Why do some people make the absolutely absurd and desperate assertion that “Jesus existed” ...?
When they have NO evidence whatsoever!
Take a look at what they consider "evidence" and we'll see just how laughable it really is;
Some actually claim that the Roman writers Tacitus & Suetonius make up some of the "evidence". Despite the fact that Tacitus was born 70 years after the supposed death of christ, and Suetonius was born 12 years later! Hardly "eyewitness" accounts. Not to mention that NEITHER of them actually mention christ or anyone who had met or heard him, they merely mention Christians. Which is the equivalent of someone claiming they were writing about Zeus, since they met some of his followers.
Some claim that official correspondence of Governor Pliny the Younger to Emporer Trajan, is evidence. Yet again, these letters take place DECADES after the supposed death of christ, and never mention him by name. They ONLY mention christians.
Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion to name a few more so called "historians" but these men were nothing of the sort. They were more like court reporters that wrote what OTHERS told them. Mostly propaganda that made their empire look good for the masses.
This laughable stuff is what apologists call "evidence". And you, reading it, are supposed to swallow their tripe whole. And if you don't then you "don't know what you're talking about" which is ironic when you think about it.
So, why would they claim that this, clearly, fictional character, ever existed?
YES! Just the kind of nonsense I was talking about!
Great link! And it shows just how gullible some people can be if their education level is low enough that they have NO idea how to research history properly.
than you, coming from you that is quite a compliment!
Clearly, your reading skills are lacking. There are NO actual "historical" accounts of jesus.
They're ALL lies. Tacitus's ONLY sentence is a known forgery by the monk Eusibius in the 3d century. EVERY so-called "historical" account of christ, is likewise, a forgery or a lie.
You ARE kidding right? I'm invoking Poe's law on your answer because NO one could be this dense and still have enough brain matter left to post online...
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
If they weren't busy lying for 'jesus', what would they be doing? Mischief, most foul.
BTW: really nice comeback, and here's a star.
- ?Lv 49 years ago
From wikipedia, and from looking at the sources, it seems you are not tottally right
A very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, but that view is a distinct minority, and a somewhat recent argument. Karl Rahner has observed that "in antiquity, even the most bitter enemies of Christianity never expressed doubts about the existence of Jesus." The Cambridge companion to Jesus states that the "farfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."
Prominent critics like John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins say that while the Gospel accounts are no more historical than any other myth (Dawkins likens them to an ancient Da Vinci Code) the odds are Jesus did exist.
WOW dawkins belives that jesus exists,
- godlessLv 79 years ago
Christianity just told the story the best of resurrection after a violent death, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.
"Christians believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and they say that we are the ones that need help?"
— Dan Barker (slightly redacted)Source(s): http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist? http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchr... http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/source.html http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
- Martin SLv 79 years ago
Even most of the skeptics believe that a man named Jesus from the town of Nazareth existed.
They may have different opinions on a lot of other matter regarding the Jesus of the Bible, but it isn't like there is a big debate about whether or not He existed.
If you want to disallow the writings in the New Testament, then you have to reject multiple first hand accounts of people who wrote to other people at a time when all of the facts could be checked out.
There is a ton of historical evidence for the church that arose after the death and resurrection of Lord Jesus. But why would past historians from other cultures like Rome write about an itinerant Jewish Rabbi who had a 3 year ministry in Palestine before being executed?
Edit: EVERY so-called "historical" account of christ, is likewise, a forgery or a lie.
That's not what evidence that would stand up in a court room says. Consider this paper from a Law School web site...
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.
In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin...
(click the link and read the rest if you want to know the truth about how to investigate evidence)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ThreeinOneLv 49 years ago
Oh, no, my fully reliable witnesses go by the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. People often forget about the legitimacy of those documents, though we have more ancient manuscripts and early copies of those works than we do of than Plato's Republic or Caesar's Gallic Wars.
Oh, and not to mention the sacrifice of martyrs in the first century for a very mysterious cause, and the frantic persecution of Christians and the subsequent transformation of Rome.
Actually, there are more early writings regarding Jesus than there are of most historic figures. You just don't like them because those accounts imply that Jesus was not just a man.
