No. But physical proof is not the standard we use for determining someone's historical existence.
Literary proof is, but also doesn't exist for Jesus Christ.
There's a few mentions of just a "Jesus" but its not like no one else was named Jesus, and those don't really make any mention of him being remarkable in any way.
There's just no evidence
AFAIK most historians/scholars agree that Jesus was a real person (even if a lot of the Bible's claims about what he did are not true). But I'm not a historian. What are you basing your opinion on?
Exactly this. The person did exist. There's proof of that. It wasn't the son of god and didn't perform miracles, but he was real nonetheless.
Important notion that Jesus never claimed to be the son of god and that entire line of thinking was established some four hundred years after.
So we have to differentiate between what is the actual Gospel and life of Jesus and what the more creative parts of the churches invented on top of it over time.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58
Which is from one of the original 4 gospels. Apparently there's evidence of it being written as early as 70AD. There's a couple other quotes I found in a link some other person linked in this thread but this one seems most direct.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there was (most likely) an actual historical person who is the origin of these stories, i.e. Jesus. He's probably not really as fantastical as the Bible would have you believe, but he did exist, as opposed to being just an entirely fictional character.
There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called 'Jewish Apocalypticism', basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.
Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement's key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.
This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.
There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are 'Mythicists' of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.
This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.
Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.
Satans Guide to the Bible for more apocalyptic felt Jesus.
I've heard theories that key people probably had hallucinations of Jesus a few days after he was killed, which was the big thing that helped launch him from yet-another-apocalyptic-preacher to (eventually) God himself. I don't know how well these are accepted, though.
This stems from the fact that, so far, the earliest dated written fragments we have from what is now the New Testament are some of the writings of Paul.
Paul was not one of the Apostles EDIT: Disciples, and it seems possible that, after persecuting earlier, existing Christians, he could have basically had a stress induced psychotic break and hallucinated the vision of Jesus that he had, then converted.
Thing is though, Christians would have to ... you know exist and already be a real thing first, for that to make sense.
It does explain why Paul does not mention some very key elements of the narrative of the Gospels: He just had not actually read about or heard of those parts yet.
This creates some theological problems down the line, and some of those problems were 'remedied' by what a good deal of scholars and historians believe to be forgeries... chapters of the Bible that modern Christians attribute to Paul, but do not seem to actually have been written by Paul.
It is also possible to some of the empty tomb accounts in some of the Gospels as similar kinds of trauma induced hallucinations.
Mark famously originally just ends with an empty tomb, and nobody said anything about this because they were scared... and then the last bit of verses giving Mark a more satisfying ending have been shown to be added ... decades later.
The explanation I heard was that it was likely Mary and Peter hallucinated Jesus only a few days after he died. That's a very common timeframe for when people hallucinate seeing dead loved ones, and the early descriptions in Bible match the flavor of dead loved-one hallucinations people typically have, with the figure assuring the person everything will be all right and whatnot. Other descriptions (like Jesus appearing to all twelve disciples or crowds of people) seem to have been written later more as persuasive arguments, with doubting Tomas acting as the stand-in for the skeptical listener. This is all from "How Jesus Became God" and I have no idea how mainstream or fringe the author's views are.
I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.
I thought Paulogia's minimum witnesses argument is basically that Paul could have hallucinated, and that those who witnessed an empty tomb basically did see an empty tomb, but circumstantial confusion led them to misinterpret what they saw?
I'll have to rewatch some of his vids.
Also, hey, Goju Ryu! I trained in Shito Ryu =D
Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.
Oh nice! :D
I agree with you that Jesus wasn't God, who doesn't exist, and that there were no miracles, which are impossible. However, this is not the same thing as saying that there's no evidence for the existence of Jesus, the Jewish apocalyptic preacher.
The earliest documents about Jesus, such as the Pauline Epistles, were written by people who knew people who knew him. In a mostly illiterate society 2,000 years ago, this is about as good as evidence gets. It's also the exact same kind of evidence as a journalist or researcher writing an account based on interviews with people. This was how, e.g, Herodotus wrote his histories. When Herodotus says 'A guy rode a dolphin once' we dismiss that. But we don't say 'The people in the Histories didn't exist, except those for whom there's physical evidence, which is about three of them, not including the author'. We do much the same with Jesus and the miracles.
If the Apostles had wanted, for some reason, to make up a guy, that would have been risky. Other people would have just said, 'That guy didn't exist'. If they had anyway decided to make up a guy, they'd have invented someone who actually fulfilled the Jewish propehcies of the Messiah, instead of inventing Jesus, who obviously didn't. This suggests they didn't invent him, which strengthens the plausibility of the evidence we do have.
A third way of looking at this is to ask if there are any comparable figures, religious founders from the historic era, who we now think were wholly made up in the way you're suggesting. But there aren't. The Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Zoroaster - they all certainly existed. Indeed, I can't think of any figures form the time period who were actually imaginary.
Personally, I think it's most likely that he's composed of many people. It's a bunch of stories which all got attributed as one person, which isn't uncommon. Personally, though I'm far from an expert, I think there wasn't a singular Jesus figure who actually existed, but rather a story of a figure named Jesus that rose from stories about other events.
Like you said, it's almost certain that something was happening around that time. In fact, there are many more Messiahs who were mostly forgotten. I just think it's most likely that people told stories and those stories all merged together into another larger story, which then became the story of Jesus.
It's certainly possible that sayings of other people were later attributed to him, but to really make this case you'd need to have quotations that were attributed to multiple sources, including him, if you see what I mean. Absent that, it could be true, but there's no particular reason to believe it.
There are enough specific biographical details about Jesus of Nazareth to make it likely that there's a specific, real central figure. For example, the fact that he was from Nazareth was a problem for his early followers (it didn't match the Messianic prophecies), which is why they invented the odd story of the census, so that they could claim he'd been born in Bethlehem, the hometown of King David, from whom Jesus was supposedly descended. That seems unlikely to have happened if there hadn't been a real, central historical figure.
Also, none of the early non-Christian sources claim he wasn't real or that he was a composite, which they surely would have done if there was any doubt on the matter.
... The four Gospels?
Written up to a couuple of centuries after his supposed existence.
The Gospel of John, the latest Gospel, was written between 90-100AD
As an atheist I believe Jesus existed, I just don’t think he was the son of god or that he was resurrected.
It would have been far easier to start a religion around a real man with actual followers than if he was a figment of someone’s imagination.
I like to picture my Jesus as a desert hippie that people liked and told tall tales of in order to give people living in that harsh environment some hope and meaning.
I like to think of Jesus with like giant eagles wings and singing lead vocals for lynyrd skynyrd with like an Angel Band, and I'm in the front row, and I'm hammered drunk.
IIRC, the religion didn't get anywhere is Palestine after Jesus supposedly died and it wasn't until decades later that it picked up in and around Greece thanks to Paul, but no one was around that saw any of the events attributed to Jesus - it was all heresay.
I mean the bible is how many pages and how much of it actually takes place during Jesus's life? And what is the timespan of the small part that does? Like a year? And the 4 gospels that talk about it are all rehashings of the same stories (more or less) and even contradict each other at times.
That's a story with a lot of gaps and plot holes to base a belief system around - and that doesn't even include all the baggage and hate that comes along with it.
People nowadays lose their mind and make death threats to the creators of stories that don't fix or create new plot holes in canon. And we're supposed to smile, nod, and happily accept one of the worst constructed stories ever just because some old white men that live the opposite way they tell us to live say so?
It's weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.
I don't feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.
In my experience, when it comes to debating the validity of religion, people tend to get far more emotional than other topics. People who are normally level-headed and quite logical tend to completely lose their ability to think rationally. And I mean both the people who argue for religion and against it.
Pretty clear that's the case here in the comments on this post.
Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there's no controversy, but there's definitely an orthodox opinion.
Yep. This is one of those posts that should have just been a web search instead.
The evidence isn't even that strong, there i
just aren't that many people willing to risk becoming a pariah to dispute them.
If you are a Christian, there is no doubt Jesus existed. Any oblique reference to a rabbi who was persecuted hundreds years ago is considered evidence that Jesus existed. But no contemporaneous documentation exists.
If you're not a Christian, debunking all of those vague references that might be proof of a Jewish leader named Jesus just isn't particularly important, won't persuade anyone who believes Jesus was(is) God, and will paint a target on your back for terrorists.
No, there arent a lot of texts from the 1st century AD about him. The majority by far stems from the second century or later.
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
The article you provided (if you read it) should actually serve to cast more doubt on the idea; it does not “answer the question to the affirmative.”
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
That implies each source says: "A man called Jesus was crucified". The article you provided (if you read it) should have told you otherwise.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, year 93-94: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
Tacitus's Annals, year 117: 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 Pilatus
Physical proof? No. But if that's the criterion for proof that someone existed, then that mean 90% of historical figures can't be proven to have existed. We don't have the remains of Alexander the Great or any artefacts we can be sure are his. We have no remnants of Plato, none of his original writings remain.
Did a person name Jesus live sometime during the first century AD? Scholars are fairly certain of that.
We do have textual evidence other than the bible that points to his existence.
It is highly unlikely that he was anything like the person written about in the bible. He was likely one of many radical apocalyptic prophets of the time.
We don't have too many details about his life but because of something called the criterion of embarrassment we have good reason to believe he was baptized by a man named John the Baptist and was later crucified. (i.e. most burgeoning religions seeking legitimacy don't typically invent stories that are embarrassing to their deity)
then that mean 90% of historical figures can’t be proven to have existed
Well for most of those we tend to use independent verification for their existence. And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero Credible examples of independent verification.
And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero independent verification.
Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion, which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[3]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels are thought to already have been in circulation.
Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[15][30] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic.
Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value
A. The first line of the Tacitus passage says Chrestians, not Christians.
Suetonius says Chrestus was personally starting trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Suetonius is writing years after Tacitus yet doesn't mention that Chrestus died.
So Chrestus can't be Jesus because it's the wrong decade, wrong continent and missing a death.
