result of an appearance of the risen Christ. What traditions can be found make James a follower of Jesus prior to the crucifixion. Interestingly, the evidence for the appearance to James the brother of Jesus is far from unambiguous. I Corinthians 15:7 does not specify which James it is referring to. It might be James the son of Zebedee or James the son of Alphaeus.
I tend to think that some minimal historical Jesus may have existed, but the evidence is highly problematic.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 10h ago
What traditions can be found make James a follower of Jesus prior to the crucifixion.
Actually if we talk about traditions, in the Gospels: John 7:5 and Mark 3:21 they mention very clearly the opposite.
13
u/OwlsHootTwice 2d ago
I used to think the “disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” was a compelling reason. Then covid came and I saw folks, and heard about many more, that listened to their pastors and then died rather than using masks or getting vaccinated. I realized that people have, and will, willingly die for lies all the time and that the early Christians did as well.
2
u/ammonthenephite Anti-Theist 2d ago
Hell, many of us watched people willing to die for their religion fly 2 airplanes into the twin towers. Plenty of extremeists willing to die for something most every christian would argue is a false religion, so no reason to believe being willing to die for something must mean that thing is true.
•
u/Otherwise_Bath_4820 1h ago
false religion
Why would someone say that without providing any proof? If Christianity is true, it doesn't invalidate automatically all the other religions. Human wrong interpretations and ideological fallacies are what can lead to falsification and misuse. But do you agree that it requires some sort of authority or major direct experience in order to make people gain such strong beliefs? So my question is how could it happen that a dead person, who didn't have any authority other than his words and actions, had gained so much followers and believers in such hostile environment?
•
u/ammonthenephite Anti-Theist 1h ago
Why would someone say that without providing any proof?
Do you believe Islam is god's religion, especially when it teaches that christianity is false? The 2 religions are mutually exclusive and incompatible, they cannot both be 'true' as each teaches itself to be.
If Christianity is true, it doesn't invalidate automatically all the other religions.
It would invalidate every religion that claims christainity is false, and vice versa, or since we are likely talking about a specific flavor/sect/version of christianity, any of those claiming to be the only authorized religion by god would invalidate every other religion claiming something contrary, etc etc etc etc etc.
But do you agree that it requires some sort of authority or major direct experience in order to make people gain such strong beliefs?
I do. Often times it is blind indoctrination from birth, where layer after layer after layer of completely unproven assertions are taught as fact from young childhood, and the person then bases their entire world view through the lens of these completely unproven assertions as though they were true. Humans also have 'conversion experiences' that are very real to them, but since they happen in all religions, including the mutually exclusive and completely contradictory ones, we can safely assume these conversion experiences (that mimick the effects of meditaion, something that also can produce similar experiences) are not godly revelation from an unproven god through unproven spirits into the unproven spirit of a human to 'reveal the will of X or Y god', but rather are the effects of something else, like because these seekings for divine truth greatly mimick deep mediation and get similar results.
Humans are kinda dumb, and I include myself in this. It is why we really didn't make much technological progress until we could implement something like the scientific method that strips away all the ways humans get things wrong (through ignorance, emotion, bias, etc), leaving well vetted and well challenged objective truths that have been to reliable we have built modern society on them and are having this very conversation online because of them.
So my question is how could it happen that a dead person, who didn't have any authority other than his words and actions, had gained so much followers and believers in such hostile environment?
Charismatic or violent rulers are known throughout history to do just that - win people over with words and ideas, especially reactionary or revolutionary words. When you get enough of those, you can switch tactics and then use the sword to conqure and force entire nations into your religion (hence why Islam and Catholicism are as entrenched and widespread as they are).
And when these charismatic leaders do these things at times and places with little to no education for most people, they have plenty of people they can target with their pseduo truths or even outright lies, and because they just didn't know any better, they believed. That is how mormonism started with Joseph Smith, a charismatic charlattan that conned those around him and then it took on a life of its own as other power hungry people took over after his death. Wash rinse and repeat and you have mormonism today, a religion that should have been laughed into oblivion, but wasn't, because guillable people believing unproven claims (like 'a god exists and talks to you when you pray!') were believed.
