Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

There are zero surviving writings from any religious contemporary of the Buddha who personally knew him or claims to have met him, but historians, scholars, classists, etc, believe he existed.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if an ancient a guy named Jesus existed or not. He was certainly not the son of God, because there is no God.

The question of whether God exists is one of the most profound and debated in human history, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no empirical, universally agreed-upon proof or disproof—it’s not like verifying a scientific fact or historical event.

You claim there is no God?

To defend it you would need to show that every possible definition of ‘God’ contains a formal contradiction or is otherwise impossible. Most philosophers (theist and atheist alike) agree that a logically coherent concept of God is possible, even if they think it’s unlikely to be actual.

So the strong claim that there is no God is very hard to prove and is held by only a minority of professional philosophers of religion.

Atheism is a reasonable conclusion many people reach, but it is not the settled, slam-dunk result of evidence the way heliocentrism or evolution are.

Declaring ‘there is no God’ in this strong sense is more like saying ‘string theory is definitely false’ or ‘libertarian free will is impossible’ — it’s a substantive philosophical position, not an obvious truth everyone is obliged to accept.

Sure - Go ahead and think whatever you like. There is no God.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.

Jesus would be disgusted by MAGA

Jesus was a socialist

The Gospels were written long after Jesus's death and are unreliable, contradictory, and heavily influenced by theological agendas rather than historical accuracy

Some theories suggest that the Jesus story was created by combining elements from various pre-Christian pagan mystery cults, such as Mithras and Osiris

The popular claims that Jesus is “just a retelling” of Mithras or Osiris/Horus come almost entirely from 19th- and early-20th-century fringe books and modern internet memes, not from mainstream scholarship in classics, Egyptology, or the study of religion.


Scholarly consensus:

Classicists (Roger Beck, Manfred Clauss, Richard Gordon) and historians of Roman religion: The Roman Mithras cult has no crucifixion, no resurrection, no 12 disciples, no virgin birth, no “rising on the third day.”

Egyptologists (Jan Assmann, Erik Hornung, Mark Smith): The Osiris–Isis–Horus myth is a story of royal succession, death, and underworld rule, not a dying-and-rising savior who atones for humanity’s sins and offers personal salvation through faith.

New Testament scholars (Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, etc.): While there are broad typological parallels that any ancient Mediterranean dying-and-rising deity shares (death → new life), the specific Jesus–Mithras/Horus parallels almost all collapse under examination.

Where the internet myths came from
-Gerald Massey (1907), Kersey Graves (1875), and Tom Harpur (2004) – books that are not cited by any university department of classics or Egyptology.
-The 2007 viral film Zeitgeist, which copied many of those 19th-century claims verbatim and added new errors.
-Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) and similar modern mythicists.

There are some very broad, generic parallels that apply to dozens of ancient deities (a god associated with fertility dies and comes back in some form; spring festivals; sacred meals, etc.). But the detailed, specific story of Jesus (virgin birth in Bethlehem, ministry with 12 disciples, crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, bodily resurrection on the third day witnessed by named individuals, etc.) has no close structural parallel in the Mithras or Osiris cults according to the surviving ancient evidence and modern scholarship.


Claim You Often Hear Online:

Born of a virgin on December 25

False. Mithras is born fully-grown from solid rock (petra genetrix). No mother, no virginity issue.

False. False. Osiris/Horus is conceived normally by Nut and Geb; Horus by Isis and the re-assembled Osiris.


Mother named Mary / Maia

False. Mithras has no mother at all.
False: Isis is the mother of Horus, but her name is never “Mary.”

Had 12 disciples

False. Mithras has no disciples; initiates belong to seven grades (Raven, Bride, Soldier, Lion, etc.).

False. Horus has four semi-divine sons or “followers” in some funerary texts, not 12.


Performed miracles, healed the sick

Mithras: Almost no evidence. One late relief might show water miraculously springing from rock, but very rare.

Osiris: Horus does fight Set and has magical contests, but not a ministry of healing the sick and blind.


Crucified / died and rose after 3 days

Mithras: False. Mithras never dies in the Roman cult. He ascends to heaven alive after a banquet with Sol.

Osiris: Osiris is murdered, dismembered, and reassembled; he becomes ruler of the underworld, not earth. Horus never dies.

Resurrection celebrated at Easter / spring

Mithras: False. The main Mithraic festival was 25 December (Natalis Invicti), not a resurrection feast.