B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.
P.S. Even if the second line was somehow authentic, the information would have come from Christians. This would be the equivalent of deriving Abraham's biography by talking to Muslims.
This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.
In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens, if this is all you got, you are holding an empty bag.
If you mean Jesus as described word for word in the bible? Yes you are right. Such a mythical figure never existed.
A man name Jesus from the first century AD? Who preached in the Levant? Who was baptized by a man named John and was later crucified? There is good enough evidence of such a person existing. This isn't even a debated question among new testament scholars anymore.
I see you are familiar with Bart Ehrman,
Even he doesn't dispute that a historical Jesus existed.
I'm by no means an expert but I was briefly obsessed with comparative religion over a decade ago and I don't think anyone has given a great answer, I believe my answer is correct but I don't have time for research beyond checking a couple of details.
As a few people have mentioned there is little physical evidence for even the most notable individuals from that time period and it's not reasonable to expect any for Jesus.
In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus. Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus mentions him twice, once briefly telling the story of his crucifixion and resurrection. The second is a mention in passing when discussing the brother of Jesus delivering criminals to be stoned.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that a Jewish spiritual leader with a name something like Jesus Christ probably existed and that not long after his death miracles are being attributed to him.
It is also worth noting the historical context of the recent emergence of Rabbinical Judaism and the overabundance of other leaders who were claimed to be Messiahs, many of whom we also know about primarily(actually I think only) from Josephus.
The part mentioning Jesus's crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.
The idea that the historical figure was known as either 'Jesus' or 'Christ' is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there's no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.
In many ways, it's the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.
One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.
In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus
Misinformation.
There's Tacitus's Annals (year 117), Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (93-94), Mara bar Serapion's letter to his son.
Seutonius (Lives of the Twelve Cæsars) and Pliny wrote about the conflict between the Romans and the followers of Christ (or Chrestus) around that era.
You are the one who is doing the misinforming. All of the sources you mention, except Josephus, were written up to more than a century after his supposed existence. With Josephus being written around half a century after his existence.
And as mentioned, the specific quotes from Josephus are of a dubious nature.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here but both Suetonius and Pliny are talking about Christians in the 2nd century, Tacitus speaks about Christ only in the context of Nero blaming Christians for the great fire. These are literary evidence for the existence of Christians in the second century but are not direct literary evidence of the existence of Christ as an individual which was the question I was addressing.
I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong but I believe my original post stands.
The thing is that compared to other historical people we kid of have similar evidence. Like we have records of Socrates existing and we have records of some Joshua existing.
The difference is that nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death, which is a extraordinary claim, we just say he was a very smart guy, we se very smart guys on a daily basis, nothing special with that so we can just believe it and even if we are wrong it has no real life implications.
For the Joshua guy, that's quite a different story. The claims about him are extraordinary and need extraordinary evidence. But we only have normal evidence. If the claims about him were true it would contradict almost everything we think we know about the universe, how it behaves, etc.
So again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The difference is that nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death,
To use a more modern example, pretty much everyone agrees that Grigori Rasputin was a real person who played a crucial role in the court of the last Czar of Russia.
But there are some positively wild and unexplainable stories that have a decent amount of corroborating evidence that they happened. The story about him healing the prince via a phone call sounds like actual magic. However we all know magic isn't real, there is definitely some kind of logical explanation. But that explanation is lost to time.
So where do historians land on Rasputin? Well, there was definitely a guy called Rasputin. Some of the stories about him are true. Some are probably false or exaggerated. There isn't even a consensus on what colour the dude's eyes were. But that doesn't mean we dispute his existence.
But that explanation is lost to time.
One translation I read suggested a probable explanation.
Rasputin's phone advice was the same as many modern quacks: keep the patient away from modern medicine and doctors.
So the hemophiliac prince was no longer given his normal cocktail of drugs, which probably included a new medicine for the time: aspirin.
Stop giving a blood thinner to a hemophiliac and his condition (temporarily) improved. The best explanation for the people at the time was "magic".
Yeah I've heard that one too. It seems plausible. But we'll never know.
It was a shame how he carried on.
His schlongs is in a jar somewhere. Best that, Jesus!
That was a sea cucumber
You're a sea cucumber.
Thank you, I needed to laugh this morning
I'm hear four ewe, bay bee!
We have a lot more contemporay primary sources for the existence of Socrates than we have of Jesus (of which the number of contemporary primary sources is 0).
nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death
Socrates literally claimed that he was a channel for a revelatory holy spirit and that because the spirit would not lead him astray that he was ensured to escape death and have a good afterlife because otherwise it wouldn't have encouraged him to tell off the proceedings at his trial.
Also, there definitely isn't any evidence of Joshua in the LBA, or evidence for anything in that book, and a lot of evidence against it.
The new testament stories were written well over a hundred years after. That would be like someone today writing an account of the civil war based solely on stories.
Ah yes, the civil war. Which one??
Marvel's
I don’t know if you’re a non American making fun of the US and their names for wars or if you’re just making fun of US politics
There's been civil wars in nations all over the world. I think they're poking fun at which is the civil war? I'm guessing it's the Spanish one.
I'm making fun of how Americans say "the civil war" as if there has only been one civil war ever.
Airports folks
Que no los dos?
The new testament stories were written well over a hundred years after
Not right.
These were written 20 to 30 years after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle ("Fourteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul. Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder.") It would be more like someone writing about this now, which I do remember.
Gospel of Mark is dated to around the year 70
Book of Revelation around 81-96
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
The New Oxford Annotated Bible claims, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
As far as I know, we simply don't have directly contemporary, first-hand evidence of him. Even the most 'contemporary' accounts of him that still exist were written at least 50 years after he would have died, and those are quite cursory. Perhaps primary sources were lost--or intentionally destroyed when they didn't align with beliefs--or perhaps they never existed. There's not even much evidence for Pontius Pilate (I think one source mentioning that he was recalled to Rome and executed for incompetence?), and there should be, given that he was a Roman official.
People that study the history of the bible--as in, the historical bible, not the bible as a religious text--tend to believe that a historical Jesus existed, even if they don't believe that he was divine.
IMO, the most likely explanation is that Jesus was yet another in a long-line of false messiahs, and was summarily executed by Rome for trying to start yet another rebellion. Since cult members tend to be unable to reconcile reality with their beliefs, they could have reframed their beliefs to say that he was a spiritual messiah, rather than a physical messiah.
There are lots of people now today who claim to be god, claim to be jesus, claim to have magic powers. so it would appear this is just normal human behavior and has been for a very long time. But the main reason people continue to believe these ancient holy books and all the stories in them is literally because they are protected from inquiry. So Jeff down the street claims to be jesus? We can go test him and try to falsify his claims. But some guy 2000 years ago, ya its not possible to check that one out. And That is why they persist, its by design.
Let me see if I can explain what I mean.
A historical Jesus might have had a small cult following, enough that the Romans couldn't ignore him. He would have been talking about Jewish liberation from the Roman rulers, and how he was called by god. And then boom, he gets executed. His followers probably believed that he was actually the son of god, sent to liberate them. But now he's dead. How do they reconcile the belief with the reality? So they retcon everything; he was a spiritual messiah, and he'll eventually return and free the Jews, once the people are spiritually prepared.
You can see traces of this in the way that the four gospels don't agree with each other, but they all include bits of prophecies from earlier scripture about the messiah. They were written with the intent of making Jesus appear to fit in to older prophecies about who the messiah would be, since he ended up not being the liberator that they had been expecting.
You can see similar behaviors in cults now. It's clearly visible with Q; Trump was supposed to be their messiah, but he hasn't managed to make any of their prophetic beliefs come true. So they've invented reasons why Trump's holy will has been thwarted, and changed their history, rather than accepting that he was a false messiah.
There's a bunch of old texts about a Jewish "prophet" called Jesus, who was gathering some followers. As far as I understand, there's no really reason not to believe the person existed.
Then again, all the Jesus lore, there's no reason to believe his miracles were real as those made no sense and there's no real proof besides those same texts written after Jesse's death
This. There is evidence that a preacher called Jesus existed, was crucified, and was well-regarded enough to start a following that persisted even after his death.
There isn't, however, strong historical evidence for any of the magical parts of it.
I don't think anyone is talking about the miracles when they refer to the historical Jesus.
Every Christian takes an historical proof of Jesus as affirmation of the stories within the New Testament.
Let's not do the 'every Christian' thing. It's worth remembering the US has a very 'unique' type of Christian.
I remember that one miracle closely resembles CPR. He put his hands on a body and brought it back to life.
There are similar debates for other famous ancient figures.
The general academic consensus on Jesus (and many similar figures) is that they did exist and many of the details have been fictionalized.
Conversely, there are many other people from his time that definitely did exist and verifiably so. I have a bronze coin minted in Judea by Pontius Pilatus. I can look at it, I can touch it, it's real. Even as an avowed agnostic, I see no reason why Jesus couldn't have been a real person (minus the miracles that were almost certainly later additions).
It figures that the source cited on the documents relating to his execution can only be read about in some guys book.
There is no proof outside of the Bible and some other writings. Even those mentions seem to have occurred well after Jesus supposedly lived.
In terms of non-literary proof, there isn't anything credible.
There's more evidence that King David existed.
Chances are he was more like a cult leader it wasn’t until a decade or two after his death that things really got into full swing, so chances are the actual Jesus would be quite surprised by everything “he” did.
But there were a lot of Jewish mystics cropping up at the time so it’s not impossible or even implausible for some one vaguely matching the description to have existed.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if there was a "real" Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus that is worshiped is an impossibility. A fiction. His life is full of details that defy basic biological and physical laws. On top of that, nothing he supposedly said was written down at the time, so we have no idea if what is recorded to have been his sayings in the Bible are things he actually said.
I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who's father's name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld. So was there a real Ernst Stavro Bloefeld? Yes. Was he a supervillain fighting the world's greatest secret agent? No.
I don't think this answer is really in the spirit of "no stupid questions".
