Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under the water in Turkey at Nicene they found the church where the creed was written. WSJ article yesterday

Possibly.

Interesting to see how man has shaped the narrative over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the water in Turkey at Nicene they found the church where the creed was written. WSJ article yesterday

Possibly.

Interesting to see how man has shaped the narrative over the years.

+1. I wonder how. old this latest creed is? Oh wait -- they found the CHURCH where the creed was supposedly written -- not the creed itself. It would be all wet, anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say what you want, but does anyone really think that through centuries, billions of people have followed a total myth?

Yes.

Just last year, we had millions vote for a POS liar. People are stupid.

Yes!!!! All it takes is ONE generation of indoctrination to accomplish this, then it continues from there. Just because it hasn't been stopped, doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say what you want, but does anyone really think that through centuries, billions of people have followed a total myth?

Yes.

Just last year, we had millions vote for a POS liar. People are stupid.

Yes!!!! All it takes is ONE generation of indoctrination to accomplish this, then it continues from there. Just because it hasn't been stopped, doesn't make it true.

+1

[Anonymous]

Um....do you want to list all the atrocities attributed to Communists in the USSR (e.g., Stalin) and China (e.g., Mao) and attribute them to ATHEISM?

[Anonymous]

So much of the population was illiterate in the 1st century. We know Roman emperors and kings in Britain existed because of coins. Too bad Jesus didn't have coins, huh? Then there could be new conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous]

Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

You left out the "criterion of embarassment" argument too. That one is also absurd as a defense of historicity. What one time/place/culture finds embarrassing is very subjective. It makes more sense that the Christian writers wanted to showcase his death/sacrifice by making it as humbling as they could. It is not a Kosher, humane sacrifice. It adds to their story of suffering for your sins and atonement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-Socrates: Everyone accepts he existed, yet we have zero words written by him and zero contemporary documents mentioning him.

-Pythagoras: Famous theorem, religious cult that lasted centuries—yet not a single text or inscription from his lifetime or the century after.

-Spartacus: One of the most famous slave rebels in history, but no Roman historian writing while he was alive or within a century afterward left a detailed account that survives.

Jesus is actually on the stronger end of the spectrum for a non-royal, non-elite person from the early 1st century CE. The combination of multiple independent sources (hostile, neutral, and friendly) appearing within 20–90 years is better than what we have for many other accepted ancient figures who were far more powerful or famous in their own lifetimes.

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

Thanks! I am an old guy who has spent decades studying this stuff. I think the worst thing I have seen is the Horus, Mithras, etc, meme crap that people somehow actually believe. Those are memes that someone probably made as a joke. And they are everywhere on the internet and people use them as “evidence.”

Evidence doesn't matter when it comes to religion. It's what people believe - or not.

Yup. People can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they want.

Do we have any non-religious contemporary writings to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed?

If people told the story of the FSM thousands of years ago, I'm sure some suckers would believe it and repeat the tale.

We have exactly just as much concrete evidence for the FSM as we do for Jesus.

No, we do not have “exactly just as much concrete evidence” for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as for Jesus. That claim is simply false.

Mentioned in multiple 1st–2nd century sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.


Referenced by non-followers / hostile sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.


Has a specific time and place in history? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Left a verifiable historical movement that rapidly grew? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Year the figure is first claimed to have existed? Jesus: ~4-6 bce. FSM: 2005 (Bobby Henderson’s open letter)

Serious academic debate about whether the figure existed? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.


The FSM was invented in 2005 explicitly to mock the idea that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. It is a deliberate parody with zero pretense of historicity.

Jesus is a 1st-century Jew whose existence, baptism by John, and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate are accepted by essentially 100% of relevant scholars — including atheist, Jewish, and agnostic ones (Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, etc.).

Saying “we have the same evidence for both” is like saying we have the same evidence for Julius Caesar and Darth Vader. One is a documented historical person; the other is an openly admitted 21st-century joke.

The FSM argument only works if you completely ignore chronology, sources, and basic historical methodology. Once you apply the same standards we use for any other ancient figure, the comparison collapses instantly.

So no — not “exactly the same evidence.”

One has early, multiple, and hostile corroboration.

The other has a 2005 blog post that says “I made this up to make a point.”

That’s the difference.

No, concrete evidence isn't stories retold centuries later.

There is zero concrete evidence that either existed.

The “zero concrete evidence” claim is simply false, and the “centuries later” claim misrepresents the actual timeline of the sources by hundreds of years. The historical existence of Jesus is about as solid as anything from that era gets.

Incorrect. The evidence historicists are relying on is debated and not concrete. Most, if not all of what we do have was altered by Christians to support their beliefs.

For claims that there is as much evidence as there are for other historical figures, many of those other historical figures have archaeological evidence, in addition to written sources. There is no archaeological evidence in support of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does ancient history work?

We almost never have “contemporary eyewitness news reports.”

For almost every person or event before about 1800 CE, the sources we have are:
Written 20–300 years after the events
Often copied and re-copied by hand (with small errors creeping in)
Frequently written by people who were not the author’s enemies, allies, or later admirers — rarely by neutral journalists.

Examples everyone accepts:
1. Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE): Our main sources (Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus) were written 300–450 years later.
2. Hannibal crossing the Alps (218 BCE): Livy and Polybius wrote 50–180 years later.
3. Socrates (died 399 BCE): Plato and Xenophon wrote shortly after, but the next accounts (Aristotle, etc.) are decades later, and we still trust the core story.
4. Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BCE): Nicolaus of Damascus wrote ~50 years later; Suetonius and Plutarch 150 years later.