Osiris: Egyptian festivals for Osiris were in autumn (Khoiak); spring was more associated with vegetation gods like Adonis or Attis.


Called “the Good Shepherd,” “Lamb,” etc.

Mithras: False. Mithras is never called a shepherd or lamb.

Osiris: Osiris is sometimes linked to grain/vegetation, but not a shepherd or lamb.

Last meal with disciples before ascending

Mithras: A sacred banquet (often shown with Sol) is repeated regularly; not a one-time “last supper.”

Osiris: No last-meal motif.

Don’t get your information from memes. It never ends well.

[img]

[/img]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if an ancient a guy named Jesus existed or not. He was certainly not the son of God, because there is no God.

The question of whether God exists is one of the most profound and debated in human history, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no empirical, universally agreed-upon proof or disproof—it’s not like verifying a scientific fact or historical event.

You claim there is no God?

To defend it you would need to show that every possible definition of ‘God’ contains a formal contradiction or is otherwise impossible. Most philosophers (theist and atheist alike) agree that a logically coherent concept of God is possible, even if they think it’s unlikely to be actual.

So the strong claim that there is no God is very hard to prove and is held by only a minority of professional philosophers of religion.

Atheism is a reasonable conclusion many people reach, but it is not the settled, slam-dunk result of evidence the way heliocentrism or evolution are.

Declaring ‘there is no God’ in this strong sense is more like saying ‘string theory is definitely false’ or ‘libertarian free will is impossible’ — it’s a substantive philosophical position, not an obvious truth everyone is obliged to accept.

Sure - Go ahead and think whatever you like. There is no God.

I’m not here to argue anyone into faith (or out of atheism). People arrive at their views for all kinds of reasons: philosophy, science, personal experience, history, or just the way the world feels to them.

You want to argue about faith, and I don’t think that’s reasonable on any level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

And....no one is here claiming that Pythagoras was 100% real.

No evidence is no evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.

Jesus was made up -- not of whole cloth, because a messiah was predicted. But those were the olden days, before modern science and running water and a bunch of stuff that we now take for granted.

Kids can't imagine life without the internet. Neither can I! Remember those old movies where people would wait impatiently for the mailman to come?

No he was not made up. His existence and the words he spoke have been proven. What is likely made up is that he was the son of God. Probably not. Then again, how did such an extraordinary person come to have such extraordinary advice on how to be a good person?

In any event he was an amazing man and if we all followed his teachings the world would be a better place.

Link?

Don't hold your breath waiting.

And Ehrman undermines his own argument by stating something as true, when it is not in fact true. Not every scholar believes in a historical Jesus, and there are plenty of scholars now that have made well-reasoned arguments to the contrary. Ehrman also acknowledges there is not evidence, and then he makes his own specious speculation.

Exactly. No evidence. Just stories.

“Just stories” is exactly how we know almost every non-emperor figure from antiquity.

-Socrates: no contemporary documents, only “stories” from Plato and Xenophon 10–40 years later.
-Hannibal: no Carthaginian records survive, only “stories” from Roman enemies 50–150 years later.
-Apollonius of Tyana: miracle-working philosopher, one primary biography written 150 years after his death.
Nobody in classics or ancient history calls these people “mythical” on that basis.

Jesus has more and earlier attestation than most 1st-century Jews.

-Within 20–30 years: multiple letters from Paul (undisputed: Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) that casually mention Jesus was born as a human, of a woman, descended from David, had a brother named James (whom Paul met), taught specific things, was crucified under Roman authority.

-Within 40–60 years: Mark’s gospel (used by Matthew and Luke).

-Within 60–80 years: a Jewish historian (Josephus) twice mentions Jesus and his brother James.
That timeline beats almost every comparable figure from the Roman provinces.

The “stories” contain details early Christians had no reason to invent and every reason to suppress
(historians call this the criterion of embarrassment):
-Jesus baptized by John (implies he was John’s subordinate and needed repentance).
-Denied by his own disciples.
- Crucified (a shameful, cursed death in both Roman and Jewish eyes).
-Family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21).
People making up a hero do not write these things.

Independent, hostile sources confirm the basic outline
-Josephus (Jewish, ~93 CE): Jesus executed by Pilate, brother named James, followers still exist.
-Tacitus (Roman, ~116 CE): “Christus” executed under Pontius Pilate in Judea, source of the Christian movement.
These are not Christians repeating their own stories; these are outsiders who had zero interest in promoting Christianity.