Ok, if you want me to sum up in a way that addresses it: Because the Jesus OP is very likely thinking of is fictional, there is no real physical proof of his existence.
It doesn’t matter.
I'd say the "Real Historical Jesus" matters at least as much as a Real Historical Julius Caeser or a Real Historical Abraham Lincoln.
I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who’s father’s name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld.
That's different in so far as Fleming was simply borrowing a name for a totally independent character. But Fleming was, himself, a Naval Commander and intelligence officer who leveraged his own biography to inform James Bond's personal traits. What's more, he borrowed heavily from the reports and anecdotes of other intelligence officials both during and after WW2 to inform the behaviors and attitudes of his side characters in his original novels.
It actually is pretty interesting to talk about "The Real James Bond" from a historical standpoint, because British intelligence services were pivotal in maintaining the imperial and international financial controls necessary to run a globe-spanning empire.
In the same vein, you might be curious to read about "The Real Julius Caeser" after working through the Shakespearean play or "The Real Abraham Lincoln" after getting through the stories where he's a Vampire Hunter. These biographies inform all sorts of cultural and economic norms of the era. And reading about historical individuals can be both entertaining and illuminating, particularly when you begin to consider how your own world ended up as it is today.
"Why is Christianity a globe-spanning religious movement going back 2000 years?" is a question worth interrogating. And you can't really interrogate that question without asking who this Jesus guy was or how he got so popular.
There's nothing to read about when it comes to any real Joshua, son of Joseph the Carpenter of Nazareth because nothing has been written about such a person.
Quite a bit has been written on the possible siblings of Jesus.
Written while Jesus was still alive? If so, please present said writings. If not, that doesn't really change my point.
Written while Jesus was still alive?
You could disprove the existence of Socrates with this line of reasoning.
Are we talking about whether or not a historical person the Jesus of the Bible is based on existed or are we talking about whether or not there were any contemporary accounts? Because those are two very different things.
As I suggested in the beginning, whether or not a "real" Jesus existed is not really relevant, because if we did, we know nothing about him except what was written a long time after he would have died, which we can't trust. Which is the same reason not to trust Plato's dialogues even if Socrates existed. Plato wrote them long after Socrates died.
Listened through a history of rome podcast and learned an interesting thing where win was basically like a concentrate so you would mix it with water to drink. Aka. water -> wine.
It was common practice to dilute wine.
Using reasoning like this to remove the supernatural from the Bible rather defeats the entire point, doesn't it? If Jesus just made Gatorade like anyone else would, that's a rather unremarkable thing to describe. Hardly worth committing to writing.
I am sure there are countless mundane tasks that are pretty unremarkable.
Does the Bible really have a point? I guess other than brainwashing masses?
That's what I'm saying. There's no record of him wiping his ass or playing cards. If it's in the book it must be intended to present something exceptional. Explain his actions as something mundane and there isn't really any reason to write it down.
But equally, the fantastic supernatural elements make the whole thing into a fairy tale to be completely disregarded as a dubious source of folk wisdom at best by any thinking person.
That's not the real question though. The real question is rather are there any "real physical proof" that Jesus had literally anything special that is in itself being the "son of God" or anything related to religion.
Anybody (sadly) can be crucified, especially during a period where it is trendy. Anybody can walk through part of the desert. Anybody can organize a meal, give a speech, etc.
Even if it's done exceptionally well, that does not make it special in the sense of being the proof of anything religious. We all have friends with unique talents, and social media helped us discovered that there are so many more of those around the entire world, but nobody in their right mind would claim that because Eminem can sing words intelligibly faster than the vast majority of people he is the son of "God".
I also read a book about a decade ago (unfortunately didn't write down notes about it so can't find the name back) on the history of religion, from polytheism to monotheism, and it was quite interesting. If I remember correctly one way to interpret it was through the lens of religions maintaining themselves over time and space, which could include growing to a sufficient size in terms of devout adepts. The point being that veracity was not part of the equation.
Well, that's the question if you want to believe in Christianity.
It's nearly universally accepted that he is a historical figure, though there is little to no evidence of that. The OP is asking why is that the case with so little evidence. They (presumably) aren't asking for a religious reason, just as an interest in history. If you are Christian and asking this question you are well past the point of no return for your faith
No, OPs question was perfectly fine, because it is necessary to stress the fact that we have not a single contemporary primary source that Jesus existed. So adding extra parameters is pretty pointless, since we cannot convincingly answer whether he actually existed, much less whether he was a religious figure. Scholars have reached a conjectural consensus that a Jesus in some form likely existed, but it is a consendus based on congecture and circumstantial evidence in the form of later secondary sources.
Eminem claimed to be a Rap God though. Praise be onto him.
Praise be Sol Invictus, the real OG Jesus
No, there's barely any physical evidence that anyone a few hundred years ago existed.
But if writing is enough, there are some. Tacitus basically said: "Nero blamed the Christians, followers of that Guy called Jesus who Pilatus executed a few decades ago."
Nope. But that's also not as big a deal as a lot of folks make it.
Also, he's far from the only important(?) historical(?) figure we can't prove ever existed.
Girl gets married
Girl gets shitfaced and sleeps with someone other than her husband
Girl is pregnant!
Girl makes up some dumb shit to avoid jealous rage
Shit gets waaaaay out of hand.
There are many Jesus's in the world.
A far more likely explanation for the age and time was that she was raped.
Not that things have changed much.
I really like the theory that someone just made up an entire religion that would proceed to affect the entire world for thousands of years just to cover up adultery.
Did she? Or did they fuck out of wedlock and made some shit up?
Christianity exists. Religions don't tend to spring up from nowhere. Every myth has its nugget of truth. Was there a preacher back then whose followers later spread around the world? Almost certainly. Where else could Christianity have come from?
Was he the son of god though? Was he capable of all the miracles the bible claims? Is the god he preached even real? There is no evidence that the answer to these three questions is anything but no I'm afraid.
Religions don’t tend to spring up from nowhere.
Let me introduce you to our good friend Ronald Hubbard and this pesky Religion called "Scientology"
Joseph Smith certainly looked at golden tablets to reveal the holy truth that black people have dark skin due to a curse upon them. /s
These sort of prove op's point tho, right? Like Hubbard and Smith were real people. They weren't magic like they claimed, but their historicity isn't questioned. So Jesus also coulda been a real person, a preacher, just not magic
No. There's a whole mythology that Smith alluded to.
That mythology and its alleged revelation were supposedly there before smith or anyone else.
Smith is a charlatan who started the myth.
Jesus' myth was started by alleged followers (being generous) at least 50+ years after his alleged existence.
All of the myths attributed to yeshua are torn from other sources and are a patchwork of stories that held attention at the time.
It's more likely yeshua was a myth told by charlatans who needed money to keep spreading the wonderful story of a Jew who could have ruled the Roman empire but fed the poor and healed others instead.
if you found a corpse it would cause a lot of problems for the religion.
Do you mean to say that there are actual remains of Jesus right now somewhere on Earth?
if there are then there are some issues with the new testament
There had to be multiple Rabbi rabblerousers in Roman occupied Judea. Pick one.
The answers here are absolutely crazy. Go find some credible biblical scholars (ones whose jobs are not dependent on statements of faith) like Bart ehrman and read what they say. My understanding is that most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and even that he was crucified. Don't trust lemmy, don't even trust me, go find the experts, read what they say, and decide for yourself.
No, and that is to even be expected.
He was a prophet whose movement had around 120 or so core disciples along with his apostles, plus thousands who followed him about and considered him a healer and revolutionary teacher.
There are people who have done similar things that are completely lost to history other than small records that vaguely outline the controversy surrounding them... We shouldn't really expect more in terms of proof...
But what is unique is the fact that we have an extremely well preserved corpus of text surrounding him. We also have some good idea that a lot of his followers were prosecuted and killed, and never recanted in the process, which might incline you to believe in the radical truth that they lived by.
Of course I am biased - I am a Christian - but it really does just seem pointlessly antagonistic to dismiss His Existence at all.
Doesn't the old testament acknowledge the existence of the other gods of the region? The Hebrew's god tells them not to worship the other gods but only him. They're not presented as false gods, more as opponents.
So christians believe in multiple Gods? What about gods from other regions? Does Jesus God Holy spirit supervise them? I love the Bible, when it comes to fantasy.. You really can't get any better..I met a goddess on the Truckee River one time and I tell you whut boy
Congratulations! Remember to have extra diapers available at all times.
We also have some good idea that a lot of his followers were prosecuted and killed, and never recanted in the process, which might incline you to believe in the radical truth that they lived by.
Man, I can't get trial transcripts for cases that happened 2 years ago, and you're getting them for trials that happened 2,000 years ago?
The very earliest stuff obviously doesn't have that, and we rely on church history because it wasn't like even the most interesting thing a Roman governor did that week to kill some random churchmen who created conflict among Jews, nor do we have much preserved about mobs killing these guys other than in the original Christian communal sources.
But really, if you start from the premise that everything Christians ever write about thesmelves is pure propaganda without an iota of truth in it, that creates a non-serious standard with which to evaluate things.
Is it really absurd to think that Protomartyr Stephen was killed by a mob of Jews for preaching a radically different religion to them in a time of great political upheaval? Isn't this exactly what we think of Christians at later times - that they'd just turn on a guy and kill him for being a heretic? Why is it so unbelievable that it once happened to a Christian? Why is it so troublesome that the only people who bothered to write about these martyrs and preserve their memory were the people who were victims in the course of this?
Obviously, you can say that it's propaganda and lies, and maybe some of it was. But we know it's absolutely historic that Christians wre officially persecuted later on. it is also par for the course that they would be less formally persecuted prior to that. it also amkes sense that Christians, like every other group, try to preserve a communal memory.
But what is unique is the fact that we have an extremely well preserved corpus of text surrounding him.
IIFC all those writing are dated to well after the life time, like 100 year past it or so. It may be a bunch of written things but there is no/little reason to take those writings as anything but written down stories.