That's fine, but you might be surprised to find out that a very large percentage of historians believe that Jesus was certainly a real man.
EDIT*** About 90% of scholars and historians believe that Jesus lived. Sorry.
- 9 years ago
My goodness you've flown off the handle on this one. Calm down a little and let me give a counter argument.
First off, you can't prove something (or someone) doesn't or didn't exist. It can not be done because you can not possibly show me everything else in the world and say "Look, everything is right there, and he's not."
What you can do is reduce the possibility of something existing or happening to such a small number that it becomes illogical to believe in it. Like God creating the world in 7 literal days. What you did, was point out a few facts that some people believe prove the existence of Jesus and (arguably) proved them wrong. What have you shown me? That believing in Jesus for the stated reasons are wrong. Have you proven to me in any way that Jesus could not possibly have existed? Not at all.
So did Jesus exist? From what I've gathered, we honestly do not know. It's the problem with history. We have lots and lots and lots of documents that can all be ignored with "It was ALL LIES". What we verify as historical fact tends to be because it has lots of cross-references that coincide with each other and the feats are scientifically possible. Now you probably leaped for joy, thinking I just proved you right. No I didn't. We believe in the war of Troy, despite our main source having gods descend from heaven to empower the warriors. You see, Jesus could have been just a normal man, or several, or even the Son of God Almighty, or hairy. We don't know. Believe it or not, there are many many many many sources that talk about Jesus, many of which are not Christian, some of which contradict each other, and some who didn't like Jesus at all, but they all talk about him like he was a real man. Does that automatically justify as Jesus existing? Nope, Atlantis is mentioned as though it's a real place, by Plato himself even. Then again, did Atlantis exist? We don't know that either.
In the grand scheme of things... Does it even matter if Jesus was fictional or not?
Whether he was fictional or not, Jesus' story has survived today not only because it gives hope to some people, but also because he spoke like no man before him. His parables are lovely and teach great life lessons. He spoke with kindness to women, children, tax collectors and prostitutes. He taught to treat others like you wish to be treated, and questioned the real value of material wealth. If you refuse to learn from past experiences, fictional or not, religious or not, controversial or not, you're like a man that refuses to read Catcher in the Rye because Holden swears, or a religious zealot that refuses to admit the possibility of being wrong.
I am nooooooooooo Christian, but I can tell you that I've learned valuable lessons from Jesus.
Now you can either do tremendous research to prove people that believe in a literal Jesus wrong, or realise it's a ridiculous waste a time. Even if you find "The" evidence, people will still believe in Jesus. Some people still believe the Earth is flat, despite everything we've discovered. My point? Don't bother, it's not worth your time. Learned that from Jesus, he ignored people that were trying to troll him.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Apparently you are uneducated about a few things. The least of which is what constitutes "historical" standards as applied to ancient manuscripts.
First, while there are no real-time writings about Jesus, the writings about him actually began to be written in about 55 AD, by Paul, who knew and named some of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. Even the destruction of Pompeii was not written about for 20 years after the fact. Alexander the Great -- the earliest existing writing about him dates to about 400 years later.
Second, in Jesus' day and even for hundreds of years later, very little was written down about ANYONE in real time, so it is remarkable that Jesus not only had Paul writing about him, but several other authors, including John, one of his original disciples, and that these writings were copied by the thousands and widely circulated. These manuscripts do in fact achieve the standard of textual validity and reliability applied to ancient documents. They were not refuted at the time, and there is no reason to doubt them.
So to say that there is "so little" evidence to Jesus' existence shows your lack of scholarship, or at best, your lack of knowledge about ancient history and the standards of validity applied to ancient manuscripts.
The manuscripts comprising the New Testament (and EVIDENCE) for Jesus' existence are valid history, whether you are educated enough to know this, or not.
You must be denying an awful lot of ancient history since there are very sparse first hand, real time accounts.
- somathusLv 79 years ago
Nice response to "question atheism"
Arguing on here is like continuously beating your head against a brick wall. Why do I keep coming back?
- 9 years ago
were Jesus' ancestors fake also? His genealogy is spelled out in Matthew chapter 1.