Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

I don’t rely on experts out of a need for confirmation, but rather to synthesize the current academic consensus. In the fields of secular history and classical studies, the consensus isn't built on "proof" in the mathematical sense, but on the probability of the available data.


The Nature of Ancient Evidence

For almost anyone living 2,000 years ago who wasn't an Emperor or a wealthy Senator, we have zero "independent" physical evidence (like archeological remains or contemporary DNA).

No "Primary" Sources: We have no writings from the person themselves and no eyewitness accounts written at the exact time of the events.

The "Standard" for Antiquity: If we applied a "zero-bias" rule to all ancient figures, we would have to doubt the existence of figures like Socrates, Hannibal, or Boudica, whose lives are also documented primarily by people with specific agendas or writing decades later.

Why Historians Lean Toward Existence

Most secular historians (not just theologians) argue for a "Historical Jesus" because it is actually harder to explain the data without him. They generally point to two main pillars:

The Pauline Epistles: Written within 20–30 years of the traditional date of death. Paul mentions meeting James, "the brother of the Lord." Historians argue it’s unlikely a fabricated myth would involve a living sibling known to the community.

The Criterion of Embarrassment: Early accounts include details that were actually "problems" for the early movement (like the person being from Nazareth—a place of no importance—or being executed as a criminal). If the story were a pure invention, creators usually "smooth out" those inconvenient details.

The probability is that he maybe existed, but no one can be 100% certain because we don't have any evidence.

[Anonymous]

And you haven't presented any historians who looked at independent primary sources. Mostly theologians plus one classics guy who looked at the bible.

The "academic consensus" inside the bible bubble is that he existed. It'd be pretty awkward if it didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

I don’t rely on experts out of a need for confirmation, but rather to synthesize the current academic consensus. In the fields of secular history and classical studies, the consensus isn't built on "proof" in the mathematical sense, but on the probability of the available data.


The Nature of Ancient Evidence

For almost anyone living 2,000 years ago who wasn't an Emperor or a wealthy Senator, we have zero "independent" physical evidence (like archeological remains or contemporary DNA).

No "Primary" Sources: We have no writings from the person themselves and no eyewitness accounts written at the exact time of the events.

The "Standard" for Antiquity: If we applied a "zero-bias" rule to all ancient figures, we would have to doubt the existence of figures like Socrates, Hannibal, or Boudica, whose lives are also documented primarily by people with specific agendas or writing decades later.

Why Historians Lean Toward Existence

Most secular historians (not just theologians) argue for a "Historical Jesus" because it is actually harder to explain the data without him. They generally point to two main pillars:

The Pauline Epistles: Written within 20–30 years of the traditional date of death. Paul mentions meeting James, "the brother of the Lord." Historians argue it’s unlikely a fabricated myth would involve a living sibling known to the community.

The Criterion of Embarrassment: Early accounts include details that were actually "problems" for the early movement (like the person being from Nazareth—a place of no importance—or being executed as a criminal). If the story were a pure invention, creators usually "smooth out" those inconvenient details.

The probability is that he maybe existed, but no one can be 100% certain because we don't have any evidence.

Gee it's too bad Jesus didn't go in for graven images. We could have found Inri Coins and Christcoin in archaeological sites. Well at least we will know Caesar and TheDon existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

I don’t rely on experts out of a need for confirmation, but rather to synthesize the current academic consensus. In the fields of secular history and classical studies, the consensus isn't built on "proof" in the mathematical sense, but on the probability of the available data.


The Nature of Ancient Evidence

For almost anyone living 2,000 years ago who wasn't an Emperor or a wealthy Senator, we have zero "independent" physical evidence (like archeological remains or contemporary DNA).

No "Primary" Sources: We have no writings from the person themselves and no eyewitness accounts written at the exact time of the events.

The "Standard" for Antiquity: If we applied a "zero-bias" rule to all ancient figures, we would have to doubt the existence of figures like Socrates, Hannibal, or Boudica, whose lives are also documented primarily by people with specific agendas or writing decades later.

Why Historians Lean Toward Existence

Most secular historians (not just theologians) argue for a "Historical Jesus" because it is actually harder to explain the data without him. They generally point to two main pillars:

The Pauline Epistles: Written within 20–30 years of the traditional date of death. Paul mentions meeting James, "the brother of the Lord." Historians argue it’s unlikely a fabricated myth would involve a living sibling known to the community.

The Criterion of Embarrassment: Early accounts include details that were actually "problems" for the early movement (like the person being from Nazareth—a place of no importance—or being executed as a criminal). If the story were a pure invention, creators usually "smooth out" those inconvenient details.