Ever play Telephone with a single word for 5 minutes? Now do that to a epic for 100 years, the end result will certainly be something but it may be nothing like the truth
I am not saying you have to believe the corpus of text as 100% factual and become a Christian right now, but I am suggesting that people believing the text isn't absurd... Moreover, I would suggest that it tends to prove that Jesus Christ was real...
The text itself asserts
Times & places where he was; actual historic figures; a trial and a death, all of a single person.
Claims he drew large crowds, healed people, had some publicly known altercations with local religious authorities.
Claims that other people died in very public events (Stephen the Martyr in Acts) and that actual meetings were convened to decide what to do about it with the head Jewish rabbi at the time (Gamaliel)
Records his teachings in ways that sometimes kind of conflict with one another in terms of phrasing, and also records different details about events that could be mutually contradictory...
Which all implies that the synoptic Gospels and Acts were very opened to being fact checked by their contemporaries and future generations by trying to place themselves in history, and that the texts were not designed by a cabal of conspirators who wanted to deceive people and come up with the perfect story because the story they made was hardly written by committee - it has things we'd see as imperfections & errors.
Ever play Telephone with a single word for 5 minutes? Now do that to a epic for 100 years, the end result will certainly be something but it may be nothing like the truth
The Telephone game is designed to show you how private rumors occur.
The four Gospels are all the accounts of eyewitnesses to these events that were then recorded by their own hand or by their assistant's hand, and preserved within the church. Of course, some speculate that they were forged later, but there's a very long, complicated argument that involves the earliness of the spread of the knowledge of the Gospels and how well they were independently preserved in faraway locations from France to Egypt that indicate that they likely were completed shortly after Christ's death.
It's also the case that Christianity was a proselytizing faith, right, so immediately there are operations which send missionaries into the world to spread the news... By all means, deny the miracles and the story, but it seems likely that there was consensus about what had happened before the missionaries departed, which allowed for there to be the preservation of the Gospels and what would later constitute the New Testament.
There's not a good argument to be made that these guys were just spreading nonsense and spitballing it as they go - the story was straight before they were leaving Jerusalem, or else the four Gospels and the subsequent apostolic letters would not have been something they could have ever all agreed upon.
As a non-believer, I agree that those texts support that he had once lived, but the stories about him require more evidence.
Almost all of the Christian folklore surrounding Jesus can be directly tied to other myths that were common knowledge to Mediterranean people at the time.
There was a dude called Jesus, there were a lot of them. That one was Jewish and belonged to an evangelical cult was likely. But we can't really say that because the Bible exists so too must have the Jesus described within.
What we have today was written by people hundreds of years after the fact. There was nothing written during these events, nothing at least that survived.
If you go looking for proof of Jesus, you'll either come out disappointed, or delusional. Think of guys like Ken Ham.
Keep the faith, by all means. But part of believing is accepting that you don't get to have proof.
Source?
Almost all of the Christian folklore surrounding Jesus can be directly tied to other myths that were common knowledge to Mediterranean people at the time.
Yeah I got the Mithra chainmail in my AOL account back in 1998 - I know the arguments.
But Christianity presents us with something very wild - it takes the Messianic tradition of Jews which was hitherto interpreted as being about creating an earthly Kingdom that conquers the world and incorporates the gentiles into Israel (or makes the gentiles servants of Israel, who all become noblemen living in a heaven on earth, some interpretations)... and Christ says
"Yeah, but no - the Kingdom is purely spiritual. It's not temporal. The gentiles join us by worshiping God with us and living these truths - look, this Roman occupier has more faith than all Israel, because you guys are just terrible. You bicker over the law, and miss the total point of the law..."
And the Messiah is now about conquering the world through spreading the Gospel of loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself, giving up your possessions and conquering greed, freeing yourself from hypocrisy; living in simplicity and supreme virtue, at peace with those around you, practicing non-violence, and now we don't even need any kind of ceremonial laws at all because we are living the virtues. And that's how the world becomes part of Israel - by adopting the great things abotu our religion - and that's also how you get to heaven, which is only achievable after death when I come again...
This is a very unique interpretation of the Judaism of the time - absolutely revolutionary.
Even if you want to say that all the miracles and 'signs' are a myth, I think that the "Mithra" angle is actually bad beacuse you could just say they came up with those signs and added them so as to be able to claim they are fulfilling the Old Testament, which was infinitely more relevant to the Jews who were the community that gave birth to the religion.
Keep the faith, by all means. But part of believing is accepting that you don’t get to have proof.
Yeah I agree - there is no proof, and if there was proof, it would ruin it, because we'd no longer be doing good and loving God and our neighbor because it is right, but we would be doing it with the expectation of receiving heaven...
We would no longer be living a spiritual life for the good of oruselves and others - in hope & faith - but we would be Capitalists engaging in transactions that we deemed profitable.
The only physical proof you can have of a person that lived before photography is a body. So no, Jesus did not have a publically marked grave and we do not have his bones.
That being said, there is a difference between proving something historically and proving it in the court of law. Historical evidence points to Jesus having been a person that lived around that time.
Yes there is, here is his mugshot shortly after he was booked. Looks like he spent the evening turning water into wine.
There most likely were a bunch of people called Yeshua back then.
It seems like the consensus is that the stories probably stem from a real guy because that's deemed more likely than no person existing as a basis for the story, but no, there is not material evidence for jesus christ's existence
Yeah, I've got one of his toes in my car
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish.
I had read that there were Roman census records that proved a Rabbi named Jesus did live at about the right time, but now I can't find a source to back that up, so that's probably bunk.
There are no such records. Just having any extant census records from the Roman Empire would have pretty sensational, let alone some stemming from Judea at the supposed time of Jesus.
Yeah, that makes sense. I wish I could track down where I read this to figure out if it's a bad source or I'm misremembering it. I may be mistaking Tacitus' reference to Christ, but I don't think it's that. I distinctly remember reading about some sort of population record of a Rabbi named Jesus and thinking, "Wow, I'm surprised a record like that survived." The problem is this was 10+ years ago, and search engines suck now, so I'll never find it again.
Seems likely. There’s probably a Rabbi named David somewhere today too.
If you compare that with records we have for the likes of Alexander the Great though being 400 years later, it's not that implausible. And you'd be discounting the Christian Gospels and Paul's Epistles which were mere decades after Jesus
Completely unlikely since no such census records are extant.
People who are jnfamilhar with the historiography are very much overestimating the amount of primary source material which exists from the Roman Empire, simply because historians have been very good at extracting information from the miniscule fraction (relative to the amount which was produced) of extant written sources we do have from the period.
Jesus never led an army or ruled a country, so we cannot have coins bearing His face or remnants of an army, etc. However, there is plenty of physical proof of the early Church. There is evidence of pilgrimages to Bethlehem early on and Jerusalem as well, such as the church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is a plausible candidate for Jesus' actual tomb.
This conclusion, while weakly supported by a statistical analysis of the names involved, is rejected by most archaeologists, theologians, linguistic and biblical scholars.
There's a bunch of references for archaeologists debunking it.
I know you said "it might not be him" but I feel like that understates the weight of evidence against that possibility.
The respectable probability estimates range from astronomically unlikely to merely unlikely. In other words, we don't have incontrovertible ways of calculating the probability.
While it's not great or convincing evidence, it's the only physical evidence I know about.
We might not be able to calculate the probability but we can conclude that the chances that this tomb is that of Jesus is infinitesimal.
If you can't calculate the probability, then you can't rationally reach the conclusion that the probability is very low.
Of course you can.
I'm unable to calculate the probability that the moon will fall out of the sky tonight but I know that the probability is very low.
You can make the simple inductive calculation that the probability is 1 / (total number of nights moon didn't fall out of sky).
You can also look at the total energy needed to de-orbit the moon and come up with a frequencie for events at least of that magnitude.
They are easy calculations and they both give infinitesimal results. If that weren't true, there'd be no way to tell if your intuition were correct.
If you're happy with this type of calculation then the probability that this tomb is that of biblical Jesus is (number of occupants) / (number of humans in that area at the time the tomb was built).
That's way too low since several of the names match.
Enough. Feel free to continue believing that, on the balance of probabilities, this tomb is that of the really real Jesus.
After reading that page, I strongly suspect that's not him. It's all based on statistical modeling, and it's been heavily massaged. Even with that, they give it 1/600 odds (on the low end) of it being random chance, which those aren't bad odds.
Apparently the inscriptions are partially illegible, so assuming it's even correct their statistical model is based on the name Mariamne being Mary Magdelene (which is clearly not the name we remember her by) and being Jesus's wife, Maria being the mother, and Jesus having a son, which we didn't know about, named Judah, as well as a few other assumption that really do not feel like they should be making.
Even making a ton of assumptions, the odds are still not particularly convincing. It feels like something that can increase someone's faith if they don't question it, but if you examine it at all reveals how much people are reaching to prove what they already want to believe.
I'd have guess people who thought the tomb was for the Jesus would have their faith shaken by it since it would mean Jesus was married and had a kid, though there are some obscure Christian sects that have believed that.
My opinion: It's a nice story. And with stories the most important thing is what it teaches us or makes us feel. Not that it's true. Maybe they took inspiration from several preaching hippies who lived back then and made one story out of that. Exaggerated everything and made stuff up. Probably all of it because the bible was't even written close to his supposed lifetime. It'd be like you now writing a story about a dude who died in 1870. Without any previous records to get information from. [Edit: The first things have probably been written down like 40-50 years after his death.]
And I mean if Jesus existed, he would certainly disapprove of what people do (and did) in his name.
I don't know that the History Channel is a good representation of academic consensus. It should basically never be relied upon.
Agree. But that specific article seems pretty alright. Also talks about the relics and history records for example by Tacitus.
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
Man I wish people had commented and linked their sources. A bunch of yes and no’s is not really helpful.
how do you have sources for no? I mean I guess you can link to wikipedia and point out all the evidence is just some third party writings or such I guess.
Nope
Nope.
No. He is not a historical figure like, say, Muhammad or Caesar.