4
u/vanoroce14 2d ago
I defer to the academic consensus among historians, as expressed (for example) by Ehrmann in his work. That being that Jesus is likely to have been a real person.
However, if the Christian wants to go that way, they cannot go halfway. They have to accept there is very little about Jesus life that we can corroborate, and that it is definitely not the academic consensus that Jesus performed miracles, was the son of God or resurrected.
Also, the Christian has to look at all historical and religious supernatural claims using the same methods. Is Ramses II or Caesar a god or demigod? Did Hércules exist and perform his deeds? Did Mohammed take dictation of the Quran from archangel Gabriel? Did Smith get golden plates from angel Moroni? So on, so forth. There is simply no reason to privilege the claim that Jesus did magical things than the claim that some other historical figure did.
7
u/shoesofwandering Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
Most Biblical scholars other than Richard Carrier and Robert Price accept that the Jesus character in the New Testament was based on a real person. It's unlikely that a completely fabricated character could have been ginned up just a few years after the purported events. What's more likely is that there was a first century Judean rabbi named Yeshua, whose followers added miracles to stories about him until he became the miracle-working son of God who rose from the dead. We see the same thing today among Hasidim who follow the late Lubavicher Rebbe Menachem Schneersohn, attributing miracles to him and even going so far as to claim that he was the Messiah.
What there isn't evidence for are any of the supernatural claims attributed to Jesus. We often hear people say that the evidence for Alexander the Great is no better than the evidence for Jesus, yet no one questions Alexander's existence or his accomplishments. The difference is that no one is saying Alexander was the Son of God, that his death atoned for the sins of humanity, that he performed miracles and rose from the dead. If anyone did make those claims, they'd be met with skepticism unless objective evidence of their veracity was produced. Jesus should be held to the same standard.
1
u/PortalWombat 1d ago
I'd argue that without the miracles it's not in any reasonable sense the same person.
4
u/Transhumanistgamer 2d ago
Paul of Tarsus, former persecutor of Christians, converted after seeing Jesus risen from the dead.
Paul didn't see anything. He had a supposedly grand revelatory experience but he never witnessed Jesus on Earth. In fact, every one of your sources as far as I can tell wrote about Jesus after he would have died. And those that do are reporting on what christians say.
But here's the grand slam: If christianity is true, why is it even a question at all? Why isn't Jesus more able to be verified as to have actually existed than Caesar or Lincoln or Jimmy Carter? The all powerful master of the universe cannot perform a miracle to ensure Jesus' own writings and first hand accounts survived the ages?
2
u/TheMummysCurse 1d ago
Speaking as an atheist who does believe Jesus existed (as in, the stories originated with a real-life Yeshua of Nazareth who had followers and was crucified, rather than being completely made up from scratch), I can tell you that you’re doing yourself no favours by presenting poor arguments.
- You’re mixing the question of whether Jesus *existed* with claims about whether he rose from the dead, which is a whole different issue. The reasons of James and Paul for converting have nothing to do with whether Jesus existed in the first place.
- I agree Tacitus is a good source, but the others you mention? Pliny the Younger certainly talks about Christians, but his only mention of Jesus is that Christians ‘sing a hymn to Christ as to a god’ which does kind of *imply* that Pliny thought Jesus wasn’t actually a god but a human, but is really flimsy as evidence for Jesus’s existence. Suetonius just mentions someone called Chrestus who instigated a riot; Chrestus was a common name in those days so Suetonius could easily have been talking about someone else. Never heard of this Marco Valerio, but the very fact that I’ve never heard of him after years of close interest in the ‘did Jesus exist’ debate means that he can’t have said anything particularly convincing; I’d have seen someone quote him before now.
- We have no record of why James decided to join the Jesus followers, or even of whether he was all that skeptical in the first place (all we have are a couple of general descriptions of Jesus’s multiple brothers as not believing in him). Your references are again very misleading, as neither Josephus nor Hegesippus says anything about James converting. Eusebius wrote hundreds of years later so isn’t much help here.
