All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room
159 comments
-
Now whether Jesus was a divine being, sure that picture depicts the evidence of that. But we "know" that a man named Jesus certainly existed and was crucified.
-
Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don't believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don't believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn't exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it's convenient.
-
Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist.
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.
I do as well and I am still waiting for the evidence that he wasn't a myth.
-
-
The problem with all of this "evidence" is that Christians don't want to officially recognize any of it because it proves Jesus or Joseph as he was probably called. Was just a normal guy.
-
I am still waiting for the evidence. We have Paul who didn't see anything, despite being in the area when it all supposedly went down, we have him call into question the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and despite spend decades with Christians only seems to know 11 facts about Jesus. Then we get complete silence for 50 years and an off-hand mention of the some hearsay by a man who believed in a literal Adam and Eve as historical fact.
Meanwhile every single part of the Jesus con is found in the stories and history that was around at the time. It is a hacky unoriginal derivative work with all of the evidence conveniently missing.
-
His name was Joshua, or Yeshua, not Joseph. Joseph was his father's name. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua or Yeshua
-
-
That wiki article presents zero historical evidence and is full of references to biblical scholars claiming there was s areal historical Jesus because the bible says so. Pure garbage source.
-
Thats literally not true. It provides multiple non-christian historians (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus). Theres all kinds of charismatic leaders today that people ascribe religious meaning to, I'm not sure why some people have a hard time believing a charismatic dude had followers who believed he was god.
-
-
This argument is like saying “some guy named john did in fact live and was sentenced to life in prison in Louisiana”.
There was, in fact, lots of jeshua’s and Jehoshua’s that were alive at the time- and many of them executed. That’s not credible evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. It was a very common name, after all.
-
The reduction Jesus doesn't even work. Even if you reduce him down to some guy named Jesus who pissed the Romans off you wouldn't be able to account for the community that popped up. Additionally you still can't prove that this diet Jesus event happened, you just lowered the claim so much that it is not plausible instead of impossible.
What does explain the the community would be deliberate fraud. A cult lead by James and Peter about an mythical being.
-
I disagree. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so starting from that common ground shows Christians that you are following the consensus views and are discussing in good faith with them
-
-
Show me the evidence, not what theist apologists argued later via tampered hearsay decades removed from the facts.
-
Ok, Pompeii. Less than a century later, before Constantine reskinned the Roman religion with the Christian label, we've found hidden shrines and symbols used by followers of Jesus. And uncovered very recently - not much room for it to be falsified. There's also contemporary accounts that spread extremely fast throughout the Roman empire and beyond, but those weren't buried under ash until the modern era.
That's a long way to go in very little time - that's only maybe 3-4 degrees away from the original source. Not nearly long enough for a mythical figure to develop organically
You can dispute the details, but someone must've been the figurehead at the very least. The gospels themselves hint at the events being staged to some extent by a small group spreading an ideology according to a literal plan - the public events literally start with Jesus's cousin gathering support for the movement, and then Jesus goes around recruiting specific people as apostles
The Romans also kept records - there's a lot of corroborating evidence for certain events spread too far and wide for a pre-information age society to fabricate. Even things like his birthdate - I think they've been able to narrow it down to a few days in July, during the census, where we had accounts of a temporary new star in the sky
Even the papers that are given clickbait-y headlines like "historians dispute the existence of Jesus" generally dispute certain aspects, there was almost certainly a historical figure named Jesus who was killed by the Romans for inciting a resistance movement
-
-
That is just wrong. There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity. Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him, and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts, but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up, and is still enough that it’s widely believed that he was a real guy. If what he taught was true or not is another story.
-
Secular scholars consider the historical account of Jesus existing in the writings of the Roman Jewish Historian Josephus. There are extra biblical references to him. Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person. His ministry wasn't even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.
-
but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed
How do we know this?
Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him,
Spiderman must exist as well. Also all the books about him were written multiple decades later.
and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts,
You mean the Gnostic stuff written two centuries later or the Talmudic stuff written only a mere 150-400 years later?
but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up,
Means motive and opportunity. Means, the early stories are all ripped off. Motive, sex and greed. Opportunity, if Paul is to believed in his 7 undisputed letters the only two people to see the resurrection are Peter and James and "the twelve" who he doesn't name and never met.
-
There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity.
We actually don't know any of that, and that is not what the historical consensus is either.
-
-
Just let us have fun with memes.
I don't believe in magical books either. I do think a dude had a god-complex and was murdered by the Roman state. Just enjoy the ride. And now for the real reason I came to this thread:
But I saw that guy selling an autographed copy of His book yesterday on Lemmy!
-
-
I’m an atheist and this is a dumb take
-
You easily could've just said God instead and avoided a lot of controversy. Leave Christians to ignore the history books. Don't go down to their level.
-
It's pretty bold to say that there's no evidence for him.
For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn't too remarkable. This means that we don't need a ton of strong evidence. Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it's not expected that he'd leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.
Since there seems to be a consensus by experts that he existed, and since neither of us are experts (probably, I don't actually know about you), you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.
I'm not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it's validity. Thus I need to trust other people's findings.
If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they're religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree), then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.
-
There’s no surviving records of his (or anyone named Jeshua or any variant there of,) ever having existed.
In fact if any such record were to be found, it would almost certainly be fraudulent.
There are records of people saying he existed well after his reputed death… but those records are pretty universally from individuals with extensive motive to lie- what with being cult leaders and all that.
Even if there were records of someone with his name existing, matching them to jesus-of-the-bible would prove almost impossible- the best would be a “well maybe it was him” kinda deal.
It would be like finding some guy named “John” had been incarcerated in Louisiana and insisting he was John Coffey and here to save us all.