No. But physical proof is not the standard we use for determining someone's historical existence.
Literary proof is, but also doesn't exist for Jesus Christ.
There's a few mentions of just a "Jesus" but its not like no one else was named Jesus, and those don't really make any mention of him being remarkable in any way.
There's just no evidence
AFAIK most historians/scholars agree that Jesus was a real person (even if a lot of the Bible's claims about what he did are not true). But I'm not a historian. What are you basing your opinion on?
Exactly this. The person did exist. There's proof of that. It wasn't the son of god and didn't perform miracles, but he was real nonetheless.
Important notion that Jesus never claimed to be the son of god and that entire line of thinking was established some four hundred years after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
So we have to differentiate between what is the actual Gospel and life of Jesus and what the more creative parts of the churches invented on top of it over time.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58
Which is from one of the original 4 gospels. Apparently there's evidence of it being written as early as 70AD. There's a couple other quotes I found in a link some other person linked in this thread but this one seems most direct.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there was (most likely) an actual historical person who is the origin of these stories, i.e. Jesus. He's probably not really as fantastical as the Bible would have you believe, but he did exist, as opposed to being just an entirely fictional character.
There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called 'Jewish Apocalypticism', basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.
Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement's key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.
This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.
There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are 'Mythicists' of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.
This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.
Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z8j3HvmgpYc
Satans Guide to the Bible for more apocalyptic felt Jesus.
I've heard theories that key people probably had hallucinations of Jesus a few days after he was killed, which was the big thing that helped launch him from yet-another-apocalyptic-preacher to (eventually) God himself. I don't know how well these are accepted, though.
This stems from the fact that, so far, the earliest dated written fragments we have from what is now the New Testament are some of the writings of Paul.
Paul was not one of the
ApostlesEDIT: Disciples, and it seems possible that, after persecuting earlier, existing Christians, he could have basically had a stress induced psychotic break and hallucinated the vision of Jesus that he had, then converted.Thing is though, Christians would have to ... you know exist and already be a real thing first, for that to make sense.
It does explain why Paul does not mention some very key elements of the narrative of the Gospels: He just had not actually read about or heard of those parts yet.
This creates some theological problems down the line, and some of those problems were 'remedied' by what a good deal of scholars and historians believe to be forgeries... chapters of the Bible that modern Christians attribute to Paul, but do not seem to actually have been written by Paul.
It is also possible to some of the empty tomb accounts in some of the Gospels as similar kinds of trauma induced hallucinations.
Mark famously originally just ends with an empty tomb, and nobody said anything about this because they were scared... and then the last bit of verses giving Mark a more satisfying ending have been shown to be added ... decades later.
The explanation I heard was that it was likely Mary and Peter hallucinated Jesus only a few days after he died. That's a very common timeframe for when people hallucinate seeing dead loved ones, and the early descriptions in Bible match the flavor of dead loved-one hallucinations people typically have, with the figure assuring the person everything will be all right and whatnot. Other descriptions (like Jesus appearing to all twelve disciples or crowds of people) seem to have been written later more as persuasive arguments, with doubting Tomas acting as the stand-in for the skeptical listener. This is all from "How Jesus Became God" and I have no idea how mainstream or fringe the author's views are.
I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.
I thought Paulogia's minimum witnesses argument is basically that Paul could have hallucinated, and that those who witnessed an empty tomb basically did see an empty tomb, but circumstantial confusion led them to misinterpret what they saw?
I'll have to rewatch some of his vids.
Also, hey, Goju Ryu! I trained in Shito Ryu =D
Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.
Oh nice! :D
I agree with you that Jesus wasn't God, who doesn't exist, and that there were no miracles, which are impossible. However, this is not the same thing as saying that there's no evidence for the existence of Jesus, the Jewish apocalyptic preacher.
The earliest documents about Jesus, such as the Pauline Epistles, were written by people who knew people who knew him. In a mostly illiterate society 2,000 years ago, this is about as good as evidence gets. It's also the exact same kind of evidence as a journalist or researcher writing an account based on interviews with people. This was how, e.g, Herodotus wrote his histories. When Herodotus says 'A guy rode a dolphin once' we dismiss that. But we don't say 'The people in the Histories didn't exist, except those for whom there's physical evidence, which is about three of them, not including the author'. We do much the same with Jesus and the miracles.
If the Apostles had wanted, for some reason, to make up a guy, that would have been risky. Other people would have just said, 'That guy didn't exist'. If they had anyway decided to make up a guy, they'd have invented someone who actually fulfilled the Jewish propehcies of the Messiah, instead of inventing Jesus, who obviously didn't. This suggests they didn't invent him, which strengthens the plausibility of the evidence we do have.
A third way of looking at this is to ask if there are any comparable figures, religious founders from the historic era, who we now think were wholly made up in the way you're suggesting. But there aren't. The Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Zoroaster - they all certainly existed. Indeed, I can't think of any figures form the time period who were actually imaginary.
Personally, I think it's most likely that he's composed of many people. It's a bunch of stories which all got attributed as one person, which isn't uncommon. Personally, though I'm far from an expert, I think there wasn't a singular Jesus figure who actually existed, but rather a story of a figure named Jesus that rose from stories about other events.
Like you said, it's almost certain that something was happening around that time. In fact, there are many more Messiahs who were mostly forgotten. I just think it's most likely that people told stories and those stories all merged together into another larger story, which then became the story of Jesus.
It's certainly possible that sayings of other people were later attributed to him, but to really make this case you'd need to have quotations that were attributed to multiple sources, including him, if you see what I mean. Absent that, it could be true, but there's no particular reason to believe it.
There are enough specific biographical details about Jesus of Nazareth to make it likely that there's a specific, real central figure. For example, the fact that he was from Nazareth was a problem for his early followers (it didn't match the Messianic prophecies), which is why they invented the odd story of the census, so that they could claim he'd been born in Bethlehem, the hometown of King David, from whom Jesus was supposedly descended. That seems unlikely to have happened if there hadn't been a real, central historical figure.
Also, none of the early non-Christian sources claim he wasn't real or that he was a composite, which they surely would have done if there was any doubt on the matter.
... The four Gospels?
Written up to a couuple of centuries after his supposed existence.
The Gospel of John, the latest Gospel, was written between 90-100AD
As an atheist I believe Jesus existed, I just don’t think he was the son of god or that he was resurrected.
It would have been far easier to start a religion around a real man with actual followers than if he was a figment of someone’s imagination.
I like to picture my Jesus as a desert hippie that people liked and told tall tales of in order to give people living in that harsh environment some hope and meaning.
I like to think of Jesus with like giant eagles wings and singing lead vocals for lynyrd skynyrd with like an Angel Band, and I'm in the front row, and I'm hammered drunk.
This is what He wanted.
IIRC, the religion didn't get anywhere is Palestine after Jesus supposedly died and it wasn't until decades later that it picked up in and around Greece thanks to Paul, but no one was around that saw any of the events attributed to Jesus - it was all heresay.
I mean the bible is how many pages and how much of it actually takes place during Jesus's life? And what is the timespan of the small part that does? Like a year? And the 4 gospels that talk about it are all rehashings of the same stories (more or less) and even contradict each other at times.
That's a story with a lot of gaps and plot holes to base a belief system around - and that doesn't even include all the baggage and hate that comes along with it.
People nowadays lose their mind and make death threats to the creators of stories that don't fix or create new plot holes in canon. And we're supposed to smile, nod, and happily accept one of the worst constructed stories ever just because some old white men that live the opposite way they tell us to live say so?
Religion is the OG fandom war
What do you mean by physical proof?
Some history is known by digging up physical stones n bones. Some is known by digging up texts.
There are multiple texts dated to the 1st century that all corroborate the story that a person called Jesus was crucified around 33AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
It's weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.
There's even a link to a well cited article examining the skepticism of the historicity of Jesus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
I don't feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.
In my experience, when it comes to debating the validity of religion, people tend to get far more emotional than other topics. People who are normally level-headed and quite logical tend to completely lose their ability to think rationally. And I mean both the people who argue for religion and against it.
Pretty clear that's the case here in the comments on this post.
Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there's no controversy, but there's definitely an orthodox opinion.
Yep. This is one of those posts that should have just been a web search instead.
A literature search. The web is full of rubbish.
The evidence isn't even that strong, there i just aren't that many people willing to risk becoming a pariah to dispute them.
If you are a Christian, there is no doubt Jesus existed. Any oblique reference to a rabbi who was persecuted hundreds years ago is considered evidence that Jesus existed. But no contemporaneous documentation exists.
If you're not a Christian, debunking all of those vague references that might be proof of a Jewish leader named Jesus just isn't particularly important, won't persuade anyone who believes Jesus was(is) God, and will paint a target on your back for terrorists.
No, there arent a lot of texts from the 1st century AD about him. The majority by far stems from the second century or later.
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
The article you provided (if you read it) should actually serve to cast more doubt on the idea; it does not “answer the question to the affirmative.”
That implies each source says: "A man called Jesus was crucified". The article you provided (if you read it) should have told you otherwise.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, year 93-94: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
Tacitus's Annals, year 117: 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 Pilatus
Physical proof? No. But if that's the criterion for proof that someone existed, then that mean 90% of historical figures can't be proven to have existed. We don't have the remains of Alexander the Great or any artefacts we can be sure are his. We have no remnants of Plato, none of his original writings remain.
Did a person name Jesus live sometime during the first century AD? Scholars are fairly certain of that. We do have textual evidence other than the bible that points to his existence.
It is highly unlikely that he was anything like the person written about in the bible. He was likely one of many radical apocalyptic prophets of the time.
We don't have too many details about his life but because of something called the criterion of embarrassment we have good reason to believe he was baptized by a man named John the Baptist and was later crucified. (i.e. most burgeoning religions seeking legitimacy don't typically invent stories that are embarrassing to their deity)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Well for most of those we tend to use independent verification for their existence. And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero Credible examples of independent verification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion, which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[3]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels are thought to already have been in circulation.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tacitus
According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus' passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[15][30] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic.
Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value
A. The first line of the Tacitus passage says Chrestians, not Christians.
Suetonius says Chrestus was personally starting trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Suetonius is writing years after Tacitus yet doesn't mention that Chrestus died.
So Chrestus can't be Jesus because it's the wrong decade, wrong continent and missing a death.
B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.
P.S. Even if the second line was somehow authentic, the information would have come from Christians. This would be the equivalent of deriving Abraham's biography by talking to Muslims.
This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.
In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens, if this is all you got, you are holding an empty bag.
If you mean Jesus as described word for word in the bible? Yes you are right. Such a mythical figure never existed.
A man name Jesus from the first century AD? Who preached in the Levant? Who was baptized by a man named John and was later crucified? There is good enough evidence of such a person existing. This isn't even a debated question among new testament scholars anymore.
I see you are familiar with Bart Ehrman, Even he doesn't dispute that a historical Jesus existed.
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww
Here's an even deeper dive from Bart Ehrman.
https://youtu.be/4CD5DwrgWJ4
I'm by no means an expert but I was briefly obsessed with comparative religion over a decade ago and I don't think anyone has given a great answer, I believe my answer is correct but I don't have time for research beyond checking a couple of details.
As a few people have mentioned there is little physical evidence for even the most notable individuals from that time period and it's not reasonable to expect any for Jesus.
In terms of literary evidence there is exactly 1 historian who is roughly contemporary and mentions Jesus. Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus mentions him twice, once briefly telling the story of his crucifixion and resurrection. The second is a mention in passing when discussing the brother of Jesus delivering criminals to be stoned.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that a Jewish spiritual leader with a name something like Jesus Christ probably existed and that not long after his death miracles are being attributed to him.
It is also worth noting the historical context of the recent emergence of Rabbinical Judaism and the overabundance of other leaders who were claimed to be Messiahs, many of whom we also know about primarily(actually I think only) from Josephus.
The part mentioning Jesus's crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.
The idea that the historical figure was known as either 'Jesus' or 'Christ' is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there's no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.
In many ways, it's the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.
One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.
Misinformation.
There's Tacitus's Annals (year 117), Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (93-94), Mara bar Serapion's letter to his son.
Seutonius (Lives of the Twelve Cæsars) and Pliny wrote about the conflict between the Romans and the followers of Christ (or Chrestus) around that era.
You are the one who is doing the misinforming. All of the sources you mention, except Josephus, were written up to more than a century after his supposed existence. With Josephus being written around half a century after his existence.
And as mentioned, the specific quotes from Josephus are of a dubious nature.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here but both Suetonius and Pliny are talking about Christians in the 2nd century, Tacitus speaks about Christ only in the context of Nero blaming Christians for the great fire. These are literary evidence for the existence of Christians in the second century but are not direct literary evidence of the existence of Christ as an individual which was the question I was addressing.
I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong but I believe my original post stands.
The thing is that compared to other historical people we kid of have similar evidence. Like we have records of Socrates existing and we have records of some Joshua existing.
The difference is that nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death, which is a extraordinary claim, we just say he was a very smart guy, we se very smart guys on a daily basis, nothing special with that so we can just believe it and even if we are wrong it has no real life implications.
For the Joshua guy, that's quite a different story. The claims about him are extraordinary and need extraordinary evidence. But we only have normal evidence. If the claims about him were true it would contradict almost everything we think we know about the universe, how it behaves, etc.
So again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
To use a more modern example, pretty much everyone agrees that Grigori Rasputin was a real person who played a crucial role in the court of the last Czar of Russia.
But there are some positively wild and unexplainable stories that have a decent amount of corroborating evidence that they happened. The story about him healing the prince via a phone call sounds like actual magic. However we all know magic isn't real, there is definitely some kind of logical explanation. But that explanation is lost to time.
So where do historians land on Rasputin? Well, there was definitely a guy called Rasputin. Some of the stories about him are true. Some are probably false or exaggerated. There isn't even a consensus on what colour the dude's eyes were. But that doesn't mean we dispute his existence.
One translation I read suggested a probable explanation.
Rasputin's phone advice was the same as many modern quacks: keep the patient away from modern medicine and doctors.
So the hemophiliac prince was no longer given his normal cocktail of drugs, which probably included a new medicine for the time: aspirin.
Stop giving a blood thinner to a hemophiliac and his condition (temporarily) improved. The best explanation for the people at the time was "magic".
Yeah I've heard that one too. It seems plausible. But we'll never know.
It was a shame how he carried on.
His schlongs is in a jar somewhere. Best that, Jesus!
That was a sea cucumber
You're a sea cucumber.
Thank you, I needed to laugh this morning
I'm hear four ewe, bay bee!
We have a lot more contemporay primary sources for the existence of Socrates than we have of Jesus (of which the number of contemporary primary sources is 0).
Socrates literally claimed that he was a channel for a revelatory holy spirit and that because the spirit would not lead him astray that he was ensured to escape death and have a good afterlife because otherwise it wouldn't have encouraged him to tell off the proceedings at his trial.
Also, there definitely isn't any evidence of Joshua in the LBA, or evidence for anything in that book, and a lot of evidence against it.
The new testament stories were written well over a hundred years after. That would be like someone today writing an account of the civil war based solely on stories.
Ah yes, the civil war. Which one??
Marvel's
I don’t know if you’re a non American making fun of the US and their names for wars or if you’re just making fun of US politics
There's been civil wars in nations all over the world. I think they're poking fun at which is the civil war? I'm guessing it's the Spanish one.
I'm making fun of how Americans say "the civil war" as if there has only been one civil war ever.
Airports folks
Que no los dos?
Not right.
These were written 20 to 30 years after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle ("Fourteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul. Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder.") It would be more like someone writing about this now, which I do remember.
Gospel of Mark is dated to around the year 70
Book of Revelation around 81-96
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
The New Oxford Annotated Bible claims, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
As far as I know, we simply don't have directly contemporary, first-hand evidence of him. Even the most 'contemporary' accounts of him that still exist were written at least 50 years after he would have died, and those are quite cursory. Perhaps primary sources were lost--or intentionally destroyed when they didn't align with beliefs--or perhaps they never existed. There's not even much evidence for Pontius Pilate (I think one source mentioning that he was recalled to Rome and executed for incompetence?), and there should be, given that he was a Roman official.
People that study the history of the bible--as in, the historical bible, not the bible as a religious text--tend to believe that a historical Jesus existed, even if they don't believe that he was divine.
IMO, the most likely explanation is that Jesus was yet another in a long-line of false messiahs, and was summarily executed by Rome for trying to start yet another rebellion. Since cult members tend to be unable to reconcile reality with their beliefs, they could have reframed their beliefs to say that he was a spiritual messiah, rather than a physical messiah.
There are lots of people now today who claim to be god, claim to be jesus, claim to have magic powers. so it would appear this is just normal human behavior and has been for a very long time. But the main reason people continue to believe these ancient holy books and all the stories in them is literally because they are protected from inquiry. So Jeff down the street claims to be jesus? We can go test him and try to falsify his claims. But some guy 2000 years ago, ya its not possible to check that one out. And That is why they persist, its by design.
Let me see if I can explain what I mean.
A historical Jesus might have had a small cult following, enough that the Romans couldn't ignore him. He would have been talking about Jewish liberation from the Roman rulers, and how he was called by god. And then boom, he gets executed. His followers probably believed that he was actually the son of god, sent to liberate them. But now he's dead. How do they reconcile the belief with the reality? So they retcon everything; he was a spiritual messiah, and he'll eventually return and free the Jews, once the people are spiritually prepared.
You can see traces of this in the way that the four gospels don't agree with each other, but they all include bits of prophecies from earlier scripture about the messiah. They were written with the intent of making Jesus appear to fit in to older prophecies about who the messiah would be, since he ended up not being the liberator that they had been expecting.
You can see similar behaviors in cults now. It's clearly visible with Q; Trump was supposed to be their messiah, but he hasn't managed to make any of their prophetic beliefs come true. So they've invented reasons why Trump's holy will has been thwarted, and changed their history, rather than accepting that he was a false messiah.
You just gotta have faith!
There's a bunch of old texts about a Jewish "prophet" called Jesus, who was gathering some followers. As far as I understand, there's no really reason not to believe the person existed.
Then again, all the Jesus lore, there's no reason to believe his miracles were real as those made no sense and there's no real proof besides those same texts written after Jesse's death
This. There is evidence that a preacher called Jesus existed, was crucified, and was well-regarded enough to start a following that persisted even after his death.
There isn't, however, strong historical evidence for any of the magical parts of it.
I don't think anyone is talking about the miracles when they refer to the historical Jesus.
Every Christian takes an historical proof of Jesus as affirmation of the stories within the New Testament.
Let's not do the 'every Christian' thing. It's worth remembering the US has a very 'unique' type of Christian.
I remember that one miracle closely resembles CPR. He put his hands on a body and brought it back to life.
The question is typically described as "the historicity of Jesus". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
There are similar debates for other famous ancient figures.
The general academic consensus on Jesus (and many similar figures) is that they did exist and many of the details have been fictionalized.
Conversely, there are many other people from his time that definitely did exist and verifiably so. I have a bronze coin minted in Judea by Pontius Pilatus. I can look at it, I can touch it, it's real. Even as an avowed agnostic, I see no reason why Jesus couldn't have been a real person (minus the miracles that were almost certainly later additions).
It figures that the source cited on the documents relating to his execution can only be read about in some guys book.
There is no proof outside of the Bible and some other writings. Even those mentions seem to have occurred well after Jesus supposedly lived.
In terms of non-literary proof, there isn't anything credible.
There's more evidence that King David existed.
Chances are he was more like a cult leader it wasn’t until a decade or two after his death that things really got into full swing, so chances are the actual Jesus would be quite surprised by everything “he” did.
But there were a lot of Jewish mystics cropping up at the time so it’s not impossible or even implausible for some one vaguely matching the description to have existed.