A real movement exploded in Jerusalem within months of the supposed events
Thousands of Jews suddenly start worshipping a crucified criminal as the Messiah — in the same city where he was publicly executed. That doesn’t happen with a purely mythical figure. It requires a real, recent, traumatic event that needs explaining.

So no, it’s not “no evidence, just stories.”
It’s multiple, early, independent sources — some hostile — that align on a core set of facts, using the exact same kinds of evidence historians use for everyone else in antiquity.

If you reject that evidence for Jesus, you has to reject the existence of Socrates, Hannibal, Boudicca, Arminius, and dozens of other ancient figures on the exact same grounds. And literally no professional historian does that.
That’s the problem with the “no evidence, just stories” line. It’s not skepticism. It’s a double standard.

And what evidence is there for God? You know, Jesus's Dad.

There is no proof for God in the way there is proof for gravity or that 2 + 2 = 4.

There are arguments (cosmological, fine-tuning, moral, etc.), some of them pretty sophisticated, but none of them are universally accepted as conclusive.

Reasonable, educated people look at the same evidence and arguments and still land on both sides.

I’m not here to convince you. You asked for proof; I’m just telling you the actual state of play: there isn’t any proof that settles the question once and for all.

That’s why billions of people believe and billions don’t, and the philosophers are still arguing about it after 2,500 years.

Believe whatever you find most reasonable. It’s your call, not mine.

Except there is ZERO data supporting gods and plenty to support the existence of gravity or 2+2=4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

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

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

The information posted in the memes that people tout online as evidence are patently false, ie, Jesus and Mithras and Horus and a host of other gods had virgin births, disciples, had ministries that cared for the poor and weak, were crucified and rose from the dead- all false.

That has nothing to do with faith or belief. It’s people lying in meme form, and other people being gullible enough to believe it and post it online and spread it around as some amazing truth.

Example:

Divine Parentage and Miraculous Births: Both figures are described as having a divine father and a mortal mother. Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Semele, with myths involving Zeus sewing the fetus into his thigh after Semele’s death.  Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, as per the Gospels. Some sources note that Dionysus’s birth wasn’t strictly “virgin” in the Christian sense, but both involve supernatural elements.

Association with Wine and Miracles: Dionysus is fundamentally the god of wine, with legends of him turning water into wine or creating vines miraculously.  Jesus’s first miracle in the Gospel of John is turning water into wine at the Wedding at Cana, which some interpret as a symbolic nod to Dionysian themes, though Jesus’s act emphasizes moderation and divine provision rather than revelry.

Death and Resurrection Themes: Dionysus features in myths of dismemberment by Titans and subsequent rebirth, symbolizing seasonal renewal and the cycle of vines.  Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection after three days is a core Christian belief, representing victory over sin and death. While both involve revival, Dionysus’s story is more about ecstatic ritual and nature, not atonement for humanity. 

Persecution and Triumph: Both faced opposition from authorities. Dionysus was persecuted in myths like Euripides’ The Bacchae, where King Pentheus resists his cult.  Jesus was crucified by Roman and Jewish leaders. In both cases, their followers experience transformation or enlightenment.

Titles and Roles: Dionysus is sometimes called a “savior” or “divine child” in hymns, and he spreads his rites as a wandering figure.  Jesus is the Messiah and teacher who travels preaching salvation. However, Dionysus’s “salvation” often involves liberation through intoxication and madness, contrasting Jesus’s moral teachings.

These parallels have fueled theories, like those in comparative mythology, suggesting early Christianity absorbed elements from pagan cults, though most historians see them as independent developments.



It’s embarrassing. It’s the farthest thing from actual intelligent conversation or debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul is writing 20 years after Jesus’s death — extremely early by ancient-history standards.

Paul says explicitly that he:
• Met James, the brother of the Lord
• Met Peter
• Joined the movement that already existed shortly after the crucifixion

Historians ask:

How is there a movement centered around a non-existent person within a single generation, led by his “brother”?

Mythicists try to argue that “brother” meant “spiritual brother,” but this collapses because:
• Paul uses the term differently elsewhere
• It appears specifically in a context of identifying a biological family connection

This alone is one of mythicism’s biggest fatal blows.

Historians look for multiple independent attestations — stories that come from different lines of tradition.