- Paul certainly seems to have believed Jesus rose from the dead and we do have multiple letters from him confirming this (though, if Luke’s description is correct, technically Paul didn’t *see* Jesus). However, we don’t know how Paul died and we don’t have any documentation from the Council of Jerusalem. You keep throwing out a mixture of genuine good-quality references and references that are erroneous or poor quality, without distinguishing between them; it detracts from your argument overall.
- Finally, I agree that there would be no benefit (that I can see) to *lying* about Jesus’s death. However, there would certainly have been psychological benefits to the apostles in *convincing themselves* that Jesus had risen from the dead. Jesus’s followers got to believe that their leader was coming back, his mission still survived, and they themselves hadn’t screwed up irredeemably. Paul got to believe that all his sins were forgiven via an uber-sacrifice. So, they had really strong motivation for convincing themselves that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to people in some form.
BTW, quick heads-up: I hope you do come back to carry on with this debate, but if you do wish to do so then I'd recommend doing it sooner rather than later. I've known the moderators to lock threads in which the OP hasn't come back to engage with at least some of the replies, on the grounds that this is a *debate* forum and not a 'shoot your shot and disappear' forum. So, if you want a debate, my advice would be not to leave it for days.
3
u/Savings_Raise3255 1d ago
I think Jesus probably did exist but after they crucified him I think he stayed dead. I think Jesus is a bit like Count Dracula. He was real too. Vlad Dracula Tepes III was a 15th century Romanian warlord and now 500 years later he has been fictionalised into the pop culture vampire we see in movies. I think Jesus is much the same thing there's probably some truth to the accounts, but I don't think he performed miracles any more than Vlad Tepes turned into a bat.
I don't really care what ancient text said they saw a risen Jesus, because people don't come back from the dead! What they say the saw is not implausible, it's impossible, so I need a bit more to go on than the ramblings of superstitious primitives before I'll believe reality itself was suspended. All you have are accounts (assuming they are even honest) of what people think they saw.
Ask yourself what is more likely; that people scientifically ignorant superstitious people just got it wrong, or that a rotting corpse literally resurrected?
5
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 2d ago
Marco Valerio Marziale (Martial).
Can you quote, name the text or give a link for that one?
Because it's the first time I see anyone bringing him up to a Jesus historicism debate and I haven't been able to find anything he said about Jesus.
1
u/solidcordon Atheist 2d ago
Probably because he wrote absolutely nothing about jesus. Much like the other sources the OP cites.
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 1d ago
I suspected that much.
4
u/ilikestatic 2d ago
Jesus probably existed, but not based on any of those sources you mentioned. The earliest source we have that mentions Jesus are the letters of Paul, which were written about a decade after Jesus allegedly died.
Sources like Josephus and Tacitus came decades later, and were not based on eye witness testimony. Rather, they would just be based on the spreading oral Christian tradition, or the gospels which people had begun writing by that point.
The reason why I believe Jesus was likely a real person is because of a dispute Paul was having with early Christian leaders. Paul never met Jesus, but he claims to have met some people who did meet Jesus. And he doesn’t speak of them positively. Rather, he seems to be at odds with those individuals over the leadership of the church. That would be unusual to write about your rivals having a closer connection to Jesus than yourself unless it was a known fact among early Christians. That doesn’t mean Jesus was definitely real, but I think it’s likely.
I also think the fact Jesus died in the Christian mythology is also likely evidence that he was a real person. If Jesus weren’t real, then you wouldn’t have him dying at the end of the story. You’d have him flying away from the Romans and escaping with his divine powers.
It seems likely Jesus was real, he was actually executed, and the Christian mythology is essentially an attempt to explain how Jesus’ loss was actually a victory.
1
u/A_Tiger_in_Africa Anti-Theist 2d ago
You’d have him flying away from the Romans and escaping with his divine powers.
That's actually exactly how the story ends.
0
u/ilikestatic 2d ago
You’d have him fly away before he dies. Having him die first is unnecessary. It suggests he really did die and Christians were left having to explain how he actually didn’t die.
2
u/togstation 2d ago
< reposting >
We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context.
There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them.
Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.
If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus.
.
- https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard-carrier-kooks/ <-- Interesting stuff. Recommended.
.
4
u/fraid_so Anti-Theist 2d ago
Did Jesus exist?
My opinion: no.
Expert opinion: unsubstantiated to the point that they can't rule either way.
Which means.... Probably no.
2
u/togstation 2d ago
< reposting >
Here's an introduction to ideas about "the real Jesus" from highly-educated scholars who have devoted their careers to this topic.
- https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
They all disagree about "the real Jesus":
"I've spent decades studying this topic, and I feel sure that those other guys who disagree with me (and who have also spent decades studying this topic) are wrong."
IMHO if the highly-educated and hard-working professionals can't agree about these things, then no interpretation can be considered "the" interpretation.
2
u/Mission-Landscape-17 2d ago
I don't think it matters weather there was a singular individual behind the mythology or not. Even if Yeshua ben Yosef exist that still does not mean that the stories about him in Christian mythology are actually true.
Josephous and Tacitus are both reporting Christian belief more then stating facts and both did so long after the alledged events, neither had even been born at the time the resurrection is said to have happened. Paul meanwhile only ever had visions, which makes him about as reliable as anyone else who sees things that aren't really there.
2
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Physicalist Panpsychist 2d ago
I think there’s enough evidence to say he probably existed. That’s the overwhelming consensus among scholars, including secular ones.
Is it possible to make a coherent argument for mythicism? Sure, but they seem to go through a lot of unnecessary mental gymnastics.
That being said, his bare existence and death are where that secular agreement ends. All the specific details of his life, his quotes, his deeds, etc.—none of it has a reliable historical basis. And that’s not even touching on the supernatural claims.
6
u/ArguingisFun Atheist 2d ago
There are no firsthand, eyewitness, or contemporary accounts of Jesus and no archeological evidence to prove he ever existed. The best any historian can say is “he could have”.
-2
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
Did Socrates exist?
6
u/musical_bear 2d ago
There is more evidence in favor of Socrates being a real person than there is for Jesus, and while this shouldn’t matter, it’s just the unfortunate truth that discussions about the historicity of Socrates aren’t trying to smuggle in supernatural powers to the man, which is almost always the case in these Jesus discussions.
-1
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
You're right, it shouldn't matter. So why mention it? Either Jesus existed or he didn't.
And is there really more evidence for Socrates than Jesus? As far as I know they're comparable. What do you base this statement on?
6
u/musical_bear 2d ago
I mention it because almost without fail when people post here, they aren’t actually intending to discuss the historicity of Jesus in good faith. Unless someone is a historian, there is really no reason to have this conversation over, and over, and over. People like OP want to turn a reasonable concession into “See? My entire religion must be right!”
Aside from Plato, I believe there are 3 other contemporaneous authors who wrote about Socrates. We don’t have that much with Jesus. Really if you wanted to sum up 95% of what we know about the historicity of Jesus, it all comes from Paul and the implications of the writings of Paul, who never met Jesus by even his own account, and also shares almost none of the specific details that eventually show up in the gospels.
3
u/ammonthenephite Anti-Theist 2d ago
People like OP want to turn a reasonable concession into “See? My entire religion must be right!”
Or a variation of this, "See??? You believe in people with little evidence, so my belief is just as legitimate as yours so you can't poopoo mine without being a hypocrite!!!!".
5
u/halborn 2d ago
Are people in this day and age persecuting others based on things they think Socrates said?
-1
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 1d ago
Who is being persecuted by Christians today?
7
1
u/New-Length-8099 16h ago
I have a very hard time buying that you aren’t aware of Christian oppression of LGBT people.
2
u/ArguingisFun Atheist 2d ago
What does it matter?