I have said this many times-
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if there was a "real" Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus that is worshiped is an impossibility. A fiction. His life is full of details that defy basic biological and physical laws. On top of that, nothing he supposedly said was written down at the time, so we have no idea if what is recorded to have been his sayings in the Bible are things he actually said.
I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who's father's name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld. So was there a real Ernst Stavro Bloefeld? Yes. Was he a supervillain fighting the world's greatest secret agent? No.
I don't think this answer is really in the spirit of "no stupid questions".
Ok, if you want me to sum up in a way that addresses it: Because the Jesus OP is very likely thinking of is fictional, there is no real physical proof of his existence.
I'd say the "Real Historical Jesus" matters at least as much as a Real Historical Julius Caeser or a Real Historical Abraham Lincoln.
That's different in so far as Fleming was simply borrowing a name for a totally independent character. But Fleming was, himself, a Naval Commander and intelligence officer who leveraged his own biography to inform James Bond's personal traits. What's more, he borrowed heavily from the reports and anecdotes of other intelligence officials both during and after WW2 to inform the behaviors and attitudes of his side characters in his original novels.
It actually is pretty interesting to talk about "The Real James Bond" from a historical standpoint, because British intelligence services were pivotal in maintaining the imperial and international financial controls necessary to run a globe-spanning empire.
In the same vein, you might be curious to read about "The Real Julius Caeser" after working through the Shakespearean play or "The Real Abraham Lincoln" after getting through the stories where he's a Vampire Hunter. These biographies inform all sorts of cultural and economic norms of the era. And reading about historical individuals can be both entertaining and illuminating, particularly when you begin to consider how your own world ended up as it is today.
"Why is Christianity a globe-spanning religious movement going back 2000 years?" is a question worth interrogating. And you can't really interrogate that question without asking who this Jesus guy was or how he got so popular.
There's nothing to read about when it comes to any real Joshua, son of Joseph the Carpenter of Nazareth because nothing has been written about such a person.
Quite a bit has been written on the possible siblings of Jesus.
Written while Jesus was still alive? If so, please present said writings. If not, that doesn't really change my point.
You could disprove the existence of Socrates with this line of reasoning.
Are we talking about whether or not a historical person the Jesus of the Bible is based on existed or are we talking about whether or not there were any contemporary accounts? Because those are two very different things.
As I suggested in the beginning, whether or not a "real" Jesus existed is not really relevant, because if we did, we know nothing about him except what was written a long time after he would have died, which we can't trust. Which is the same reason not to trust Plato's dialogues even if Socrates existed. Plato wrote them long after Socrates died.
We aren't out here trying to prove Socrates existed.
Listened through a history of rome podcast and learned an interesting thing where win was basically like a concentrate so you would mix it with water to drink. Aka. water -> wine.
It was common practice to dilute wine.
Using reasoning like this to remove the supernatural from the Bible rather defeats the entire point, doesn't it? If Jesus just made Gatorade like anyone else would, that's a rather unremarkable thing to describe. Hardly worth committing to writing.
I am sure there are countless mundane tasks that are pretty unremarkable.
Does the Bible really have a point? I guess other than brainwashing masses?
That's what I'm saying. There's no record of him wiping his ass or playing cards. If it's in the book it must be intended to present something exceptional. Explain his actions as something mundane and there isn't really any reason to write it down.
But equally, the fantastic supernatural elements make the whole thing into a fairy tale to be completely disregarded as a dubious source of folk wisdom at best by any thinking person.
That's not the real question though. The real question is rather are there any "real physical proof" that Jesus had literally anything special that is in itself being the "son of God" or anything related to religion.
Anybody (sadly) can be crucified, especially during a period where it is trendy. Anybody can walk through part of the desert. Anybody can organize a meal, give a speech, etc.
Even if it's done exceptionally well, that does not make it special in the sense of being the proof of anything religious. We all have friends with unique talents, and social media helped us discovered that there are so many more of those around the entire world, but nobody in their right mind would claim that because Eminem can sing words intelligibly faster than the vast majority of people he is the son of "God".
I also read a book about a decade ago (unfortunately didn't write down notes about it so can't find the name back) on the history of religion, from polytheism to monotheism, and it was quite interesting. If I remember correctly one way to interpret it was through the lens of religions maintaining themselves over time and space, which could include growing to a sufficient size in terms of devout adepts. The point being that veracity was not part of the equation.
Well, that's the question if you want to believe in Christianity.
It's nearly universally accepted that he is a historical figure, though there is little to no evidence of that. The OP is asking why is that the case with so little evidence. They (presumably) aren't asking for a religious reason, just as an interest in history. If you are Christian and asking this question you are well past the point of no return for your faith
No, OPs question was perfectly fine, because it is necessary to stress the fact that we have not a single contemporary primary source that Jesus existed. So adding extra parameters is pretty pointless, since we cannot convincingly answer whether he actually existed, much less whether he was a religious figure. Scholars have reached a conjectural consensus that a Jesus in some form likely existed, but it is a consendus based on congecture and circumstantial evidence in the form of later secondary sources.
Eminem claimed to be a Rap God though. Praise be onto him.
Praise be Sol Invictus, the real OG Jesus
No, there's barely any physical evidence that anyone a few hundred years ago existed.
But if writing is enough, there are some. Tacitus basically said: "Nero blamed the Christians, followers of that Guy called Jesus who Pilatus executed a few decades ago."
Wikipedia at least says both his Baptism and crucifixion are not disputed by historians.
Nope. But that's also not as big a deal as a lot of folks make it.
Also, he's far from the only important(?) historical(?) figure we can't prove ever existed.
Girl gets married
Girl gets shitfaced and sleeps with someone other than her husband
Girl is pregnant!
Girl makes up some dumb shit to avoid jealous rage
Shit gets waaaaay out of hand.
There are many Jesus's in the world.
A far more likely explanation for the age and time was that she was raped.
Not that things have changed much.
I really like the theory that someone just made up an entire religion that would proceed to affect the entire world for thousands of years just to cover up adultery.
Did she? Or did they fuck out of wedlock and made some shit up?
Christianity exists. Religions don't tend to spring up from nowhere. Every myth has its nugget of truth. Was there a preacher back then whose followers later spread around the world? Almost certainly. Where else could Christianity have come from?
Was he the son of god though? Was he capable of all the miracles the bible claims? Is the god he preached even real? There is no evidence that the answer to these three questions is anything but no I'm afraid.
Let me introduce you to our good friend Ronald Hubbard and this pesky Religion called "Scientology"
Joseph Smith certainly looked at golden tablets to reveal the holy truth that black people have dark skin due to a curse upon them. /s
These sort of prove op's point tho, right? Like Hubbard and Smith were real people. They weren't magic like they claimed, but their historicity isn't questioned. So Jesus also coulda been a real person, a preacher, just not magic
No. There's a whole mythology that Smith alluded to. That mythology and its alleged revelation were supposedly there before smith or anyone else. Smith is a charlatan who started the myth.
Jesus' myth was started by alleged followers (being generous) at least 50+ years after his alleged existence.
All of the myths attributed to yeshua are torn from other sources and are a patchwork of stories that held attention at the time.
It's more likely yeshua was a myth told by charlatans who needed money to keep spreading the wonderful story of a Jew who could have ruled the Roman empire but fed the poor and healed others instead.
if you found a corpse it would cause a lot of problems for the religion.
Do you mean to say that there are actual remains of Jesus right now somewhere on Earth?
if there are then there are some issues with the new testament
There had to be multiple Rabbi rabblerousers in Roman occupied Judea. Pick one.
The answers here are absolutely crazy. Go find some credible biblical scholars (ones whose jobs are not dependent on statements of faith) like Bart ehrman and read what they say. My understanding is that most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and even that he was crucified. Don't trust lemmy, don't even trust me, go find the experts, read what they say, and decide for yourself.
No, and that is to even be expected.
He was a prophet whose movement had around 120 or so core disciples along with his apostles, plus thousands who followed him about and considered him a healer and revolutionary teacher.
There are people who have done similar things that are completely lost to history other than small records that vaguely outline the controversy surrounding them... We shouldn't really expect more in terms of proof...
But what is unique is the fact that we have an extremely well preserved corpus of text surrounding him. We also have some good idea that a lot of his followers were prosecuted and killed, and never recanted in the process, which might incline you to believe in the radical truth that they lived by.
Of course I am biased - I am a Christian - but it really does just seem pointlessly antagonistic to dismiss His Existence at all.
Doesn't the old testament acknowledge the existence of the other gods of the region? The Hebrew's god tells them not to worship the other gods but only him. They're not presented as false gods, more as opponents.
So christians believe in multiple Gods? What about gods from other regions? Does Jesus God Holy spirit supervise them? I love the Bible, when it comes to fantasy.. You really can't get any better..I met a goddess on the Truckee River one time and I tell you whut boy
Hi, Christian! 👋 I'm dad.
Congratulations! Remember to have extra diapers available at all times.
Man, I can't get trial transcripts for cases that happened 2 years ago, and you're getting them for trials that happened 2,000 years ago?
The very earliest stuff obviously doesn't have that, and we rely on church history because it wasn't like even the most interesting thing a Roman governor did that week to kill some random churchmen who created conflict among Jews, nor do we have much preserved about mobs killing these guys other than in the original Christian communal sources.
But really, if you start from the premise that everything Christians ever write about thesmelves is pure propaganda without an iota of truth in it, that creates a non-serious standard with which to evaluate things.
Is it really absurd to think that Protomartyr Stephen was killed by a mob of Jews for preaching a radically different religion to them in a time of great political upheaval? Isn't this exactly what we think of Christians at later times - that they'd just turn on a guy and kill him for being a heretic? Why is it so unbelievable that it once happened to a Christian? Why is it so troublesome that the only people who bothered to write about these martyrs and preserve their memory were the people who were victims in the course of this?
Obviously, you can say that it's propaganda and lies, and maybe some of it was. But we know it's absolutely historic that Christians wre officially persecuted later on. it is also par for the course that they would be less formally persecuted prior to that. it also amkes sense that Christians, like every other group, try to preserve a communal memory.