For Jesus we have:
• Paul (independent of the Gospels)
• Mark (earliest Gospel)
• Q-like material (sayings source used by Matthew/Luke)
• M material and L material (unique to Matthew and Luke)
• Josephus
• Tacitus
• Early rabbinic traditions

These sources disagree on plenty — which proves they didn’t all copy each other.
But they agree that:
• Jesus was a real Jewish preacher
• He had followers
• He was executed by Roman authority

When multiple hostile or indifferent sources confirm a person existed, historians treat it as strong evidence.

Ancient writers rarely invent things that weaken their own case.

For Jesus:
• Being executed as a criminal is not something early Christians would invent.
• His family not fully believing in him early on.
• His baptism by John (implies inferiority).

These are embarrassing, meaning historically likely.

A mythic figure normally has:
• Glorious birth narrative
• Death in battle
• Triumph

Jesus has:
• Obscure origins
• A humiliating execution

That’s the opposite of typical myth creation.

If Jesus never existed, why did a Jewish sect form instantly around the belief that he was the Messiah?

Mythic heroes usually develop over centuries (e.g., Hercules, Romulus).
But Jesus’s movement exploded:
• In Jerusalem, where he supposedly lived
• Within a few years of his death

Movements based on nonexistent people don’t spring up immediately among people who supposedly knew them.

Here’s the harsh academic truth:
Mythicism fails the basic rules of ancient historical method.

Historians ask:
• What is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence?
• Does this explanation require extra assumptions?

Mythicism requires:
• Reinterpreting Paul unusually
• Dismissing all embarrassing material
• Suggesting coordinated literary invention without motive
• Ignoring how Jewish messianic movements actually worked

It becomes more complicated than simply accepting that a preacher lived and was executed.

When Carrier and Price present mythicist arguments, historians from:
• Princeton
• Yale
• Harvard
• Brown
• Cambridge
• Oxford

…all say the same thing:

“This isn’t how ancient history works.”

Mythicism relies on special pleading, hyper-skepticism, and reading texts against normal linguistic/historical usage.

That’s why scholars in the field consider it fringe.

Tacitus (Roman historian) writes about:
• “Christus” who was “executed under Pontius Pilate”
• The origin of the movement in Judea

Tacitus hated Christians.
He had no reason to repeat Christian myths — he got his information from Roman archives or non-Christian sources.

Josephus (Jewish historian) also mentions Jesus twice.
Even removing Christian edits, the core reference remains widely accepted.

Hostile witnesses rarely treat fictional characters as real recent people.

Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist):

“There is no serious historian who doubts Jesus existed.”

Paula Fredriksen (Jewish, non-Christian):

“I don’t know any full professor of ancient history who doubts his existence.”

Maurice Casey (agnostic):

“Mythicism is an embarrassment to real scholarship.”

Michael Grant (secular classical historian):

“The denial of Jesus’s existence is not tenable.”

When even scholars opposed to Christian theology uphold his existence, that’s telling.

Modern mythicism arose from:
• 19th-century anti-Christian activism
• Non-scholarly writers
• People pushing sociopolitical agendas

It didn’t come out of universities or trained historians.

That origin matters.

Why Scholars Reject Mythicism

Because it requires ignoring:
• Early eyewitness-proximate sources
• Embarrassing historical details
• Hostile sources referencing Jesus
• Historical method
• How ancient movements form

…and instead replacing them with a complex conspiracy-like theory without evidence.

The simplest, strongest-supported conclusion is:
A Jewish preacher named Jesus lived and was executed.

Everything else Christians claim is a separate debate — miracles, theology, divinity — but the man himself?
For historians, that part is not controversial.

We have stories about him and/or his followers, but none are written by non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge.

That doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist—historians overwhelmingly conclude he did, based on the available evidence and comparisons to other ancient figures.

Why is the lack of contemporary non-religious sources isn’t unusual, you may wonder? —>
In antiquity, written records were rare, often lost, and biased toward elites like emperors or generals. Most people from that era—including teachers, philosophers, and rebels—lack firsthand contemporary accounts. For example:

Socrates (died 399 BCE): No writings from his lifetime survive; everything we know comes from his students Plato and Xenophon, written decades later. Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE): Contemporary writers existed, but none of their works survive; our main sources are from centuries later, like Arrian (2nd century CE). Spartacus (died 71 BCE): No contemporary records at all; details come from later Roman historians like Plutarch (1st-2nd century CE). Even Julius Caesar (died 44 BCE): While he wrote his own accounts, many details rely on later biographies, and some claims (like his famous campaigns) lack direct corroboration from enemies or neutrals. 