0
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
I'm just curious if you're equally as skeptical about Socrates' existence as Jesus'.
3
u/ArguingisFun Atheist 2d ago
Socrates has eyewitness and contemporary accounts, yes or no?
-1
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 2d ago
Yes.
Tacitus mentions the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate in the Annals. He was a senator, (born about 20 years after Christ's death,) who had already written a multi volume history of Rome. I'm sure he'd have had the resources and wherewithal to distinguish between actual recent events significant to his nation's empire and the raving machinations of some random Jewish cult members.5
u/ArguingisFun Atheist 2d ago
If you mean he wrote around 30 words on the subject, 80 years after the fact, in a tome of 8,000+ words which also mentions Hercules and Moses, sure. Weird he failed to mention any sources or importance to the blurb. It’s almost as if he was just retelling stories. That’s not eyewitness or contemporary.
-2
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 1d ago
I suppose I can't argue with that. But have you read the Gospel? Because Christ is a pretty consistent character in it, and I'm not sure how his story would make any sense as an invention. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but is there a precedent for such a thing? Are you aware of any other instances of accounts of fictitious persons said to have lived within a century prior, that have been taken as true by those contemporary to the account? Honest question. I suppose there could be hundreds of examples. But if there's any at all, I'd sure be curious to learn about them.
6
u/ArguingisFun Atheist 1d ago
The gospels were written fifty to a hundred years after the fact, by anonymous Greek speakers, and only attributed to the disciples centuries after that. Not to mention they contradict each other and Paul.
Paul - founder of Christianity, famous in his lifetime.
Mohammed - founder of Islam, famous in his lifetime.
Joseph Smith - founder of Mormonism, famous in his lifetime.
L Ron Hubbard - founder of Scientology, famous in his lifetime.
Jesus could have been a person, but he was just as likely an amalgamation of many oppression fighters at the time with some Mithraism sprinkled on top, which is why Christianity spent its first four centuries eradicating Mithraism. No competition.
1
u/reclaimhate Alochnessmonsterist 1d ago
I mean... I guess you're not that into it, but I was genuinely curious about believed fictitious characters in history, so I looked into it. There's not much, honestly, but I found an interesting account of a woman who disguised herself as a man and became the Pope! Apparently lot's of people believed her to be real, but she wasn't.
→ More replies
2
u/TarnishedVictory Anti-Theist 2d ago
The sources outside of Christianity
Hahaha, that's funny. Some of the folks you listed were just pushing the Christian narrative. Others are just stories of people.
If Jesus existed, he was a guy, or several guys, who the stories are based on. There's nothing extraordinary about that. And the stories that do cite extraordinary stuff, none of those have sufficient evidence to justify belief.
2
u/jonfitt Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
Jesus definitely exists, he runs the Mexican restaurant near us.
What I mean by this is there was possibly a person at the root of the mythology called Jesus/Jeshua or something similar. But for “Jesus” to “exist” in any important way the supernatural stories would need to be also true, and we have no worthwhile evidence that any of those parts happened.
2
u/the2bears Atheist 2d ago
Where in your sources do they support your argument? This is for people to verify they say what you think they do.
Sources: his evangelic missions
The missions are a claim, not a source.
But so what? All this would show is a person lived. Not that they were the son of a god.
2
u/ReverendKen 2d ago
Every story in the bible is easily proven to be wrong. There is not one main character in the bible that can be shown to have lived. The stories of the birth and death of jesus are historically inaccurate. Why would any reasonable person conclude that jesus ever lived?
2
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 2d ago
There might have been a guy who inspired the myth of Hercules Jesus, I don't know and I don't care. The interesting parts (the magic parts), the parts I would care about, there is not enough evidence to believe those parts happened.
2
u/togstation 2d ago edited 2d ago
People really need to stop re-posting this every week.
Just read 1,000 of the previous discussions in this sub, or 100,000 previous offline discussions, okay ?
The responses are always going to be the same.