IIFC all those writing are dated to well after the life time, like 100 year past it or so. It may be a bunch of written things but there is no/little reason to take those writings as anything but written down stories.
Ever play Telephone with a single word for 5 minutes? Now do that to a epic for 100 years, the end result will certainly be something but it may be nothing like the truth
I am not saying you have to believe the corpus of text as 100% factual and become a Christian right now, but I am suggesting that people believing the text isn't absurd... Moreover, I would suggest that it tends to prove that Jesus Christ was real...
The text itself asserts
Which all implies that the synoptic Gospels and Acts were very opened to being fact checked by their contemporaries and future generations by trying to place themselves in history, and that the texts were not designed by a cabal of conspirators who wanted to deceive people and come up with the perfect story because the story they made was hardly written by committee - it has things we'd see as imperfections & errors.
The Telephone game is designed to show you how private rumors occur.
The four Gospels are all the accounts of eyewitnesses to these events that were then recorded by their own hand or by their assistant's hand, and preserved within the church. Of course, some speculate that they were forged later, but there's a very long, complicated argument that involves the earliness of the spread of the knowledge of the Gospels and how well they were independently preserved in faraway locations from France to Egypt that indicate that they likely were completed shortly after Christ's death.
It's also the case that Christianity was a proselytizing faith, right, so immediately there are operations which send missionaries into the world to spread the news... By all means, deny the miracles and the story, but it seems likely that there was consensus about what had happened before the missionaries departed, which allowed for there to be the preservation of the Gospels and what would later constitute the New Testament.
There's not a good argument to be made that these guys were just spreading nonsense and spitballing it as they go - the story was straight before they were leaving Jerusalem, or else the four Gospels and the subsequent apostolic letters would not have been something they could have ever all agreed upon.
As a non-believer, I agree that those texts support that he had once lived, but the stories about him require more evidence.
@Lovstuhagen @BlowMe
Almost all of the Christian folklore surrounding Jesus can be directly tied to other myths that were common knowledge to Mediterranean people at the time.
There was a dude called Jesus, there were a lot of them. That one was Jewish and belonged to an evangelical cult was likely. But we can't really say that because the Bible exists so too must have the Jesus described within.
What we have today was written by people hundreds of years after the fact. There was nothing written during these events, nothing at least that survived.
If you go looking for proof of Jesus, you'll either come out disappointed, or delusional. Think of guys like Ken Ham.
Keep the faith, by all means. But part of believing is accepting that you don't get to have proof.
Source?
Yeah I got the Mithra chainmail in my AOL account back in 1998 - I know the arguments.
But Christianity presents us with something very wild - it takes the Messianic tradition of Jews which was hitherto interpreted as being about creating an earthly Kingdom that conquers the world and incorporates the gentiles into Israel (or makes the gentiles servants of Israel, who all become noblemen living in a heaven on earth, some interpretations)... and Christ says
"Yeah, but no - the Kingdom is purely spiritual. It's not temporal. The gentiles join us by worshiping God with us and living these truths - look, this Roman occupier has more faith than all Israel, because you guys are just terrible. You bicker over the law, and miss the total point of the law..."
And the Messiah is now about conquering the world through spreading the Gospel of loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself, giving up your possessions and conquering greed, freeing yourself from hypocrisy; living in simplicity and supreme virtue, at peace with those around you, practicing non-violence, and now we don't even need any kind of ceremonial laws at all because we are living the virtues. And that's how the world becomes part of Israel - by adopting the great things abotu our religion - and that's also how you get to heaven, which is only achievable after death when I come again...
This is a very unique interpretation of the Judaism of the time - absolutely revolutionary.
Even if you want to say that all the miracles and 'signs' are a myth, I think that the "Mithra" angle is actually bad beacuse you could just say they came up with those signs and added them so as to be able to claim they are fulfilling the Old Testament, which was infinitely more relevant to the Jews who were the community that gave birth to the religion.
Yeah I agree - there is no proof, and if there was proof, it would ruin it, because we'd no longer be doing good and loving God and our neighbor because it is right, but we would be doing it with the expectation of receiving heaven...
We would no longer be living a spiritual life for the good of oruselves and others - in hope & faith - but we would be Capitalists engaging in transactions that we deemed profitable.
I was referring to Joseph Campbell.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1650
The only physical proof you can have of a person that lived before photography is a body. So no, Jesus did not have a publically marked grave and we do not have his bones.
That being said, there is a difference between proving something historically and proving it in the court of law. Historical evidence points to Jesus having been a person that lived around that time.
Yes there is, here is his mugshot shortly after he was booked. Looks like he spent the evening turning water into wine.
There most likely were a bunch of people called Yeshua back then.
It seems like the consensus is that the stories probably stem from a real guy because that's deemed more likely than no person existing as a basis for the story, but no, there is not material evidence for jesus christ's existence
Yeah, I've got one of his toes in my car
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish.
I had read that there were Roman census records that proved a Rabbi named Jesus did live at about the right time, but now I can't find a source to back that up, so that's probably bunk.
There are no such records. Just having any extant census records from the Roman Empire would have pretty sensational, let alone some stemming from Judea at the supposed time of Jesus.
Yeah, that makes sense. I wish I could track down where I read this to figure out if it's a bad source or I'm misremembering it. I may be mistaking Tacitus' reference to Christ, but I don't think it's that. I distinctly remember reading about some sort of population record of a Rabbi named Jesus and thinking, "Wow, I'm surprised a record like that survived." The problem is this was 10+ years ago, and search engines suck now, so I'll never find it again.
Seems likely. There’s probably a Rabbi named David somewhere today too.
Yeah, but the odds of census records surviving that long are pretty low. Apparently, there are references to Jesus from some Roman historians that scholars think corroborate his existence, but they come about 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived, so they're not exactly evidence.
If you compare that with records we have for the likes of Alexander the Great though being 400 years later, it's not that implausible. And you'd be discounting the Christian Gospels and Paul's Epistles which were mere decades after Jesus
Completely unlikely since no such census records are extant.
People who are jnfamilhar with the historiography are very much overestimating the amount of primary source material which exists from the Roman Empire, simply because historians have been very good at extracting information from the miniscule fraction (relative to the amount which was produced) of extant written sources we do have from the period.
Jesus never led an army or ruled a country, so we cannot have coins bearing His face or remnants of an army, etc. However, there is plenty of physical proof of the early Church. There is evidence of pilgrimages to Bethlehem early on and Jerusalem as well, such as the church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is a plausible candidate for Jesus' actual tomb.
Here's a whole video covering the topic
There's the Talpiot Tomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
It might not be him but also it might.
There's a bunch of references for archaeologists debunking it.
I know you said "it might not be him" but I feel like that understates the weight of evidence against that possibility.
The respectable probability estimates range from astronomically unlikely to merely unlikely. In other words, we don't have incontrovertible ways of calculating the probability.
While it's not great or convincing evidence, it's the only physical evidence I know about.
We might not be able to calculate the probability but we can conclude that the chances that this tomb is that of Jesus is infinitesimal.
If you can't calculate the probability, then you can't rationally reach the conclusion that the probability is very low.
Of course you can.
I'm unable to calculate the probability that the moon will fall out of the sky tonight but I know that the probability is very low.
You can make the simple inductive calculation that the probability is 1 / (total number of nights moon didn't fall out of sky).
You can also look at the total energy needed to de-orbit the moon and come up with a frequencie for events at least of that magnitude.
They are easy calculations and they both give infinitesimal results. If that weren't true, there'd be no way to tell if your intuition were correct.
If you're happy with this type of calculation then the probability that this tomb is that of biblical Jesus is (number of occupants) / (number of humans in that area at the time the tomb was built).
That's way too low since several of the names match.
Enough. Feel free to continue believing that, on the balance of probabilities, this tomb is that of the really real Jesus.
After reading that page, I strongly suspect that's not him. It's all based on statistical modeling, and it's been heavily massaged. Even with that, they give it 1/600 odds (on the low end) of it being random chance, which those aren't bad odds.
Apparently the inscriptions are partially illegible, so assuming it's even correct their statistical model is based on the name Mariamne being Mary Magdelene (which is clearly not the name we remember her by) and being Jesus's wife, Maria being the mother, and Jesus having a son, which we didn't know about, named Judah, as well as a few other assumption that really do not feel like they should be making.
Even making a ton of assumptions, the odds are still not particularly convincing. It feels like something that can increase someone's faith if they don't question it, but if you examine it at all reveals how much people are reaching to prove what they already want to believe.
I'd have guess people who thought the tomb was for the Jesus would have their faith shaken by it since it would mean Jesus was married and had a kid, though there are some obscure Christian sects that have believed that.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Tl;dr: No.
My opinion: It's a nice story. And with stories the most important thing is what it teaches us or makes us feel. Not that it's true. Maybe they took inspiration from several preaching hippies who lived back then and made one story out of that. Exaggerated everything and made stuff up. Probably all of it because the bible was't even written close to his supposed lifetime. It'd be like you now writing a story about a dude who died in
1870. Without any previous records to get information from. [Edit: The first things have probably been written down like 40-50 years after his death.]And I mean if Jesus existed, he would certainly disapprove of what people do (and did) in his name.
I don't know that the History Channel is a good representation of academic consensus. It should basically never be relied upon.
Agree. But that specific article seems pretty alright. Also talks about the relics and history records for example by Tacitus.
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
(And the German Wikipedia article about sources for the historicity of Jesus seems very good. But it's not exactly OP's question and I don't know if it helps: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au%C3%9Ferchristliche_antike_Quellen_zu_Jesus_von_Nazaret )
No, there isn't. Nor is there proof of moses
Man I wish people had commented and linked their sources. A bunch of yes and no’s is not really helpful.
how do you have sources for no? I mean I guess you can link to wikipedia and point out all the evidence is just some third party writings or such I guess.
Nope
Nope.
No. He is not a historical figure like, say, Muhammad or Caesar.