The probability is that he maybe existed, but no one can be 100% certain because we don't have any evidence.

So did Peter exist? Is that why the Vatican Basilica is where it is? Are those his bones they found?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

I don’t rely on experts out of a need for confirmation, but rather to synthesize the current academic consensus. In the fields of secular history and classical studies, the consensus isn't built on "proof" in the mathematical sense, but on the probability of the available data.


The Nature of Ancient Evidence

For almost anyone living 2,000 years ago who wasn't an Emperor or a wealthy Senator, we have zero "independent" physical evidence (like archeological remains or contemporary DNA).

No "Primary" Sources: We have no writings from the person themselves and no eyewitness accounts written at the exact time of the events.

The "Standard" for Antiquity: If we applied a "zero-bias" rule to all ancient figures, we would have to doubt the existence of figures like Socrates, Hannibal, or Boudica, whose lives are also documented primarily by people with specific agendas or writing decades later.

Why Historians Lean Toward Existence

Most secular historians (not just theologians) argue for a "Historical Jesus" because it is actually harder to explain the data without him. They generally point to two main pillars:

The Pauline Epistles: Written within 20–30 years of the traditional date of death. Paul mentions meeting James, "the brother of the Lord." Historians argue it’s unlikely a fabricated myth would involve a living sibling known to the community.

The Criterion of Embarrassment: Early accounts include details that were actually "problems" for the early movement (like the person being from Nazareth—a place of no importance—or being executed as a criminal). If the story were a pure invention, creators usually "smooth out" those inconvenient details.

The probability is that he maybe existed, but no one can be 100% certain because we don't have any evidence.

So did Peter exist? Is that why the Vatican Basilica is where it is? Are those his bones they found?

Maybe. Maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

In the world of professional academia—among both secular and religious historians—this isn't actually a debated topic. The consensus is overwhelming that Jesus was a real person. Even the most skeptical secular scholars agree on the "Historical Jesus." The Big Two: Almost all historians agree on two facts: Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and he was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Dr. E.P. Sanders (Highly Respected Liberal Scholar)
Sanders is considered one of the giants of 20th-century historical research.

"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity."

We have almost no "paperwork" for anyone from the 1st century. We have more copies of the New Testament documents than we do for the writings of Plato or Caesar.

While we haven't found "Jesus' house," archaeology has confirmed the existence of nearly every person, location, and political title mentioned in the Gospels (from the Pool of Siloam to the "Pilate Stone" confirming Pilate’s rank).

This is really interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While we haven't found "Jesus' house," archaeology has confirmed the existence of nearly every person, location, and political title mentioned in the Gospels (from the Pool of Siloam to the "Pilate Stone" confirming Pilate’s rank).

This is akin to if the writers of the Batman comics said "New York City" and used real locations in their stories instead of Gotham City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

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 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.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

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 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.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

Sounds you're suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount became famous later, after Paul's major influence on Christianity, because of its strong message. Maybe Paul didn't even know about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

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 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.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

Sounds you're suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount became famous later, after Paul's major influence on Christianity, because of its strong message. Maybe Paul didn't even know about it.

Correct. The parables, the birth/infancy narrative, etc are only found in the Gospels, which were fabricated after the fall of the temple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

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 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.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

Sounds you're suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount became famous later, after Paul's major influence on Christianity, because of its strong message. Maybe Paul didn't even know about it.

Correct. The parables, the birth/infancy narrative, etc are only found in the Gospels, which were fabricated after the fall of the temple.

Critical scholarship supports development and transmission, not wholesale fabrication. Paul didn’t invent Christianity—but neither did the Gospel writers invent Jesus. They preserved different layers of the same early movement, serving different purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

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 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.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

Sounds you're suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount became famous later, after Paul's major influence on Christianity, because of its strong message. Maybe Paul didn't even know about it.

Correct. The parables, the birth/infancy narrative, etc are only found in the Gospels, which were fabricated after the fall of the temple.

Critical scholarship supports development and transmission, not wholesale fabrication. Paul didn’t invent Christianity—but neither did the Gospel writers invent Jesus. They preserved different layers of the same early movement, serving different purposes.

No one said Paul invented Christianity.

The gospels invented a historical Jesus.

[Anonymous]

The gospels allegorized a historical Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gospels allegorized a historical Jesus.

Anonymous authors writing 100s of miles away in another language... rrrriiiiiggghhhhtttt 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gospels allegorized a historical Jesus.

Anonymous authors writing 100s of miles away in another language... rrrriiiiiggghhhhtttt 🙄

And who were not part of the Jewish community in Judea.