Historians accept these figures as real because the cumulative evidence (later writings, archaeological hints, cultural impact) points to a historical core, even if details are embellished. The same logic applies to Jesus: absence of perfect evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially for a lower-class Galilean preacher in a remote Roman province.


Christian Sources (Closest to Contemporaries)

Paul’s Letters (written ~50-60 CE): Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, never met Jesus but knew his brother James and disciple Peter personally (Galatians 1:18-19). He references Jesus’ teachings (e.g., on divorce), last supper, crucifixion under Roman authority, and resurrection claims. These are within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death—earlier than many sources for other figures. 

Gospels (Mark ~70 CE; Matthew/Luke ~80-90 CE; John ~90-100 CE): These draw from oral traditions and earlier written sources (like the hypothetical “Q” document). They include “embarrassing” details unlikely to be invented, like Jesus’ baptism (implying he needed repentance) or his cry of abandonment on the cross. 


Non-Christian Sources (Independent Corroboration)
These come from Jewish and Roman writers who had no stake in promoting Christianity. They’re later but reference Jesus as a historical figure:

Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 CE): In Antiquities of the Jews, he calls Jesus a “wise man” who performed “startling deeds,” was crucified by Pilate on Jewish leaders’ accusations, and had followers who believed he rose from the dead. A shorter passage mentions James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” While parts may have Christian interpolations, scholars agree the core references are authentic.  

Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 CE): In Annals, he describes “Christus” executed under Pilate during Tiberius’ reign, noting his followers (Christians) were persecuted by Nero. This is a hostile source confirming basic facts. 

Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, ~112 CE): In a letter to Emperor Trajan, he reports Christians worshiping “Christus” as a god and meeting to honor him. 

Others like Suetonius (~120 CE) mention disturbances caused by “Chrestus” (likely Jesus) among Jews in Rome, and Lucian of Samosata (~166 CE) mocks Christians for following a crucified “sophist.” 
These align on key points: Jesus was a real Jewish teacher executed by Romans around 30 CE, founding a persistent movement.

The vast majority of experts—including non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Paula Fredriksen (Jewish), and others—affirm a historical Jesus existed as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher baptized by John, who gathered disciples and was crucified.


Mythicism is a minority view, often compared to denying the Holocaust or moon landing in academic circles—interesting but not credible due to overreliance on silence and ignoring how movements like Christianity arise from real events.

If you like being a peer of Holocaust deniers, and moon landing deniers, then by all means, continue with denial of the existence of Jesus Christ as a man who walked the earth.

We have plenty of physical evidence and contemporaneous reports of the Holocaust and moon landing. Zero evidence of Jesus.

We only have stories retold about Jesus and/or his followers - none are written by non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge.

[Anonymous]

It’s embarrassing. It’s the farthest thing from actual intelligent conversation or debate.

Almost as embarrassing as mindlessly copying and pasting from wikipedia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.

Jesus was made up -- not of whole cloth, because a messiah was predicted. But those were the olden days, before modern science and running water and a bunch of stuff that we now take for granted.

Kids can't imagine life without the internet. Neither can I! Remember those old movies where people would wait impatiently for the mailman to come?

No he was not made up. His existence and the words he spoke have been proven. What is likely made up is that he was the son of God. Probably not. Then again, how did such an extraordinary person come to have such extraordinary advice on how to be a good person?

In any event he was an amazing man and if we all followed his teachings the world would be a better place.

Link?

Don't hold your breath waiting.

And Ehrman undermines his own argument by stating something as true, when it is not in fact true. Not every scholar believes in a historical Jesus, and there are plenty of scholars now that have made well-reasoned arguments to the contrary. Ehrman also acknowledges there is not evidence, and then he makes his own specious speculation.

Exactly. No evidence. Just stories.

“Just stories” is exactly how we know almost every non-emperor figure from antiquity.

-Socrates: no contemporary documents, only “stories” from Plato and Xenophon 10–40 years later.
-Hannibal: no Carthaginian records survive, only “stories” from Roman enemies 50–150 years later.
-Apollonius of Tyana: miracle-working philosopher, one primary biography written 150 years after his death.
Nobody in classics or ancient history calls these people “mythical” on that basis.

Jesus has more and earlier attestation than most 1st-century Jews.

-Within 20–30 years: multiple letters from Paul (undisputed: Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) that casually mention Jesus was born as a human, of a woman, descended from David, had a brother named James (whom Paul met), taught specific things, was crucified under Roman authority.