No one says “We have zero contemporary neutral eyewitnesses, therefore Caesar/Socrates/Alexander probably didn’t exist.”


The standard historians use: Multiple attestation + embarrassment + coherence.

Historians ask:
1. Do several independent sources (even hostile ones) agree on the basic facts?
2. Do the sources contain details that would have been embarrassing or inconvenient for the author? (People rarely invent embarrassing stories about their own heroes.)
3. Does the story fit what we know about the time and place from archaeology, other texts, etc.?

Jesus passes these tests better than most 1st-century figures:
- Multiple independent streams: Paul (48–60 CE), Mark (70 CE), Q source, Josephus (93 CE), Tacitus (116 CE) all confirm a Jewish teacher executed under Pilate.
-Criterion of embarrassment: The Gospels say he was baptized by John (implying John was greater), crucified (a shameful death), denied by his own disciples, etc. Early Christians would not make that up.
-Archaeology and context: Pontius Pilate inscription (1961), Caiaphas ossuary, 1st-century crucifixion nails, etc., all confirm the world of the Gospels.

Silence is normal, not suspicious!

Most people in antiquity left zero written trace. We have:
*Only ~10–15 brief mentions of Pontius Pilate outside the New Testament, even though he was the Roman governor.
*Zero contemporary writings from Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee during Jesus’ entire life.
*Onlyone ambiguous line about the famous rabbi Hillel from his own lifetime.

Jesus was an obscure apocalyptic preacher executed for disturbing the peace in rural Judea and was far less likely to be noticed by elite writers than a Roman governor — yet we still have more early evidence for Jesus than for almost any other 1st-century Palestinian Jew.

Jesus actually has unusually early and abundant evidence for a non-elite figure from a marginal province.


Ancient history does not demand — and almost never has — “contemporary neutral eyewitnesses with first-hand knowledge.” It works by piecing together sources that are:
1. As close in time as possible
2. Preferably independent
3. Ideally including hostile or neutral voices
4. Checked against archaeology and what we know about the culture

By those normal standards, the historical existence of Jesus is about as solid as anything from the early 1st century gets.

The people who say “zero evidence” are applying a 21st-century journalistic standard that literally nothing from antiquity could meet.

Trying to compare the evidence for Jesus against Hannibal, Socrates, and Alexander the Great, and Caesar =

There are volumes written about these other figures. Outside of Christian sources, the evidence for Jesus = one passage that is a forgery, and two simple lines that are debated as to their meaning and application to history. Add in actual archaeological artifacts (except for Socrates), and the totality of evidence is clearer.

Another poster already countered the embarrassment theory.

As for coherence = the evidence that is available confirms that a small, Jewish sect developed a new belief system. It does not confirm that this system is based on an actual historical person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um....do you want to list all the atrocities attributed to Communists in the USSR (e.g., Stalin) and China (e.g., Mao) and attribute them to ATHEISM?

Of course not. Please remember that the atheists you mention did not attribute the atrocities they committed to atheism either. They just were doing what they thought would benefit themselves, just like the bad Christians. The bad leaders who were atheist, never touted their atheism and never pretended that they were being benevolent, the way bad Christians do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um....do you want to list all the atrocities attributed to Communists in the USSR (e.g., Stalin) and China (e.g., Mao) and attribute them to ATHEISM?

Of course not. Please remember that the atheists you mention did not attribute the atrocities they committed to atheism either. They just were doing what they thought would benefit themselves, just like the bad Christians. The bad leaders who were atheist, never touted their atheism and never pretended that they were being benevolent, the way bad Christians do.

Well, that stopped the conversation, didn't it? -- The fact that bad atheist leaders don't tout their atheism Frankly, I never had thought about whether or not they held supernatural beliefs -- probably because they didn't mention it. This is in contrast to bad Christian leaders who openly use their religion to attract religious people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um....do you want to list all the atrocities attributed to Communists in the USSR (e.g., Stalin) and China (e.g., Mao) and attribute them to ATHEISM?

Of course not. Please remember that the atheists you mention did not attribute the atrocities they committed to atheism either. They just were doing what they thought would benefit themselves, just like the bad Christians. The bad leaders who were atheist, never touted their atheism and never pretended that they were being benevolent, the way bad Christians do.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say what you want, but does anyone really think that through centuries, billions of people have followed a total myth?

Yes it is called indoctrination.

Look at the US Piggy is unfit and a criminal yet one third of the population thinks he's god.

the Bible and jesus are made up stories for god's sake the bible was rewritten in what 1947.....and in ..... and in ....

Across secular, Jewish, Christian, agnostic, and atheist historians, the consensus is extremely consistent:

Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person.

Both can happen simultaneously, someone can exist but with exaggerated stories and myths about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say what you want, but does anyone really think that through centuries, billions of people have followed a total myth?

Yes it is called indoctrination.

Look at the US Piggy is unfit and a criminal yet one third of the population thinks he's god.

the Bible and jesus are made up stories for god's sake the bible was rewritten in what 1947.....and in ..... and in ....

Across secular, Jewish, Christian, agnostic, and atheist historians, the consensus is extremely consistent:

Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person.

Both can happen simultaneously, someone can exist but with exaggerated stories and myths about them.

Exactly - like the Buddha. It also exists with non-religious figures, like Davey Crockett and Johnny Appleseed.