Are there really people who still hold that Jesus never existed historically?

Question

Even Richard Dawkins who claimed he never existed in The God Delusion openly and publicly recanted in his debate with John Lennox when shown the historical and ancient archaeological evidence for Jesus. Obviously he doesn't believe the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but at least he is not deluded enough of history any longer to deny that Jesus was a real person in the 1st century, along with any credible or honest historian or scholar.

Answer 1

Even though I think he existed (and founded a pre-Pauline form of Christianity), there is no "historical and ancient archaeological evidence" for his existence. The only credible statement comes from Tacitus who lived after Jesus' (supposed) lifetime, but as a serious historian he would have only quoted reliable sources. Apart from Tacitus, there is no mention of Christ in any contemporary sources.

Answer 2

"Even Richard Dawkins who claimed he never existed in The God Delusion openly and publicly recanted in his debate"



You have a very vivid imagination, and have not read the god delusion cos

he has never ever said jesus never existed



he has always said (AND he said it in the god delusion) that there is no evidence that he did, but he could have (it is impossible to prove he didnt)



And there is NO historical OR archaelogical evidence that he DID exist

for the last few hundred years up to TODAY biblical scholars have been scouring historical documents for ANY evidence of ANYBODY that could come even close to the suppose biblical lifestory of jesus and have found NOBODY

(the CLOSEST they got was a greek(not a jew) who had a name which was not "jesus", and who lived some 100 years after the supposed jesus, who was NOT crucified, and only visited israel but did not live there.)



Now IF you want to create a composite person from many people where there is slight evidence that they existed, and that shoved together selected bits of their stories vaguely come to jesus if you use a LOT of imagination then you get a "fictional person"

but even then there is NO evidence that even this composite perfomed the feats that jesus is supposed to have done



All in all- what you say is complete bullsh//t



but it dont surprise me- theists are VERY strong on claims but completely lacking in actual facts

Dont know why really - maybe is just cos they are stupid

Or maybe its the only way they can hold onto the myths of the bible

Answer 3

A historical Jesus is possible, and even Dawsom speculated on that (though I have to say, I don't perosnally check with Richard Dawson before I formulate any opinions).



It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think that there was some 1st century rabble-rouser that legends grew up around. Most myths are grounded in some seed of reality...



There is no actual proof the Jesus Christians believed in existed; or that anything the Bible claims he said and did actually occurred.



There's only tetiary sources that *may* indicate "a" guy named Jesus may have inspired some stories. There were many people by that name at the time. In fact, one theory is that several different guys named Jesus may have been confused in the Biblical myths.



But there is no evidence that your specific Jesus, or that he said what was said in the Bible, that he ministered or died on the cross, etc.

Answer 4

Just because there is evidence that a person existed "historically" does not mean that the records of his life or saying are "historically accurate" in terms of their literal, concrete truth. As Ehrman says, rejecting C.S. Lewis' "lunatic, liar, or Lord" scenario, the Jesus of the Gospels is a "legend" based on a real, historical person. Read James D.G. Dunn's Jesus, Remembered for a 900 page explanation of how this is possible and why this is plausible.

Answer 5

Citation needed for your claims. I still don't believe that Jesus existed as there is very little historical evidence for ANYTHING of that era, let alone a poor carpenter.



>All I can say is wow.

Really? Because I thought you'd be telling us where we could see this Dawkins/Lennox debate that supposedly happened. Typical Christian behavior: Ask for evidence and get nothing.



>But please, don't let your bias and ignorance get in the way.

Right... and you post a clearly biased video that doesn't allow comments that also doesn't list any sources. It's just one guy claiming that historians believe Jesus existed. Try again.



The next video you post states about how there's evidence for Jesus and then doesn't present it again. I mean, c'mon man. ALL claims about Jesus are from heresay accounts. Even the authors of the Gospels, which you would think would be the most accurate accounts, are written by people who admittedly never met Jesus.



Hell, even if I were to concede that Jesus existed, if I don't believe he was supernatural in any way, where does that leave you?