1
u/ammonthenephite Anti-Theist 2d ago
Most of what you find on reddit you can find elsewhere, and reddit's search function is ass. It may get repetative to those of us who spend a lot of time here, but I have no problem taking the time as often as necessary to help new people learn things they don't yet know.
Also really easy to see the question and just skip over it if one isn't feeling like engaging on the topic.
That said, a sidebar wiki with links to the best responses to common questions could be helpful as well, and directing people there could be one strategy among others to engage in debate, since this is a debate sub, after all.
1
u/Odd_Gamer_75 2d ago
Testimonies of Christian persecutions
This one is irrelevant. It only tells us there were believers at the time and they were persecuted. Even if Jesus had been a real person, (and I do accept that he was just, even if he was a totally ordinary human being), almost none of those being persecuted would have any way to know that, they'd never have seen the man. They, like the rest of us, would have been told he existed and did things, and they believed it so much they were willing to say so. Not 'willing to say so in the face of persecution', that happened later, and it's not like they were told 'recant your beliefs or be persecuted', they just were.
Pretty much everything else you mention is just saying 'hey, here is this group of people, and they believe X'. It's... not great evidence for the existence of Jesus, but it's enough for me. After all, there's lots of people mentioned once in all of history and the only mention we have of them is that someone wrote about them once, sometimes even a rumor about them. This isn't to say the rumor part is true, just that it's a good enough bit of evidence that some person with that name existed in some place when we lack countering evidence otherwise. Ie, we accept mundane claims written down as likely being true, even if there's not at all mundane stuff attached. My go-to here is Davy Crocket. The man actually existed. He didn't, though, kill a bear at age three.
1
u/okayifimust 2d ago
From what historical documentation tells us, the answer is yes.
Bullshit.
The sources outside of Christianity are: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Marco Valerio Marziale (Martial).
Don't be ridiculous.
Brother of Jesus, James the Just, former skeptical, converted after seing Jesus risen from the dead. Sources: Josephus, Hegesippus, and Eusebius of Caesarea.
I have news for you: Snakes don't talk.
Are you really naive enough to claim that stories about zombies qualify as "historical documentation"?
Paul of Tarsus, former persecutor of Christians, converted after seeing Jesus risen from the dead. Sources: his evangelic missions, his letters, Council of Jerusalem. Both died for him, amongst many other eyewitnesses, in an historical era where Christians were persecuted from the Romans and lying about the rise from the dead of Jesus would not give any benefit, but on the contrary, ensure you certain death.
Explain martyrs of other religions, please.
What is your opinion about this?
You should be ashamed.
Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers, in order to have a meaningful debate.
You haven't bothered to look into the many, many times your ridiculous claims have been debunked. You fail at constructing a basic, logical argument. You don't get to make demands about the nature of my response.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 2d ago
Did Jesus truly exist?
No. If you are referring to the person in a typical Christian bible assigned that name.
From what historical documentation tells us, the answer is yes.
Many ancient "historians" mention a variety of gods in documents they wrote, is the mentioning of those gods sufficient to demonstrate that they "truly exist"?
What is your opinion about this?
Evidence of a story and people believing that story is not evidence that the story is true. There are countless ancient myths that ancient people believed, that we think of as myth (i.e. fiction) today. My opinion is that people who make this argument without addressing that are ignorant or biased on this topic.
I'd also note this is not a phenomena exclusive to the ancient world there are many popular conspiracy theories (used in the pejorative sense) today.
Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers, in order to have a meaningful debate.
I don't know of any evidence that suggests the stories about Jesus are true. Without any evidence to corroborate those stories I would say there is no (good) reason to think they are anything but (fictional) stories.
2
u/violentbowels Atheist 2d ago
There was probably a guy named Jesus who was an apocalyptic preaching jew. He was probably killed for claiming to be a god/king. The rest is fan fiction built uo by authoritarian leaders to create an authoritarian cult/religion.
2
u/Icolan Atheist 2d ago
The character described in the bible? No, there is no evidence that such a being is even possible. A human being that was an itinerant rabi in the area preaching things that got him killed by the authorities is quite likely, but we do not know if the legends were based on a single person or multiple people.