-
There probably is, the irony is just that it's a document all churches will fight tooth and nail against recognizing as partially authoritative over their own records.
In general, I've found that the best evidence for a historical Jesus having existed is in the history of the "other versions of Jesus" Paul makes mention of in 2 Cor 11:4. A city where only decades later they deposed appointees from Rome in a schism.
The assumption that if a historical Jesus existed that the surviving tradition of that individual would be the one that succeeded against its rivals centuries later is grossly irresponsible, and yet a common scenario unexplored to avoid upsetting modern day believers in that version of the history.
The odds are much, much higher that the most accurate picture of a historical Jesus would be found among the competition. Particularly given the available evidence that the church's monetary fundraising practices were at odds with the earliest versions of Jesus.
What's more likely to survive the filter of the Roman empire?
A version of Jesus against dynastic rule and religious fundraising, or a version pro-fundraising and pro-dynastic monarchy?
Which version would be more likely to have the temple or Rome wanting to execute them?
Does no one think it odd Peter, the founder of the modern church, denies him three times around the time Jesus is brought to trial around three times, at least one of which Peter is allegedly seen firsthand being let by the guards back to where the trial was taking place?
Or that Paul, who never met him and was known to be actively persecuting Jesus's followers, shows up to areas he can't persecute in telling people he's one of them and to ignore other versions of Jesus?
People argue back and forth about a particular version of history when it comes to the Bible that's both less interesting and less likely than other options for historical events and people that just may have been less attractive to people in power when editorial choices are being made for the current collection and editions of them.
-
-
There is no evidence of him that exists and we have. It's possible that it will be found one day but given how much people have looked I have my doubts.
For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn’t too remarkable.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread even the reduced claim doesn't match the data we have on early Christianity.
Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it’s not expected that he’d leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.
That really isn't my problem. You can't tell me to accept no evidence because it is to hard to find any.
Since there seems to be a consensus by experts
Not interested in consensus.
you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.
Sure! The person who was most close to the events didn't seem to know anything about the events. The stories we have contradict each other and show clear borrowings. They also show the type of borrowings we would expect. For example the idea that God has a former human buddy working with him in heaven was a heresy that the Pharisees were trying to kill (book of Enoch). Go reread Paul and see how he describes Jesus going to heaven and now working with God.
I’m not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it’s validity. Thus I need to trust other people’s findings.
Neither men were alive when the supposed events happened and every book we have of them comes through Christian scribes. Even those scholars you are referencing mostly reject the big passage of Josphius.
If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they’re religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree
Nope, no desire. I am not a mind reader. Nor do I think it is appropriate to attack someone for disagreeing with me. I attack ideas not people.
then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.
Nope. The burden of proof does not follow by majority rule it follows on the person making the claim. If it did every atheist would have to give up now because the majority of the experts on God(s) in human history have been believers and it would be on us to disprove God.
-
-
Just making shit up now? Folks there are plenty of memes to be had without fabrication of patently untrue comments.
-
Dang you got me. There is so much evidence for the man existing such as ummm some "historian" writing 150 years later describing what other people said.
-
-
Arent historians pretty sure jesus existed? You know he just couldnt walk on water and turn water into wine and everything else they say about him lol.
-
Who is this for? What point are you trying to make? There is arguable evidence for a jesus-like character (as seen in the comments), so this post really helps no one and makes you look like an uninformed, angsty, immature person.
And maybe you are and will grow out of it to be helpful to any sort of community, but this post isn't part of that.
-
There is arguable evidence for a jesus-like character
May I see it?
so this post really helps no one and makes you look like an uninformed, angsty, immature person.
Will personal attacks produce the evidence?
-
-
OP, I am with you.
I have researched the historicity of Jesus in the past to try to confirm my faith, but all we have is either Christian sources or sources written more than 300 later after Jesus supposedly died.
What we are sure of is that Paul really existed, and it's him who mainly spread this new religion. That he was telling the truth, no, we will never be sure.
I am sorry for the other comments here. I thank you for you submission but seeing the response of the rest of the community here I am going to block it and move on.
-
A Dutch historian wrote a book that analyzed Paul's actions as if he was a Roman double agent who had to stop religious uprising against the Roman empire. If you read the bible in that way it gets hard to ignore it. The romans were treated as an instrument of god, whose taxation should be payed without disagreement.
It's my personal favorite interpretation of the christian faith ever. How a disinforming operation became bigger than the institution it was meant to protect and eventually overtook it.
-
Oh thanks.
Yeah you know I have decided to just trust Paul was telling the truth about things as far as he knew it. A bias on my part. I like the guy. Always felt something for the larger than life types. Besides he really does seem to struggle with the events he heard and the prophecy he expected. So if he was lying he could have saved himself a lot of effort and avoided squaring the circle.
He said he met James so I will go with that. Pretty sure James and Peter were running a grift that Paul got suckered into. Among other things it explains why the Romans were ignoring them for decades. Rome had no problem with charity work/mystery cults. They let them do their thing. If they had killed Jesus they probably would have finished the job especially since the community was in Jerusalem.
-
-
The caption left out an important word: All the contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.
-
Good point it should read: all the evidence that wasn't written hundreds of years later based on nothing.
-
Nope, it's spot on, there is no evidence, contemporary or otherwise. There is only hear say.
-
-
"The signs are all there, is your lack of faith to stop you from seeing them" - [ Says every religion EVER]
-
Tacitus wrote of him and "Chrestians" that is all you need bro
-
Tacitus wrote more than a century after Jesus purportedly died.
-
-
But… There’s like three or four hundred possible tombs!
-
News to St. Paul. Paul thought Jesus was buried in the ground not placed in a tomb. The Jesus was real crowd doesn't like to mention that their only "eyewitness" disagrees with the Gospel accounts.
-
159 comments