Answer 6

well im pretty indifferent about it. Im quite convinced that the chracter the gospels were written about were probably based upon the character of a real person...because thats how fiction is normally written. Int he same way, darth vader probably was based on some character. But i dont say darth vader was real. Jesus brings a lot of supernatural stuff with him, so whether you think some guy named jesus was born around 4bc and eventually crucified or not...it seems incorrect to say jesus exists if you define jesus to be the son of god.



Maybe theres archaeological evidence or something for something. I dont know. Ive investigated this some nd I found nothing...in fact theres an interesting complete lack of evidence, including recovered roman census without jesus, etc. Unless im simply ignorant of something, its perfectly reasonable imho to suspect that james knew he was lying when he said he was the brother of jesus.



funny that you call him jesus of nazereth..because archaeoligists DO suggest that there was no city named nazereth until a short time after jesus would have been crucified.



"The amount of historians who accept the existence of Jesus as fact are a higher majority than there are religious to non-religious people in the world. "

...and I dont care...nothing was ever made true by people believing it. I tihnk i know what these people use to justify their position: the writings of josephus, tacitus, etc. And this writing was a good time after jesus would have died, and a long time after the epistles of paul. So they dont matter one bit. If some grek person mentioned socrates 50 years after the dialogues of plato became widely read, that wouldnt support the idea that socrates existed, either. I find that 'evidence' to be quite unpersuasive...thats simple me trying to be objective. Unless they get better evidence, I also think they should stop acting so certain about this...makes them look goofy quite honestly.



The best evidence for jesus is, in fact, the epistles of paul...because they were only written about 10 years after his death. But paul admitted never meeting jesus himself. In fact, no literature exists from anyone who claimed to have ever met jesus themselves.

Answer 7

present this undeniable proof, sweetie, then explain how it changes the fact that jesus is identical to so many pagan sacrificial saviors and the new testament contradicts known history. there's not even any evidence that saul/paul ever existed.





it dumbfounds me that people like you continue to insist on ignoring the obvious fact that jesus is a myth with absolutely no basis in reality.





ROFL, some dude moaning about non-theologians saying jesus didn't exist only extends your faulty argument. of course theologians will say he existed, and probably most archaeologists and historians who depend on western institutions for their income, since christians provide that income. the facts speak for themselves. the new testament has glaring historical errors. nazareth didn't exist, the trial scene is completely wrong, and it gets nothing right about judaism despite having supposedly been written by jews [ermm... greek-speaking jews]. reconcile those flaws and i'll admit that it's POSSIBLE jesus MAY have existed. until then, he's a myth.

Answer 8

Please show me evidence of the existence of this Jesus person, preferably preforming miracles (I rather would like my water bottle to be filled with wine instead of water) that does not come from the bible.



Citation is necessary.



As for what Dawkins would have said (assuming your invented debate happened) is that a person named Jesus very well could have existed. But the biblical Jesus did not. You are equating Dawkins conceding that the existence of a person, any person in the entire world in the first century existing with the name Jesus with the existence of a biblical character. The two are not the same concession.

Answer 9

I permit you recognize that charm to authority and quote mining are logical fallacies! you do not have a speck of information that Jesus became a real guy. i will discover pupils who disagree with those you opt to cite. there is not any point out of Jesus in any sources interior the time the Bible says he became meant to stay. If he became so noteworthy, why did not absolutely everyone in any respect point out him till a protracted time after he died? The Bible has vast contradictions approximately him, and it shows lots became further to the memories approximately him as time glided by making use of. i've got in no way heard of the adult men you quote. it truly is in all probability using fact in uncomplicated terms believers examine such biased morons' rubbish. This number of nonsense does not instruct Jesus existed. It purely confirms my opinion that he in no way lived. a million. Mark A. Powell is crammed with crap. greater constructive pupils than him say Jesus in no way existed. 2. Larry Hurtado does not understand his butt from a hollow interior the floor. 3. Richard Burridge and Graham Gould are actually not so good as Michael Martin as pupils. 4. Who the heck is Bruce? he's ineffective incorrect! 5. Jesus existence is ineffective between purpose pupils, so Robt. van Voorst is crammed with it. 6. Craig Evans does not understand lots approximately historic previous and historians. 7. No sane guy or woman thinks Jesus became a real guy. