Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical documentation of ordinary peasants from 1st century Roman Judea (including Galilee) is extremely rare—most records focus on elites, rulers, or notable figures—there are a few examples of men from similar lower social strata who gained mention in surviving texts, usually because they became involved in rebellions or unrest. These come primarily from the works of the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who documented events in the region. Keep in mind that “peasant” here refers to rural, lower-class individuals like farmers, shepherds, or laborers, and Jesus is often classified as such based on his Galilean origins and described trade as a tekton (carpenter or builder).


Athronges, a shepherd from Judea who, around 4 BCE (shortly after Herod the Great’s death), led a rebellion against Roman-backed rule under Archelaus. Josephus describes him explicitly as a “mere shepherd” with no noble birth or wealth, who nonetheless gathered followers, crowned himself, and fought Roman forces before being defeated. This places him in a similar social and geographic context to Jesus: a low-status rural worker in Roman-occupied Palestine during the early 1st century.


Simon of Peraea, a former royal slave (even lower status than a free peasant) who also rebelled around 4 BCE, crowning himself king and leading attacks before being killed by Roman troops. While not a free peasant, his origins align with the underclass in the same region and era.

A third is Judas the Galilean (also known as Judas of Galilee), who around 6 CE led a revolt against the Roman census in Galilee—the same area as Jesus. Josephus portrays him as a local leader who rallied common people against taxation, founding a zealous anti-Roman movement. Though described as a “teacher” or “sophist,” his roots were in rural Galilee, and he represented peasant grievances like debt and land loss.


These figures are documented because their actions disrupted the status quo, drawing Roman attention—much like how Jesus’ ministry and execution led to his mentions in Josephus and later Roman historians. For everyday peasants who didn’t rebel or preach, records are virtually nonexistent, as literacy and record-keeping were limited to elites. Archaeological finds, like ossuaries with common names (e.g., Yehohanan, a crucified man from 1st century Jerusalem), provide indirect evidence of lower-class individuals but lack the narrative detail of textual sources.  Overall, this scarcity highlights why any mention of someone like Jesus is historically significant.


Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is unreasonable for several well-established historical and material reasons. Here’s why scholars (both believing and non-believing) almost universally agree that the absence of archaeological remains for Jesus is exactly what we should predict:

1. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher from a rural backwater, and belonged to the peasant/artisan class (tekton = carpenter/builder) in a small Galilean village (Nazareth had maybe 200–400 inhabitants). People of this social status almost never leave any archaeological trace in antiquity. We have no inscriptions, statues, coins, or tombs for 99.9 % of the population of Roman Palestine.

2. He never held political or military power. The only 1st-century individuals from Judea/Galilee who left direct archaeological evidence are kings (Herod the Great, Herodians), governors (Pontius Pilate, Felix), high priests (Caiaphas, Ananus), or rebel leaders who minted coins or built fortresses (Simon bar Giora, John of Gischala). Jesus held none of those roles. He was executed as a criminal and buried (according to the Gospels) in a borrowed rock-cut tomb—exactly the kind of tomb that is reused for generations and leaves no individual marker.

3. No contemporary inscriptions were made for him. In the Roman world, honorary or funerary inscriptions were commissioned by the wealthy or by cities for important people. A poor Galilean preacher would never receive one. The earliest Christian inscriptions (catacombs, graffiti) only appear from the late 2nd century onward, long after Jesus’ death.


4. His followers were marginal and persecuted for decades. For the first 250–300 years, Christians had no political power, no wealth, and often faced hostility. They were in no position to erect monuments or inscriptions to Jesus. Contrast this with Roman emperors or even minor provincial elites who left hundreds of statues and inscriptions.


5. The type of evidence that does survive fits his profile perfectly. 
We actually do have the kind of evidence we would expect: Rapid growth of a religious movement in his name within a few years of his death (attested by Paul’s letters ~48–60 CE). Multiple independent written sources within 40–90 years (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.).

Archaeological corroboration of almost every place and many minor figures mentioned in the Gospels (Caiaphas’ ossuary, Pilate inscription, Pool of Siloam, Capernaum synagogue foundations, etc.).
That is far more than we have for almost any other 1st-century Galilean peasant.

Demanding direct archaeological evidence (a statue, an inscription, a coin, a personal artifact) for Jesus is like demanding the same for any other 1st-century Jewish carpenter from rural Galilee. We don’t have it for a single one of them—yet no matter how pious or virtuous they may have been. The surprise would be if we did have it for Jesus.

So you agree that we don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Are you saying that virtually every historian and scholar of antiquity are wrong?

Where did you study about antiquity, and what degrees do you hold? Are you a working scholar of antiquity or professor of antiquity or historian specifically working actively in your field?

If you aren’t, just tell us your qualifications and specialties and why everyone who is a scholar and historian is wrong?

Why do you think we should have archeological evidence of Jesus? Be specific.

No, I am simply saying:

We don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Anyone who is being honest here will admit this fact.

So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, you misunderstand the point of what Jesus taught. It was not love one another, his message was to believe in him as the path to eternal life.

Your first sentence is quite obvioulsy not true.

A quick google yields that Jesus did say love one another the AIbcersion was more complete but here's one link
https://rts.edu/resources/love-one-another-a-new-commandment/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical documentation of ordinary peasants from 1st century Roman Judea (including Galilee) is extremely rare—most records focus on elites, rulers, or notable figures—there are a few examples of men from similar lower social strata who gained mention in surviving texts, usually because they became involved in rebellions or unrest. These come primarily from the works of the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who documented events in the region. Keep in mind that “peasant” here refers to rural, lower-class individuals like farmers, shepherds, or laborers, and Jesus is often classified as such based on his Galilean origins and described trade as a tekton (carpenter or builder).


Athronges, a shepherd from Judea who, around 4 BCE (shortly after Herod the Great’s death), led a rebellion against Roman-backed rule under Archelaus. Josephus describes him explicitly as a “mere shepherd” with no noble birth or wealth, who nonetheless gathered followers, crowned himself, and fought Roman forces before being defeated. This places him in a similar social and geographic context to Jesus: a low-status rural worker in Roman-occupied Palestine during the early 1st century.


Simon of Peraea, a former royal slave (even lower status than a free peasant) who also rebelled around 4 BCE, crowning himself king and leading attacks before being killed by Roman troops. While not a free peasant, his origins align with the underclass in the same region and era.

A third is Judas the Galilean (also known as Judas of Galilee), who around 6 CE led a revolt against the Roman census in Galilee—the same area as Jesus. Josephus portrays him as a local leader who rallied common people against taxation, founding a zealous anti-Roman movement. Though described as a “teacher” or “sophist,” his roots were in rural Galilee, and he represented peasant grievances like debt and land loss.


These figures are documented because their actions disrupted the status quo, drawing Roman attention—much like how Jesus’ ministry and execution led to his mentions in Josephus and later Roman historians. For everyday peasants who didn’t rebel or preach, records are virtually nonexistent, as literacy and record-keeping were limited to elites. Archaeological finds, like ossuaries with common names (e.g., Yehohanan, a crucified man from 1st century Jerusalem), provide indirect evidence of lower-class individuals but lack the narrative detail of textual sources.  Overall, this scarcity highlights why any mention of someone like Jesus is historically significant.


Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is unreasonable for several well-established historical and material reasons. Here’s why scholars (both believing and non-believing) almost universally agree that the absence of archaeological remains for Jesus is exactly what we should predict:

1. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher from a rural backwater, and belonged to the peasant/artisan class (tekton = carpenter/builder) in a small Galilean village (Nazareth had maybe 200–400 inhabitants). People of this social status almost never leave any archaeological trace in antiquity. We have no inscriptions, statues, coins, or tombs for 99.9 % of the population of Roman Palestine.

2. He never held political or military power. The only 1st-century individuals from Judea/Galilee who left direct archaeological evidence are kings (Herod the Great, Herodians), governors (Pontius Pilate, Felix), high priests (Caiaphas, Ananus), or rebel leaders who minted coins or built fortresses (Simon bar Giora, John of Gischala). Jesus held none of those roles. He was executed as a criminal and buried (according to the Gospels) in a borrowed rock-cut tomb—exactly the kind of tomb that is reused for generations and leaves no individual marker.

3. No contemporary inscriptions were made for him. In the Roman world, honorary or funerary inscriptions were commissioned by the wealthy or by cities for important people. A poor Galilean preacher would never receive one. The earliest Christian inscriptions (catacombs, graffiti) only appear from the late 2nd century onward, long after Jesus’ death.


4. His followers were marginal and persecuted for decades. For the first 250–300 years, Christians had no political power, no wealth, and often faced hostility. They were in no position to erect monuments or inscriptions to Jesus. Contrast this with Roman emperors or even minor provincial elites who left hundreds of statues and inscriptions.


5. The type of evidence that does survive fits his profile perfectly. 
We actually do have the kind of evidence we would expect: Rapid growth of a religious movement in his name within a few years of his death (attested by Paul’s letters ~48–60 CE). Multiple independent written sources within 40–90 years (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.).

Archaeological corroboration of almost every place and many minor figures mentioned in the Gospels (Caiaphas’ ossuary, Pilate inscription, Pool of Siloam, Capernaum synagogue foundations, etc.).
That is far more than we have for almost any other 1st-century Galilean peasant.

Demanding direct archaeological evidence (a statue, an inscription, a coin, a personal artifact) for Jesus is like demanding the same for any other 1st-century Jewish carpenter from rural Galilee. We don’t have it for a single one of them—yet no matter how pious or virtuous they may have been. The surprise would be if we did have it for Jesus.

So you agree that we don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Are you saying that virtually every historian and scholar of antiquity are wrong?

Where did you study about antiquity, and what degrees do you hold? Are you a working scholar of antiquity or professor of antiquity or historian specifically working actively in your field?

If you aren’t, just tell us your qualifications and specialties and why everyone who is a scholar and historian is wrong?

Why do you think we should have archeological evidence of Jesus? Be specific.

No, I am simply saying:

We don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Anyone who is being honest here will admit this fact.

So what?

Yeah. I hope there will be more threads on "Did Jesus of Nazareth have siblings" snd "Were there blood descendants in the Joseph-Mary bloodline"

This is really interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, you misunderstand the point of what Jesus taught. It was not love one another, his message was to believe in him as the path to eternal life.

Your first sentence is quite obvioulsy not true.

A quick google yields that Jesus did say love one another the AIbcersion was more complete but here's one link
https://rts.edu/resources/love-one-another-a-new-commandment/

Are you our resident idiot who lacks reading comprehension? PP did not say that Jesus never said to love one another. She said that was not the primary message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical documentation of ordinary peasants from 1st century Roman Judea (including Galilee) is extremely rare—most records focus on elites, rulers, or notable figures—there are a few examples of men from similar lower social strata who gained mention in surviving texts, usually because they became involved in rebellions or unrest. These come primarily from the works of the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who documented events in the region. Keep in mind that “peasant” here refers to rural, lower-class individuals like farmers, shepherds, or laborers, and Jesus is often classified as such based on his Galilean origins and described trade as a tekton (carpenter or builder).


Athronges, a shepherd from Judea who, around 4 BCE (shortly after Herod the Great’s death), led a rebellion against Roman-backed rule under Archelaus. Josephus describes him explicitly as a “mere shepherd” with no noble birth or wealth, who nonetheless gathered followers, crowned himself, and fought Roman forces before being defeated. This places him in a similar social and geographic context to Jesus: a low-status rural worker in Roman-occupied Palestine during the early 1st century.


Simon of Peraea, a former royal slave (even lower status than a free peasant) who also rebelled around 4 BCE, crowning himself king and leading attacks before being killed by Roman troops. While not a free peasant, his origins align with the underclass in the same region and era.

A third is Judas the Galilean (also known as Judas of Galilee), who around 6 CE led a revolt against the Roman census in Galilee—the same area as Jesus. Josephus portrays him as a local leader who rallied common people against taxation, founding a zealous anti-Roman movement. Though described as a “teacher” or “sophist,” his roots were in rural Galilee, and he represented peasant grievances like debt and land loss.


These figures are documented because their actions disrupted the status quo, drawing Roman attention—much like how Jesus’ ministry and execution led to his mentions in Josephus and later Roman historians. For everyday peasants who didn’t rebel or preach, records are virtually nonexistent, as literacy and record-keeping were limited to elites. Archaeological finds, like ossuaries with common names (e.g., Yehohanan, a crucified man from 1st century Jerusalem), provide indirect evidence of lower-class individuals but lack the narrative detail of textual sources.  Overall, this scarcity highlights why any mention of someone like Jesus is historically significant.


Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is unreasonable for several well-established historical and material reasons. Here’s why scholars (both believing and non-believing) almost universally agree that the absence of archaeological remains for Jesus is exactly what we should predict:

1. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher from a rural backwater, and belonged to the peasant/artisan class (tekton = carpenter/builder) in a small Galilean village (Nazareth had maybe 200–400 inhabitants). People of this social status almost never leave any archaeological trace in antiquity. We have no inscriptions, statues, coins, or tombs for 99.9 % of the population of Roman Palestine.

2. He never held political or military power. The only 1st-century individuals from Judea/Galilee who left direct archaeological evidence are kings (Herod the Great, Herodians), governors (Pontius Pilate, Felix), high priests (Caiaphas, Ananus), or rebel leaders who minted coins or built fortresses (Simon bar Giora, John of Gischala). Jesus held none of those roles. He was executed as a criminal and buried (according to the Gospels) in a borrowed rock-cut tomb—exactly the kind of tomb that is reused for generations and leaves no individual marker.

3. No contemporary inscriptions were made for him. In the Roman world, honorary or funerary inscriptions were commissioned by the wealthy or by cities for important people. A poor Galilean preacher would never receive one. The earliest Christian inscriptions (catacombs, graffiti) only appear from the late 2nd century onward, long after Jesus’ death.


4. His followers were marginal and persecuted for decades. For the first 250–300 years, Christians had no political power, no wealth, and often faced hostility. They were in no position to erect monuments or inscriptions to Jesus. Contrast this with Roman emperors or even minor provincial elites who left hundreds of statues and inscriptions.


5. The type of evidence that does survive fits his profile perfectly. 
We actually do have the kind of evidence we would expect: Rapid growth of a religious movement in his name within a few years of his death (attested by Paul’s letters ~48–60 CE). Multiple independent written sources within 40–90 years (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.).

Archaeological corroboration of almost every place and many minor figures mentioned in the Gospels (Caiaphas’ ossuary, Pilate inscription, Pool of Siloam, Capernaum synagogue foundations, etc.).
That is far more than we have for almost any other 1st-century Galilean peasant.

Demanding direct archaeological evidence (a statue, an inscription, a coin, a personal artifact) for Jesus is like demanding the same for any other 1st-century Jewish carpenter from rural Galilee. We don’t have it for a single one of them—yet no matter how pious or virtuous they may have been. The surprise would be if we did have it for Jesus.

So you agree that we don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Are you saying that virtually every historian and scholar of antiquity are wrong?

Where did you study about antiquity, and what degrees do you hold? Are you a working scholar of antiquity or professor of antiquity or historian specifically working actively in your field?

If you aren’t, just tell us your qualifications and specialties and why everyone who is a scholar and historian is wrong?

Why do you think we should have archeological evidence of Jesus? Be specific.

No, I am simply saying:

We don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Anyone who is being honest here will admit this fact.

So what?

Yeah. I hope there will be more threads on "Did Jesus of Nazareth have siblings" snd "Were there blood descendants in the Joseph-Mary bloodline"

This is really interesting.

Someone who never existed cannot have siblings or a bloodline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Jesus evidence example (exactly the case we’ve been discussing)

People commit a category error when they say:


“There’s no archaeological evidence or contemporaneous outsider documentation for Jesus → therefore he probably didn’t exist.”

That reasoning only works if Jesus belonged to the category of people who normally leave archaeological or contemporaneous records (emperors, governors, high priests, famous rabbis, rebel leaders who mint coins, wealthy benefactors who commission inscriptions, etc.).

But Jesus belonged to a completely different category: 1st-century Galilean peasant itinerant preacher.
For that category, the normal, expected evidence profile is:
-Zero archaeology
-Zero contemporaneous outsider records

Demanding that a member of Category B produce the evidence typical of Category A — and then declaring him “probably fictional” when he doesn’t — is a textbook category error.


It’s like saying:

“I looked in the sky and didn’t see any fish → therefore fish don’t exist.”
(Fish belong in water, not the sky.)
Or:
“I dug in the desert and didn’t find any whales → therefore whales are a myth.”
(Whales belong in the ocean.)

In the same way:
“I looked for inscriptions and Roman police reports about Jesus and didn’t find any → therefore Jesus is a myth.”
(Those kinds of records belong to emperors and governors, not Galilean carpenters.)

That’s the category error in a nutshell. Once you place Jesus in the correct historical category (lower-class apocalyptic Jewish preacher in Roman Palestine), the total archaeological and contemporaneous silence becomes the expected default, not a problem.

These evidence claims are a classic red herring, constructing strawmen only to knock them down. The real issue is not the mere absence of specific archaeological evidence. No one expects a Nazareth tax receipt. What matters is the positive evidence we actually possess.

The proposed analogy with Hillel or Judas the Galilean is a false equivalence. Judas the Galilean is accepted because Josephus provides a detailed and historically grounded description of Judas the Galilean across multiple works, offering specifics about his ideology, his movement's legacy, his followers, and even the fate of his sons. This stands in stark contrast to the highly disputed passage in the Testimonium Flavianum concerning Jesus, which is widely considered by scholars to be partially or wholly a Christian interpolation as it lacks the historical specificity found in other Josephan accounts.

For Jesus, the only narrative sources we have are the Gospels, which are anonymous, theological tracts written by non-eyewitnesses, full of demonstrable fictions like the universal census of Quirinius (Luke 2) or zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27). These are not the kinds of sources historians can trust for historical facts.

The claim that "absence of evidence is meaningless" for a lower-class preacher is a fundamental misapplication of historical methodology. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence should be there. For a figure whose followers believed he was the key to salvation and divine revelation, detailed testimony in the earliest Christian sources should be present, but it is conspicuously absent.

The historicist lists all the evidence that couldn't possibly exist but conveniently ignores the most crucial evidence that should, detailed testimony in the earliest surviving Christian documents. Paul's Letters are the only contemporary documents we have available, but his Jesus is a celestial, pre-existent Lord who reveals himself through scripture and mystic visions. Paul shows no knowledge of Nazareth, Bethlehem, a virgin birth, an earthly ministry in Galilee, specific miracles, twelve disciples, Judas' betrayal, or teachings like the Sermon on the Mount. His "brother of the Lord" is likely a spiritual brother, not a biological one, consistent with Paul's focus on spiritual family. And, Paul explicitly states his gospel came not from "flesh and blood" (human sources) but from "revelation" (Galatians 1:11-12).

The myth theory is a hypothesis that better fits the totality of the evidence (and lack thereof). Early Christians believed in a celestial Christ revealed in scripture and visions. This divine being was then historicized over the course of several decades, a process likely accelerated by the profound political and religious turmoil following the destruction of the Second Temple. With the cessation of Temple sacrifices, the foundational mechanism of atonement in traditional Judaism vanished. A historicized Jesus, portrayed in the Gospels (the first Gospel was written after the Temple was destroyed) as a single, perfect, and final human sacrifice whose blood atoned for sin, provided a potent and immediate theological solution to the crisis of atonement, making an earthly narrative a necessary tool for the survival and spread of the burgeoning Christian movement in a post-Temple world.

The historicist model requires us to believe that the earliest sources knew the least about the most important historical figure of their time, while later, non-eyewitness, anonymous sources knew everything. The point is that the positive evidence we do have points away from a historical Jesus and toward a mythical one.

+1

Jesus is nothing more than mythmaking. Apologists are grasping at straws to prevent themselves from facing truth and reality.

+ 1 million. When you understand the psychology of religion, it all falls apart.

[Anonymous]

I am now wondering which community is the more intolerant, believers or atheists, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical documentation of ordinary peasants from 1st century Roman Judea (including Galilee) is extremely rare—most records focus on elites, rulers, or notable figures—there are a few examples of men from similar lower social strata who gained mention in surviving texts, usually because they became involved in rebellions or unrest. These come primarily from the works of the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who documented events in the region. Keep in mind that “peasant” here refers to rural, lower-class individuals like farmers, shepherds, or laborers, and Jesus is often classified as such based on his Galilean origins and described trade as a tekton (carpenter or builder).


Athronges, a shepherd from Judea who, around 4 BCE (shortly after Herod the Great’s death), led a rebellion against Roman-backed rule under Archelaus. Josephus describes him explicitly as a “mere shepherd” with no noble birth or wealth, who nonetheless gathered followers, crowned himself, and fought Roman forces before being defeated. This places him in a similar social and geographic context to Jesus: a low-status rural worker in Roman-occupied Palestine during the early 1st century.


Simon of Peraea, a former royal slave (even lower status than a free peasant) who also rebelled around 4 BCE, crowning himself king and leading attacks before being killed by Roman troops. While not a free peasant, his origins align with the underclass in the same region and era.

A third is Judas the Galilean (also known as Judas of Galilee), who around 6 CE led a revolt against the Roman census in Galilee—the same area as Jesus. Josephus portrays him as a local leader who rallied common people against taxation, founding a zealous anti-Roman movement. Though described as a “teacher” or “sophist,” his roots were in rural Galilee, and he represented peasant grievances like debt and land loss.


These figures are documented because their actions disrupted the status quo, drawing Roman attention—much like how Jesus’ ministry and execution led to his mentions in Josephus and later Roman historians. For everyday peasants who didn’t rebel or preach, records are virtually nonexistent, as literacy and record-keeping were limited to elites. Archaeological finds, like ossuaries with common names (e.g., Yehohanan, a crucified man from 1st century Jerusalem), provide indirect evidence of lower-class individuals but lack the narrative detail of textual sources.  Overall, this scarcity highlights why any mention of someone like Jesus is historically significant.


Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is unreasonable for several well-established historical and material reasons. Here’s why scholars (both believing and non-believing) almost universally agree that the absence of archaeological remains for Jesus is exactly what we should predict:

1. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher from a rural backwater, and belonged to the peasant/artisan class (tekton = carpenter/builder) in a small Galilean village (Nazareth had maybe 200–400 inhabitants). People of this social status almost never leave any archaeological trace in antiquity. We have no inscriptions, statues, coins, or tombs for 99.9 % of the population of Roman Palestine.

2. He never held political or military power. The only 1st-century individuals from Judea/Galilee who left direct archaeological evidence are kings (Herod the Great, Herodians), governors (Pontius Pilate, Felix), high priests (Caiaphas, Ananus), or rebel leaders who minted coins or built fortresses (Simon bar Giora, John of Gischala). Jesus held none of those roles. He was executed as a criminal and buried (according to the Gospels) in a borrowed rock-cut tomb—exactly the kind of tomb that is reused for generations and leaves no individual marker.

3. No contemporary inscriptions were made for him. In the Roman world, honorary or funerary inscriptions were commissioned by the wealthy or by cities for important people. A poor Galilean preacher would never receive one. The earliest Christian inscriptions (catacombs, graffiti) only appear from the late 2nd century onward, long after Jesus’ death.


4. His followers were marginal and persecuted for decades. For the first 250–300 years, Christians had no political power, no wealth, and often faced hostility. They were in no position to erect monuments or inscriptions to Jesus. Contrast this with Roman emperors or even minor provincial elites who left hundreds of statues and inscriptions.


5. The type of evidence that does survive fits his profile perfectly. 
We actually do have the kind of evidence we would expect: Rapid growth of a religious movement in his name within a few years of his death (attested by Paul’s letters ~48–60 CE). Multiple independent written sources within 40–90 years (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.).

Archaeological corroboration of almost every place and many minor figures mentioned in the Gospels (Caiaphas’ ossuary, Pilate inscription, Pool of Siloam, Capernaum synagogue foundations, etc.).
That is far more than we have for almost any other 1st-century Galilean peasant.

Demanding direct archaeological evidence (a statue, an inscription, a coin, a personal artifact) for Jesus is like demanding the same for any other 1st-century Jewish carpenter from rural Galilee. We don’t have it for a single one of them—yet no matter how pious or virtuous they may have been. The surprise would be if we did have it for Jesus.

So you agree that we don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Are you saying that virtually every historian and scholar of antiquity are wrong?

Where did you study about antiquity, and what degrees do you hold? Are you a working scholar of antiquity or professor of antiquity or historian specifically working actively in your field?

If you aren’t, just tell us your qualifications and specialties and why everyone who is a scholar and historian is wrong?

Why do you think we should have archeological evidence of Jesus? Be specific.

No, I am simply saying:

We don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Anyone who is being honest here will admit this fact.

So what?

Yeah. I hope there will be more threads on "Did Jesus of Nazareth have siblings" snd "Were there blood descendants in the Joseph-Mary bloodline"

This is really interesting.

Someone who never existed cannot have siblings or a bloodline.

We don't know if Jesus existed or not. We do know that he was not the Son of God, because there is no God.

No serious ancient historian or archaeologist today argues that Jesus is mythical in the same way as Hercules or Romulus.

The “Christ myth” theory is fringe and rejected by virtually all experts in the field (e.g., Bart Ehrman, an agnostic/atheist, calls the non-existence position “not taken seriously in academic circles”).

So the statement “we don’t know if Jesus existed or not” is not accurate according to current scholarship. We have about as much evidence for Jesus’ existence as we have for most other 1st-century historical figures (more, in fact, than for many).


Pretty much every historian—Christian or not—agrees a guy named Jesus lived and was crucified in the 30s CE. The ‘he never existed’ thing is fringe. Whether he was divine is a totally different question, and on that one reasonable people disagree. But saying ‘we know there is no God’ is going further than most atheist scholars would.

The existence of God is an open question. Agnosticism in the technical sense (‘it cannot be known’) is the only position that is actually justified. Everything else is a personal conviction, not knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Jesus evidence example (exactly the case we’ve been discussing)

People commit a category error when they say:


“There’s no archaeological evidence or contemporaneous outsider documentation for Jesus → therefore he probably didn’t exist.”

That reasoning only works if Jesus belonged to the category of people who normally leave archaeological or contemporaneous records (emperors, governors, high priests, famous rabbis, rebel leaders who mint coins, wealthy benefactors who commission inscriptions, etc.).

But Jesus belonged to a completely different category: 1st-century Galilean peasant itinerant preacher.
For that category, the normal, expected evidence profile is:
-Zero archaeology
-Zero contemporaneous outsider records

Demanding that a member of Category B produce the evidence typical of Category A — and then declaring him “probably fictional” when he doesn’t — is a textbook category error.


It’s like saying:

“I looked in the sky and didn’t see any fish → therefore fish don’t exist.”
(Fish belong in water, not the sky.)
Or:
“I dug in the desert and didn’t find any whales → therefore whales are a myth.”
(Whales belong in the ocean.)

In the same way:
“I looked for inscriptions and Roman police reports about Jesus and didn’t find any → therefore Jesus is a myth.”
(Those kinds of records belong to emperors and governors, not Galilean carpenters.)

That’s the category error in a nutshell. Once you place Jesus in the correct historical category (lower-class apocalyptic Jewish preacher in Roman Palestine), the total archaeological and contemporaneous silence becomes the expected default, not a problem.

These evidence claims are a classic red herring, constructing strawmen only to knock them down. The real issue is not the mere absence of specific archaeological evidence. No one expects a Nazareth tax receipt. What matters is the positive evidence we actually possess.

The proposed analogy with Hillel or Judas the Galilean is a false equivalence. Judas the Galilean is accepted because Josephus provides a detailed and historically grounded description of Judas the Galilean across multiple works, offering specifics about his ideology, his movement's legacy, his followers, and even the fate of his sons. This stands in stark contrast to the highly disputed passage in the Testimonium Flavianum concerning Jesus, which is widely considered by scholars to be partially or wholly a Christian interpolation as it lacks the historical specificity found in other Josephan accounts.

For Jesus, the only narrative sources we have are the Gospels, which are anonymous, theological tracts written by non-eyewitnesses, full of demonstrable fictions like the universal census of Quirinius (Luke 2) or zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27). These are not the kinds of sources historians can trust for historical facts.

The claim that "absence of evidence is meaningless" for a lower-class preacher is a fundamental misapplication of historical methodology. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence should be there. For a figure whose followers believed he was the key to salvation and divine revelation, detailed testimony in the earliest Christian sources should be present, but it is conspicuously absent.

The historicist lists all the evidence that couldn't possibly exist but conveniently ignores the most crucial evidence that should, detailed testimony in the earliest surviving Christian documents. Paul's Letters are the only contemporary documents we have available, but his Jesus is a celestial, pre-existent Lord who reveals himself through scripture and mystic visions. Paul shows no knowledge of Nazareth, Bethlehem, a virgin birth, an earthly ministry in Galilee, specific miracles, twelve disciples, Judas' betrayal, or teachings like the Sermon on the Mount. His "brother of the Lord" is likely a spiritual brother, not a biological one, consistent with Paul's focus on spiritual family. And, Paul explicitly states his gospel came not from "flesh and blood" (human sources) but from "revelation" (Galatians 1:11-12).

The myth theory is a hypothesis that better fits the totality of the evidence (and lack thereof). Early Christians believed in a celestial Christ revealed in scripture and visions. This divine being was then historicized over the course of several decades, a process likely accelerated by the profound political and religious turmoil following the destruction of the Second Temple. With the cessation of Temple sacrifices, the foundational mechanism of atonement in traditional Judaism vanished. A historicized Jesus, portrayed in the Gospels (the first Gospel was written after the Temple was destroyed) as a single, perfect, and final human sacrifice whose blood atoned for sin, provided a potent and immediate theological solution to the crisis of atonement, making an earthly narrative a necessary tool for the survival and spread of the burgeoning Christian movement in a post-Temple world.

The historicist model requires us to believe that the earliest sources knew the least about the most important historical figure of their time, while later, non-eyewitness, anonymous sources knew everything. The point is that the positive evidence we do have points away from a historical Jesus and toward a mythical one.

+1

Jesus is nothing more than mythmaking. Apologists are grasping at straws to prevent themselves from facing truth and reality.

+ 1 million. When you understand the psychology of religion, it all falls apart.

Calling Jesus ‘nothing more than mythmaking’ is actually the minority view among historians and biblical scholars—even the atheist and agnostic ones.

The ‘Jesus is pure myth’ thing is fringe even among atheist scholars. Pretty much everyone who studies this for a living thinks a real guy got crucified in the 30s CE and his followers later turned the story into something much bigger.

Among relevant experts, the consensus is ~99%+ that a historical Jesus existed.

A 2014 survey of 1,000+ biblical scholars and historians found 99.8% said “Yes” or “Probably yes” to “Did Jesus exist?” (0.2% said no).

Virtually every university chair of New Testament, early Christianity, or ancient history in the Western world is held by someone who accepts a historical Jesus (whether Christian, Jewish, atheist, or agnostic).

Only a handful of people with relevant doctorates, and even loosely, and almost none of them hold teaching positions in history, classics, or religious studies at accredited universities.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history, but independent writer, not a professor). He’s the most visible and academically credentialed mythicist today.

Robert M. Price (has two PhDs in New Testament, but again, no university post; associated with the very small “Jesus Seminar” fringe).

A few others (e.g., Neil Godfrey, Earl Doherty) who are bloggers or self-published authors with no peer-reviewed publications on the topic in mainstream journals.

That’s basically it. You can count the active academic mythicists on one hand, and none are taken seriously by the field.

Mythicism is about as mainstream in history departments as Young-Earth Creationism is in biology departments, or Holocaust denial is in 20th-century history programs.

It has a loud presence online (YouTube, Reddit, TikTok), but in actual scholarship it’s considered a fringe conspiracy theory.

So when you say “Jesus is nothing more than mythmaking,” you are siding with a view that 99%+ of experts (including the non-religious ones) consider demonstrably wrong on the historical question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Jesus evidence example (exactly the case we’ve been discussing)

People commit a category error when they say:


“There’s no archaeological evidence or contemporaneous outsider documentation for Jesus → therefore he probably didn’t exist.”

That reasoning only works if Jesus belonged to the category of people who normally leave archaeological or contemporaneous records (emperors, governors, high priests, famous rabbis, rebel leaders who mint coins, wealthy benefactors who commission inscriptions, etc.).

But Jesus belonged to a completely different category: 1st-century Galilean peasant itinerant preacher.
For that category, the normal, expected evidence profile is:
-Zero archaeology
-Zero contemporaneous outsider records

Demanding that a member of Category B produce the evidence typical of Category A — and then declaring him “probably fictional” when he doesn’t — is a textbook category error.


It’s like saying:

“I looked in the sky and didn’t see any fish → therefore fish don’t exist.”
(Fish belong in water, not the sky.)
Or:
“I dug in the desert and didn’t find any whales → therefore whales are a myth.”
(Whales belong in the ocean.)

In the same way:
“I looked for inscriptions and Roman police reports about Jesus and didn’t find any → therefore Jesus is a myth.”
(Those kinds of records belong to emperors and governors, not Galilean carpenters.)

That’s the category error in a nutshell. Once you place Jesus in the correct historical category (lower-class apocalyptic Jewish preacher in Roman Palestine), the total archaeological and contemporaneous silence becomes the expected default, not a problem.

These evidence claims are a classic red herring, constructing strawmen only to knock them down. The real issue is not the mere absence of specific archaeological evidence. No one expects a Nazareth tax receipt. What matters is the positive evidence we actually possess.

The proposed analogy with Hillel or Judas the Galilean is a false equivalence. Judas the Galilean is accepted because Josephus provides a detailed and historically grounded description of Judas the Galilean across multiple works, offering specifics about his ideology, his movement's legacy, his followers, and even the fate of his sons. This stands in stark contrast to the highly disputed passage in the Testimonium Flavianum concerning Jesus, which is widely considered by scholars to be partially or wholly a Christian interpolation as it lacks the historical specificity found in other Josephan accounts.

For Jesus, the only narrative sources we have are the Gospels, which are anonymous, theological tracts written by non-eyewitnesses, full of demonstrable fictions like the universal census of Quirinius (Luke 2) or zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27). These are not the kinds of sources historians can trust for historical facts.

The claim that "absence of evidence is meaningless" for a lower-class preacher is a fundamental misapplication of historical methodology. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence should be there. For a figure whose followers believed he was the key to salvation and divine revelation, detailed testimony in the earliest Christian sources should be present, but it is conspicuously absent.

The historicist lists all the evidence that couldn't possibly exist but conveniently ignores the most crucial evidence that should, detailed testimony in the earliest surviving Christian documents. Paul's Letters are the only contemporary documents we have available, but his Jesus is a celestial, pre-existent Lord who reveals himself through scripture and mystic visions. Paul shows no knowledge of Nazareth, Bethlehem, a virgin birth, an earthly ministry in Galilee, specific miracles, twelve disciples, Judas' betrayal, or teachings like the Sermon on the Mount. His "brother of the Lord" is likely a spiritual brother, not a biological one, consistent with Paul's focus on spiritual family. And, Paul explicitly states his gospel came not from "flesh and blood" (human sources) but from "revelation" (Galatians 1:11-12).

The myth theory is a hypothesis that better fits the totality of the evidence (and lack thereof). Early Christians believed in a celestial Christ revealed in scripture and visions. This divine being was then historicized over the course of several decades, a process likely accelerated by the profound political and religious turmoil following the destruction of the Second Temple. With the cessation of Temple sacrifices, the foundational mechanism of atonement in traditional Judaism vanished. A historicized Jesus, portrayed in the Gospels (the first Gospel was written after the Temple was destroyed) as a single, perfect, and final human sacrifice whose blood atoned for sin, provided a potent and immediate theological solution to the crisis of atonement, making an earthly narrative a necessary tool for the survival and spread of the burgeoning Christian movement in a post-Temple world.

The historicist model requires us to believe that the earliest sources knew the least about the most important historical figure of their time, while later, non-eyewitness, anonymous sources knew everything. The point is that the positive evidence we do have points away from a historical Jesus and toward a mythical one.

+1

Jesus is nothing more than mythmaking. Apologists are grasping at straws to prevent themselves from facing truth and reality.

+ 1 million. When you understand the psychology of religion, it all falls apart.

It’s telling that the red poster has fallen silent.

I have a job. I can’t be online at all times. Nor do I want to be. The real world is better than arguing about a question that has been answered by academia and scholarship.

Now that you’re online you can respond to this post:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1304175.page#31273412

Forget it -- you'll never prove that pp is trying to avoid you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historians judge the historicity of any ancient figure (whether Jesus, Socrates, Hannibal, or an obscure rebel leader) using a consistent set of methodological tools and criteria. They do not require archaeological evidence, statues, or coins. Instead, they work with the evidence that actually survives from antiquity—almost all of it textual—and apply the following principles:

1. Multiple, Independent Attestation
The more independent sources that mention the person (especially if they are from different perspectives or hostile to each other), the stronger the case for historicity. Example for Jesus: At least 8–10 independent sources within ~100 years (Pauline letters, Mark, Q-source, Matthew, Luke-Acts, John, Hebrews, Josephus [2×], Tacitus, possibly Pliny the Younger/Suetonius). That is far more than for almost any other 1st-century Palestinian Jew.

2. Criterion of Embarrassment
Details that would have been inconvenient or embarrassing to the author are unlikely to be invented. Examples: Jesus baptized by John (implying subordination), crucified by Romans (a shameful death), denied by his disciples, family thinking he was crazy (Mark 3:21), etc.

3. Criterion of Dissimilarity (or Double Dissimilarity)
Sayings or actions that don’t easily fit either later Christian theology or contemporary Judaism are unlikely to be invented by the church.
Examples: “Render to Caesar…”, prohibition of divorce, associating with tax collectors and sinners, etc.

4. Coherence with Known Historical Context
Does the figure fit what we independently know about the time, place, language, culture, politics, and archaeology? Jesus fits 1st-century Galilean Judaism under Roman rule almost perfectly (Aramaic speaker, debates Torah, apocalyptic prophet, conflict with Pharisees and Temple authorities, executed under Pilate, etc.).

5. Principle of Analogy
Does the story resemble known patterns of human behavior and historical events?
Itinerant charismatic prophets who attract followers, clash with authorities, and get executed were extremely common in 1st-century Judea (Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, John the Baptist, etc.).

6. Early Dating of Sources
The closer the source is to the person’s lifetime, the better. Paul (writing 48–60 CE) already knows of Jesus’ crucifixion, brother James, and several disciples by name — within 15–30 years of the events. Mark ~70 CE, less than one lifetime later.

7. Hostile or Non-Christian Corroboration
Confirmation from sources that have no reason to be sympathetic. Josephus (Jewish, non-Christian) twice mentions Jesus (one passage partially corrupted, but core is accepted by almost all scholars). Tacitus (Roman pagan, hostile to Christians) in 115 CE confirms Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate.

8. Effects and Rapid Spread (the “Big Bang” argument)
A historical figure often leaves a disproportionate “explosion” of evidence shortly after their death. Within 20–30 years a movement in Jesus’ name had spread from rural Galilee to Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Corinth, Rome — with thousands of followers willing to die for the claim he had risen. That kind of rapid, explosive growth almost never happens around a purely mythical figure.

Alexander the Great: the earliest sources we have after his death is approximately 300 years. We have several independent sources and of course cities, coins, and statues of Alex. Historians are certain he existed.

Socrates: earliest sources are 10–40 years after his death (Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes). We have 4+ independent sources for Socrates. We have zero archeological evidence. Historians are certain he existed.

Hannibal: earliest sources after his death are 50-150 years. We have 2-3 independent sources, zero direct archaeological evidence, and historians are certain he existed.

Pontius Pilate: earliest sources after his death are 30-60 years, (Philo, Josephus, Gospels, Tacitus) and 4 independent sources. We have one piece of archaeological evidence found in 1961, and historians are certain he existed.

Jesus of Nazareth: earliest sources after his death, 15-40 years. 8-10+ independent sources, no archaeological evidence, and his historicity in near universal among historians and scholars.


Virtually every professional historian (Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic) who studies the period accepts that Jesus existed. The very few who argue otherwise (the “Jesus mythicist” position) are generally not ancient historians and are treated like flat-earthers or Holocaust deniers within the academy.

In short: historians are not surprised we have no coins, statues, or inscriptions of Jesus. They are impressed we have as much early, diverse, and contextual evidence as we do for a 1st-century Galilean peasant preacher. By normal historical standards, the evidence for his existence is actually quite strong.

Why is dcum a hotbed of non-ancient historians espousing what is considered Holocaust denier levels of skepticism on this topic?

If you are reading this thread, just know that the people who are demanding delusional levels of proof for JC are really delusional. I don’t mean that as an insult; they just don’t know how professional historians and scholars work.

If you think that the only people who can objectively study the life of Jesus Christ are atheists raised in a sterile, religion free environment, I don’t want to sound like I am attacking anyone, but you are really wrong and ignorant about not only the historicity of JC, but the world of academia and scholarship. It’s really a disheartening thread, so many people are posting the most inaccurate and misleading information.

It’s interesting that you write about methodological principles while simultaneously failing to apply them rigorously to the evidence for Jesus. The mainstream consensus is built upon weak foundations and special pleading. The key error here is the assumption that the "normal historical standards" you cite actually favor a historical Jesus when applied with proper skepticism.

You argue that historians use consistent tools. This is true. The problem is that when these tools are applied without the underlying assumption that "Jesus must have existed," the evidence evaporates. Mainstream scholars typically fail to account for the unique nature of early Christian literature, which is inherently theological, allegorical, and rooted in scriptural interpretation, not historical biography.

Your “8–10 independent" sources within 100 years” is a profound misunderstanding of source dependencies. The Gospels are not independent. Mark influenced Matthew and Luke (the Synoptic Problem). John is a separate tradition but deeply theological. The "Q-source" is a hypothesis, not a physical document, and may be a collection of sayings used by Matthew and Luke. Grouping them as independent sources is fallacious. We have perhaps two or three lines of Christian tradition: Pauline, Markan, and Johannine.

Paul is crucial because he is early. But, his silence on earthly details is deafening. Paul never mentions any details that require an earthly, recent Jesus. He mentions a crucifixion, a burial, a resurrection, all details found in the scriptures and revealed through prophecy or visionary experience, within a celestial framework. He mentions a "brother James," which is an ecclesiastical title, not necessarily a biological relationship. Paul is excellent evidence for a celestial Jesus cult, but terrible evidence for a historical one.

Tacitus/Josephus - As discussed previously, Tacitus reflects Christian belief, not Roman records of an event fifty years prior. The Josephus passages are universally acknowledged to have Christian interpolations. The minimal historical core scholars try to salvage from them is guesswork, not robust evidence. The original Josephus likely said nothing about Jesus.

For Socrates, Plato and Xenophon are writing philosophical dialogues about a teacher they knew personally in living memory, not anonymous, post-resurrection propaganda written 40-70 years later by anonymous authors in different countries. The comparison is entirely fallacious.

As noted before, the criterion of embarrassment, assume the authors were writing history rather than theology or allegory. The alleged embarrassments served a specific literary or theological purpose for the original Markan. The dissimilar sayings often disappear in later gospels or are highly ambiguous, making them weak historical indicators.

The claim that Jesus "fits perfectly" is circular reasoning. The "1st-century Galilean Judaism under Roman rule" construct is largely derived from the Gospels themselves, supplemented by Josephus. Its creating a context from these sources, then using that context to validate the sources. This is poor methodology.

Your “Big Bang” argument - This is the weakest argument of all. A "mythical" figure cannot generate rapid growth? For example, the Cult of Asclepius rapidly spread across the Mediterranean with thousands of followers who believed they were healed by a divine figure. The ancient world was littered with mystery cults centered on celestial, saving gods who were believed to have existed in a mythic past and appeared in visions. Early Christianity spread because it offered attractive theological answers = salvation from sin plus reward of an afterlife. Witness how many people still buy the idea today. The idea spread, the narrative followed.

Please stop with your ad hominem attempts to link mythicism with holocaust deniers and flat earthers. That is not engaging in an honest debate.

The vast majority of scholars in the field were trained within institutions that presuppose Jesus' historicity. Biblical scholarship grew out of theology departments. To question the existence of the founder of the religion you are studying is often career suicide or intellectually disqualifying within the field. It is a consensus based on tradition, not necessarily a consensus that survives a truly neutral, external investigation.

Professional ancient historians, when they bother to look at the specific source problems of the Gospels and Paul with the same skepticism they apply to Romulus or Dionysus, often find the evidence much weaker than you suggest.

The evidence for Jesus is strong only if you desperately want it to be. By normal, rigorous historical standards applied without bias, the evidence is astonishingly weak.

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is a debated topic, but the consensus among historians—both secular and religious—is that a historical Jesus existed.

-Multiple Independent Sources Within a Century
-Pauline Epistles (written ~50–60 CE, within 20–30 years of Jesus’ death): Paul, a contemporary of Jesus’ followers, references meeting Jesus’ brother James and Peter (Galatians 1:18–19). This is early, firsthand testimony of people who knew Jesus personally.
-Gospels (Mark ~70 CE, Matthew/Luke ~80–90 CE, John ~90–100 CE): While not eyewitness accounts, they draw from earlier oral traditions and possibly written sources (e.g., the hypothetical “Q” source). Mark was written within living memory of the events.

Non-Christian Sources:
-Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 CE): In Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 (the “Testimonium Flavianum”), he mentions Jesus as a wise man executed under Pilate. Though partially interpolated by later Christians, most scholars accept a core authentic reference. A second passage (20.9.1) about “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ” is widely considered authentic.

-Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 CE): In Annals 15.44, he mentions “Christus” executed under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign, as the origin of the Christian movement.
-Pliny the Younger (~112 CE) and Suetonius (~121 CE) confirm early Christians worshiped “Christus/Chrestus” as a real figure.
These sources are independent, come from hostile or neutral parties (Josephus and Tacitus had no reason to invent Jesus), and converge on basic facts: Jesus lived, taught, gathered followers, was crucified under Pilate.

-Criterion of Embarrassment
The Gospels include details unlikely to be invented: Jesus baptized by John (implying subordination), crucified (a shameful death for a Messiah), denial by Peter, women as first witnesses (women’s testimony was undervalued in 1st-century Judaism). These suggest the writers were constrained by known historical events.
-Rapid Rise of a High-Christology Movement
Within years of Jesus’ death, Jewish monotheists were worshiping him as divine—something that requires an extraordinary catalyst. The best explanation most historians accept is that something dramatic (like the resurrection belief) happened to his followers, rooted in a real person’s ministry and death.

Scholarly Consensus
Virtually all critical scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman, E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, John Dominic Crossan—even many mythicists like Robert M. Price acknowledge they’re in a tiny minority) agree:
-Jesus was a real 1st-century Jewish apocalyptic preacher from Galilee.
-He was baptized by John the Baptist.
-He was crucified under Pontius Pilate ~30–33 CE.

The “Christ Myth” theory (Jesus never existed) is rejected by the mainstream academy as fringe, comparable to Holocaust denial in its dismissal of primary sources.

By the standards used for other ancient figures (e.g., Socrates, Hannibal, or Pontius Pilate himself—who has even less direct attestation), the evidence for a historical Jesus is actually quite strong for a lower-class Galilean peasant. It’s not “proof beyond reasonable doubt” like a modern courtroom, but it’s far more than “astonishingly weak.” The real debate isn’t whether he existed—it’s what he said, did, and whether the supernatural claims hold up.


Your statement reflects a common skeptic talking point, but it overstates the case significantly against the scholarly consensus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am now wondering which community is the more intolerant, believers or atheists, lol.

I’m personally intolerant of lies and bullsht.

Contempt is a bad look. I am new to these goings on. Do believers dump on atheists the way atheists refer to believers' beliefs as nonsense, lies, myths etc.?

Yes - Believers tend to think that non-believers are evil. Meanwhile, belief in the supernatural actually is "nonsense, lies, myths". You don't believe in fairies or Santa anymore, do you? But you still believe in God and angels.

Equating belief in the Christian God (or any God) with belief in fairies or Santa Claus, implying it’s equally childish or irrational?

Fairies and Santa are ad-hoc explanations for specific phenomena (where do missing cookies go? who brings presents?). When better explanations appear (parents, tooth fairy money under the pillow), they’re discarded without the worldview collapsing.

The idea of God isn’t an explanation for one narrow thing. It’s the attempt to answer the deepest ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ questions: why the universe exists at all, why it’s finely tuned for life, why there’s objective morality, why consciousness exists. Billions of people (including many brilliant scientists and philosophers) find theism the most coherent answer to those big questions.

I don’t believe in God because I’m afraid of the dark or because I never grew out of fairy tales. I believe because, after looking at the arguments (cosmological, teleological, moral, the historical case for the resurrection, personal experience, etc.), theism makes more sense of reality than naturalism does to me.

You’re free to weigh the same evidence and come to the opposite conclusion — that’s fair. But dismissing it as ‘believing in fairies’ is a rhetorical jab, not an argument. It’s like me saying atheism is just ‘believing in magic exploding universes from nothing and that your thoughts are just meaningless brain fizz.’

That feels clever, but it doesn’t actually engage the real reasons people hold these views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's ask this: why does it matter whether or not there is archeological evidence?

Do the moral teachings to love one another not stand anyway? After all, when you boil it all down, that is what Jesus taught us.

It matters because Christians try to claim they're the only ones who ever thought of what is basically the "golden rule". However, nearly every religion and even non-religious thinking have come up with the same idea, including ones that predate Christianity.

Also, you misunderstand the point of what Jesus taught. It was not love one another, his message was to believe in him as the path to eternal life.

+1 His message of "love one another" is definitely all he taught. And it also matters because aside from the concept of "love one another" (which we decidedly don't need Jesus to teach us, and if you do, then there is something wrong), there are other horrendous and harmful concepts from christianity that are impacting humankind.

Interesting. Can you list some? Are they from/allegedly from things reported as Jesus teachings or from "churches"?

Disclosure: I believe in God, think Jesus of Nazareth existed, think the Christ is present in me and others, but do not believe in most church doctrines. I don't participate in organized religion.

I'll mention one: We are the best -- everyone should be our religion, therefore, we'll go out and convert you and in the process, we'll subjugate you or kill you or make you serve us.

That description — “we’re the best, everyone must join us, and we’ll subjugate or kill those who refuse” — is not an accurate summary of Christianity as a whole, either in its foundational texts or in the behavior of the vast majority of Christians across history and today.

What Christianity actually teaches on conversion and treatment of outsiders:

The New Testament repeatedly commands voluntary belief and love, even toward enemies:
“Go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20) is the core missionary mandate, but Jesus also says “whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40) and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).


Coercion is explicitly rejected: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet” (Matthew 10:14).

-Forced conversion is condemned in classic Christian theology. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and later Protestant thinkers all argued that genuine faith cannot be coerced.

Historical cases where Christians did use violence or coercion:

1. The Crusades (especially the early ones framed as defensive wars that morphed into conquest)
2.The Inquisition (particularly Spanish)
3. Some colonial-era forced baptisms in the Americas and Goa
4. Northern Ireland’s Troubles and a few modern fringe militias

These episodes existed, and Christians should acknowledge them. But they were usually:
-justified by political or ethnic motives as much as religious ones
-condemned by many Christians at the time and later
-not representative of 2,000 years of Christian practice across hundreds of cultures


The statement “we’ll go out and convert you and in the process, we’ll subjugate you or kill you or make you serve us” much more closely matches:
1. The early Islamic conquests (7th–8th centuries) and the historical dhimmi system (non-Muslims paid jizya and lived under legal disabilities)
2. Certain interpretations of jihad in classical Islamic law that permit offensive war to spread the faith
3. The stated ideology of modern jihadist groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram)
It does not match the mainstream practice of Christianity for the last 1,500 years, and especially not since the Enlightenment and the spread of religious-freedom norms.

Today’s reality:
—>The countries where converting someone to Christianity (or from Islam) can legally get you killed are overwhelmingly Muslim-majority (e.g., Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria’s northern states, Iran, Saudi Arabia).

—>The countries where Christians face the highest levels of persecution are North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Pakistan — again, almost never Christian-majority.


—>In contrast, the world’s largest Christian-majority countries (USA, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, DRC, etc.) do not have laws punishing conversion away from Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical documentation of ordinary peasants from 1st century Roman Judea (including Galilee) is extremely rare—most records focus on elites, rulers, or notable figures—there are a few examples of men from similar lower social strata who gained mention in surviving texts, usually because they became involved in rebellions or unrest. These come primarily from the works of the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who documented events in the region. Keep in mind that “peasant” here refers to rural, lower-class individuals like farmers, shepherds, or laborers, and Jesus is often classified as such based on his Galilean origins and described trade as a tekton (carpenter or builder).


Athronges, a shepherd from Judea who, around 4 BCE (shortly after Herod the Great’s death), led a rebellion against Roman-backed rule under Archelaus. Josephus describes him explicitly as a “mere shepherd” with no noble birth or wealth, who nonetheless gathered followers, crowned himself, and fought Roman forces before being defeated. This places him in a similar social and geographic context to Jesus: a low-status rural worker in Roman-occupied Palestine during the early 1st century.


Simon of Peraea, a former royal slave (even lower status than a free peasant) who also rebelled around 4 BCE, crowning himself king and leading attacks before being killed by Roman troops. While not a free peasant, his origins align with the underclass in the same region and era.

A third is Judas the Galilean (also known as Judas of Galilee), who around 6 CE led a revolt against the Roman census in Galilee—the same area as Jesus. Josephus portrays him as a local leader who rallied common people against taxation, founding a zealous anti-Roman movement. Though described as a “teacher” or “sophist,” his roots were in rural Galilee, and he represented peasant grievances like debt and land loss.


These figures are documented because their actions disrupted the status quo, drawing Roman attention—much like how Jesus’ ministry and execution led to his mentions in Josephus and later Roman historians. For everyday peasants who didn’t rebel or preach, records are virtually nonexistent, as literacy and record-keeping were limited to elites. Archaeological finds, like ossuaries with common names (e.g., Yehohanan, a crucified man from 1st century Jerusalem), provide indirect evidence of lower-class individuals but lack the narrative detail of textual sources.  Overall, this scarcity highlights why any mention of someone like Jesus is historically significant.


Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is unreasonable for several well-established historical and material reasons. Here’s why scholars (both believing and non-believing) almost universally agree that the absence of archaeological remains for Jesus is exactly what we should predict:

1. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher from a rural backwater, and belonged to the peasant/artisan class (tekton = carpenter/builder) in a small Galilean village (Nazareth had maybe 200–400 inhabitants). People of this social status almost never leave any archaeological trace in antiquity. We have no inscriptions, statues, coins, or tombs for 99.9 % of the population of Roman Palestine.

2. He never held political or military power. The only 1st-century individuals from Judea/Galilee who left direct archaeological evidence are kings (Herod the Great, Herodians), governors (Pontius Pilate, Felix), high priests (Caiaphas, Ananus), or rebel leaders who minted coins or built fortresses (Simon bar Giora, John of Gischala). Jesus held none of those roles. He was executed as a criminal and buried (according to the Gospels) in a borrowed rock-cut tomb—exactly the kind of tomb that is reused for generations and leaves no individual marker.

3. No contemporary inscriptions were made for him. In the Roman world, honorary or funerary inscriptions were commissioned by the wealthy or by cities for important people. A poor Galilean preacher would never receive one. The earliest Christian inscriptions (catacombs, graffiti) only appear from the late 2nd century onward, long after Jesus’ death.


4. His followers were marginal and persecuted for decades. For the first 250–300 years, Christians had no political power, no wealth, and often faced hostility. They were in no position to erect monuments or inscriptions to Jesus. Contrast this with Roman emperors or even minor provincial elites who left hundreds of statues and inscriptions.


5. The type of evidence that does survive fits his profile perfectly. 
We actually do have the kind of evidence we would expect: Rapid growth of a religious movement in his name within a few years of his death (attested by Paul’s letters ~48–60 CE). Multiple independent written sources within 40–90 years (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.).

Archaeological corroboration of almost every place and many minor figures mentioned in the Gospels (Caiaphas’ ossuary, Pilate inscription, Pool of Siloam, Capernaum synagogue foundations, etc.).
That is far more than we have for almost any other 1st-century Galilean peasant.

Demanding direct archaeological evidence (a statue, an inscription, a coin, a personal artifact) for Jesus is like demanding the same for any other 1st-century Jewish carpenter from rural Galilee. We don’t have it for a single one of them—yet no matter how pious or virtuous they may have been. The surprise would be if we did have it for Jesus.

So you agree that we don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Are you saying that virtually every historian and scholar of antiquity are wrong?

Where did you study about antiquity, and what degrees do you hold? Are you a working scholar of antiquity or professor of antiquity or historian specifically working actively in your field?

If you aren’t, just tell us your qualifications and specialties and why everyone who is a scholar and historian is wrong?

Why do you think we should have archeological evidence of Jesus? Be specific.

No, I am simply saying:

We don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.

Anyone who is being honest here will admit this fact.

So what?

Earlier posters claimed otherwise. Just trying to dispel mistruths.

Everything about Jesus belief is a mistruth!

1. Almost no serious historian doubts Jesus existed.
Even strongly anti-Christian scholars (Bart Ehrman, Reza Aslan, Maurice Casey, etc.) agree a Jewish preacher named Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30–33 CE. The only people who deny Jesus existed at all are a tiny fringe on the internet.

2. We have more early evidence for Jesus than for almost any other figure from the ancient world.
-The four Gospels were written 35–65 years after Jesus’ death (earlier than most biographies of Alexander the Great or Tiberius Caesar).
-Paul’s letters (which mention Jesus’ brother James and the crucifixion) date to within 20–25 years of the events.
-Non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) confirm the basic outline within 80 years.

“Everything is a mistruth” is impossible to defend.
 If you say the resurrection never happened, that’s a debatable opinion.
 But if you say Jesus never existed, was never crucified, never had followers, etc., you are contradicting the same historical record that tells us Julius Caesar was assassinated or that Socrates drank hemlock.

You can separate “Did the miracles happen?” from “Did anything about Jesus happen?”
Plenty of atheists and agnostics (Ehrman, Aslan, etc.) say:
“I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead or was divine, but the basic story — a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who gathered disciples, clashed with authorities, and was executed — is solid history.”

I get that you don’t believe the miracle claims or that Jesus is God. That’s fair to debate.

But saying everything about him is a lie isn’t supported by historians — even the ones who are atheists. We know more about Jesus, and earlier, than we do about most ancient figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criterion of embarrassment is one of the most useful tools historians use when trying to figure out what actually happened in the life of Jesus (or any ancient figure). It’s important because it helps us cut through theological propaganda and later legend-making.

If a story contains details that would have been embarrassing, inconvenient, or counterproductive for the early Christians who wrote it down, those details are unlikely to have been invented. Why would you make up something that makes your movement look weak, foolish, or wrong—unless it was too well-known to deny?

Early Christianity was trying to convert people. They had every motive to make Jesus look as powerful, wise, and obviously divine as possible from day one. Yet the earliest sources (especially Mark) keep including these awkward, unflattering moments. The best explanation historians have is: those things really happened, and the tradition was too strong to suppress even when it was inconvenient.

That’s why even completely secular, skeptical scholars (Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders, etc.) treat the crucifixion, the baptism by John, the family conflict, and a few other “embarrassing” items as basically bedrock facts. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the main reasons the total “Jesus never existed” position is considered fringe in academia.

The criterion of embarrassment argument sounds perfectly reasonable in theory but utterly collapses under a rigorous analysis of the specific texts and the historical context of early Christianity. It is far from being “one of the most useful tools historians use".

You argue that embarrassing details were too well-known to deny. This presumes an audience that knew the history independently of the Gospels themselves, which is a massive, unwarranted assumption. For most audiences outside of a tiny core group of original followers, the authors were the source of information. They could deny or alter anything they wished.

The issue is that the alleged "embarrassing" facts are only embarrassing if you assume the later theological framework of a divine, all-knowing Christ who was supposed to appear powerful from day one. This anachronistic standard ignores the actual beliefs and concerns of the specific communities that produced the earliest gospels.

Let's dissect the primary examples offered:

The Crucifixion - You call the crucifixion embarrassing. Of course it was … in the Roman world. A messiah being publicly executed as a criminal was a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. However, this is precisely why it had to be addressed, not ignored. It wasn't an inconvenient fact they couldn't suppress; it was the central theological problem they had to solve with sophisticated allegory and prophecy-fulfillment narratives. The claim that Jesus was crucified was essential to the theology they were already developing (salvation through sacrifice = atonement). The "embarrassment" generated the very theological necessity that shaped the narrative. Paul, writing decades earlier than the Gospels, doesn't treat the cross as an inconvenient fact he wishes he could hide; he treats it as the proud center of his preaching. It wasn't an historical embarrassment; it was a theological starting point.

The baptism by John - "Why would God's son need a baptism of repentance from sins, and why be baptized by a lesser figure (John)?" historians ask. But again, this misunderstands the Markan community's potential beliefs. Mark 1:9-11 doesn't say Jesus was being baptized for sin. The narrative exists primarily to establish divine identification and fulfill prophecy (Isaiah 40:3). If anything, the "embarrassment" argument is defeated by the subsequent gospels, who felt this supposed embarrassment and immediately modified the story to mitigate it (eg, Matthew adds John's protestation, "I need to be baptized by you..."). The fact that the later gospels felt the need to change the story shows that earlier authors could have done so too. The fact that Mark didn't suggests it wasn't an embarrassment to him, but fulfilled a different narrative purpose.

Mainstream scholars who use the criterion (Dale Allison, John Meier, Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, etc.) treat it as a secondary, supporting argument at best. The primary criteria remain:
1. Multiple independent attestation
2. Coherence with undisputed data
3. Dissimilarity is largely abandoned or heavily qualified
4. Aramaic substratum / Palestinian context

In practice, the baptism and crucifixion pass on multiple attestation and contextual plausibility.

The women at the tomb passes on multiple attestation and the difficulty of deriving it from Scripture.

Embarrassment is an extra nudge, not the foundation.