1
u/KeterClassKitten 2d ago
Short answer, no. Jesus wasn't even his name. It was Yeshua, which is more closely translated to Joshua. I think the inability to keep the name accurate over the centuries alone is a good enough of an indication of how many stories were misattributed, mistranslated, exaggerated, or plain made up.
Did Yeshua exist? Probably. Hell, I'll even say definitely. Pick any one of them, I'm sure there were plenty to choose from. Did a Yeshua exist that was the literal son of god sent to be tortured to death to forgive humanity for the sins that god found us guilty of? Naw.
1
u/Restored2019 2d ago
Why ask that silly question? It’s been asked millions of times and the answer is the same as any other question about any other religious nonsense. it’s all made up by mostly ignorant sheepherders (or whatever the barbarians of that time and place were called) who were somewhat good at storytelling. Sure the name ‘jesus’ exists, there are lots of men named that. But that has nothing to do with the fables told by the xian clans.
There are a lot of more modern versions of similarly fables, such as: The Mormons; The Church of Scientology, etc.
1
u/Novaova Atheist 2d ago
My mom once told me about her best friend Margaret at Purdue won the NCAA title in freestyle, and set a record that stood for ten years.
But it later turned out that the best friend Margaret at Purdue was actually just an avid intermural athlete.
But it later turned out that the best friend Margaret at Purdue was just active.
But it later turned out that Mom and Margaret went to JeffCo Juco Nursing school.
Then it turned out Margaret was this guy named Mike.
Does Margaret truly exist?
1
u/Carg72 1d ago
Whether he did actually exist or not is pretty much irrelevant. I'm sure there was probably at least one dark-haired kid living in England in the 90s named Harry Potter, but to extrapolate that Rowling wrote a biography about him is farcical. New York is a real city, but that doesn't mean that Spider-Man and Daredevil are real.
The import thing about the Jesus figure isn't that he existed, that's just step one. It's all of the fantastical events and accomplishments attributed to him.
1
u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Jesus probably existed but, like, so what? Muhammad existed. Joseph Smith existed. L. Ron Hubbard existed. None of those things make me believe in those faiths, and I don't see why this religious leader should beany different.
This whole question over the historical existence of Jesus is, I always feel, a red herring in this context. It's an interesting historical discussion, but it's not of much theological use - an atheist who concedes Jesus' existence doesn't concede very much.
1
u/Nordenfeldt 2d ago
I posted quite a lengthy historical analysis of this question previously, see it here.
As for the disciples 'dying for a lie', I also did a historical analysis of that, by examining what we know about the disciples. Most of them very likely never existed at all.
1
u/Autodidact2 2d ago
I believe that the majority of experts in the field do believe that the Jesus myth most likely started with an actual person, Yeshua Ben Joseph, but that's not the same as what you are claiming with rathe silly evidence. I mean, is it your usual practice to accept visions as evidence, or only when it supports your religious belief?
1
u/Big_brown_house Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
I think Christopher Hitchens made the best single argument for his existence.
The gospels go to great lengths to make a convoluted explanation for how “Jesus of Nazareth” was actually born in Bethlehem (as the prophecy says). If Jesus were a totally made up person, they would have just written that he was born in Bethlehem without all the delusional fantasies about how Caesar ordered a census I which everyone went back to their grandpas home town (??? Why would an emperor want that??).
The fact that the gospel writers lied about where Jesus was born is evidence that they were lying about a real person.
1
u/Ok-Calligrapher-9854 2d ago
We don't have birth records or other physical evidence from that era for anyone below a certain socio-economic strata. The only people we have records for are high ranking officials and royalty.
Peasants like Jesus and his parents were just like anyone else... Not noteworthy.
1
u/Decent_Cow Touched by the Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 2d ago
There are no contemporary sources, only from decades later. And there is no evidence that anybody who allegedly knew Jesus personally was ever persecuted. The persecution of Christians by Rome began much later. So, idk, maybe he existed? What would that prove?