-Within 40–60 years: Mark’s gospel (used by Matthew and Luke).

-Within 60–80 years: a Jewish historian (Josephus) twice mentions Jesus and his brother James.
That timeline beats almost every comparable figure from the Roman provinces.

The “stories” contain details early Christians had no reason to invent and every reason to suppress
(historians call this the criterion of embarrassment):
-Jesus baptized by John (implies he was John’s subordinate and needed repentance).
-Denied by his own disciples.
- Crucified (a shameful, cursed death in both Roman and Jewish eyes).
-Family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21).
People making up a hero do not write these things.

Independent, hostile sources confirm the basic outline
-Josephus (Jewish, ~93 CE): Jesus executed by Pilate, brother named James, followers still exist.
-Tacitus (Roman, ~116 CE): “Christus” executed under Pontius Pilate in Judea, source of the Christian movement.
These are not Christians repeating their own stories; these are outsiders who had zero interest in promoting Christianity.

A real movement exploded in Jerusalem within months of the supposed events
Thousands of Jews suddenly start worshipping a crucified criminal as the Messiah — in the same city where he was publicly executed. That doesn’t happen with a purely mythical figure. It requires a real, recent, traumatic event that needs explaining.

So no, it’s not “no evidence, just stories.”
It’s multiple, early, independent sources — some hostile — that align on a core set of facts, using the exact same kinds of evidence historians use for everyone else in antiquity.

If you reject that evidence for Jesus, you has to reject the existence of Socrates, Hannibal, Boudicca, Arminius, and dozens of other ancient figures on the exact same grounds. And literally no professional historian does that.
That’s the problem with the “no evidence, just stories” line. It’s not skepticism. It’s a double standard.

And what evidence is there for God? You know, Jesus's Dad.

There is no proof for God in the way there is proof for gravity or that 2 + 2 = 4.

There are arguments (cosmological, fine-tuning, moral, etc.), some of them pretty sophisticated, but none of them are universally accepted as conclusive.

Reasonable, educated people look at the same evidence and arguments and still land on both sides.

I’m not here to convince you. You asked for proof; I’m just telling you the actual state of play: there isn’t any proof that settles the question once and for all.

That’s why billions of people believe and billions don’t, and the philosophers are still arguing about it after 2,500 years.

Believe whatever you find most reasonable. It’s your call, not mine.

Except there is ZERO data supporting gods and plenty to support the existence of gravity or 2+2=4.

The existence of God — in the classical philosophical or theological sense — cannot be definitively proven or disproven by empirical data or the scientific method. Here’s why, broken down clearly:

Most serious arguments (both theistic and atheistic) are about a necessary, uncaused, immaterial, eternal, personal being who is the ultimate ground of all reality (the God of classical theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most philosophy of religion).
This concept of God is outside space, time, and matter by definition.


Science only deals with contingent, physical, measurable phenomena within the universe.

A being that transcends the universe (i.e., not made of matter/energy, not located in space-time) is by definition outside the domain that scientific instruments and experiments can access.

You cannot put “pure act,” “necessary being,” or “the ground of all existence” under a microscope or in a particle accelerator.

This is not a limitation of current technology — it is a category error, like trying to use a ruler to measure temperature or a scale to weigh an idea.

Data and science can:

1. Refute specific religious claims that make testable predictions
→ Young-Earth creationism (refuted by radiometric dating, cosmology, geology)
→ Global flood ~4,000 years ago (refuted by geology, genetics, archaeology)
→ Prayer healing cancer at statistically significant rates (large-scale studies show no effect beyond placebo)
2. Make certain conceptions of God less plausible
→ A deity who constantly intervenes in trivial ways (e.g., finding parking spots) becomes improbable under a universe governed by consistent natural laws.
3. Provide evidence that is compatible with theism or atheism, but not decisive either way
→ Fine-tuning of physical constants (used by theists)
→ Evolutionary suffering and “hiddenness” of God (used by atheists)
None of these move the needle from possible → proven or possible → impossible.

No dataset will ever appear that lets us say “Here is the spreadsheet that proves/disproves God.”
The question ultimately lies in metaphysics, not measurement.
Most professional philosophers of religion (the people who study this full-time) are theists (~70% in recent PhilPapers surveys), but a large minority are atheists, and almost none claim the issue is empirically settled. That distribution itself shows the limits of data.