•
u/GuybrushMarley2 Satanist 8h ago
It doesn't matter. We're pretty sure Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard existed. Does that lend credibility to their claims?
1
u/TharpaNagpo Demon-Eater 2d ago
What is your opinion about this?
Please only verifiable and fact-supported answers,
Can we get a fact check on jewish necromancers existing?
-9
u/heySnickerZz 2d ago
There’s literally more evidence for Jesus than Alexander the Great, the first texts about Alexander the Great cane hundreds of years after him, but oh yes he’s well accepted as being alive. Don’t LISTEN TO ANYONE saying he didn’t exist, it’s absolutely fucking ridiculous
6
u/_Oudeis 2d ago
>There’s literally more evidence for Jesus than Alexander the Great
False. We have
- Contemporary sources: including Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; his generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.
- Early sources, such as Arrian, Plutarch, and Diodorus Siculus. There are also later unfriendly sources such as the account of Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire from the medieval Persian Book of Ardā Wīrāz.
- Statues: A roman copy of a bronze bust made by Lysippus, Alexander’s personal sculptor, is in the Louvre.
- Contemporary coins with his name and likeness.
- Contemporary inscriptions in temples, tombs and other places, in Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Afghanistan. There are Babylonian clay tablets that mention him.
There's also the city of Alexandria in Egypt named after him. Also, Tyre in Lebanon, which was originally on an island, is now a peninsula due to the land bridge built by Alexander the Great, during the siege of Tyre in 332 BC.
There's also the entire Hellenistic Era where Greek culture was spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East due to Alexander's conquests. If he did not exist, a whole new explanation is needed for this entire era of history, ignoring the much simpler and more parsimonious explanation that Alexander the Great actually existed.
We have virtually none of this for Jesus. No contemporary sources, no archeological evidence whatsoever, only the books in the New Testament (and some that were left out like the Gospel of Thomas) and a few later mentions of Christians and their beliefs.
2
-4
u/heySnickerZz 2d ago
The EARLIEST written accounts we have of Alexander the Great were 300-500 years after his death. You lose. For Jesus we have Matthew mark luke and John lol, literal people so I just won. Plus we have
Josephus Tacitus Suetonius Pliny the younger And many many more. This is so easy
5
u/_Oudeis 2d ago
I appreciate you ignoring the bulk of my post and moving the goalposts from "evidence" to 'written primary sources". Again, we have (partial) contemporary written sources, and other primary evidence. Your wilful ignorance of them is not a win.
The gospels were not written by the apostles whose names they bear. They were written decades after the fact and the names added later still. Paul is the earliest source in the NT and he never met Jesus. That's zero primary sources.
I'm not pushing back on whether Jesus lived or not, but the people telling you there is more evidence for Jesus than Alexander (or Julius Caesar, another common argument) are misinforming you.
-4
u/heySnickerZz 1d ago
They were written by Matthew mark luke and John, any thing said in opposition to that is just speculating and arguing for there points sake because there’s 0 proud there written by anyone else. You’d like to dismiss them but you can’t
4
u/Moutere_Boy 2d ago
We can also see statutes of him and the geopolitical impact attributed to him.
Here’s the difference though, if we found out tomorrow there is evidence those actions were wrongly attributed to a single person, people would just adjust their views and take in new information and maybe shift their belief he was a real person… that is not the reaction you get from Christians when presented with new information that challenges their belief.
-1
2d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Moutere_Boy 2d ago
So if it’s no longer the biggest that will be a sign it’s fake?
lol. Silly logic there buddy, just silly.
-2
2d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 2d ago
by honestly say we don't know.
Unlike the ppl keep talking about their objectively moral skydaddy who ordered the genocides and ok with slavery.
3
u/Moutere_Boy 2d ago
No, I don’t have any issue with “thin nothingness” because that’s not at all what the Big Bang theory is, that’s just your simplistic misunderstanding.
But that’s a silly distraction which makes it clear you recognise how silly your previous post was.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.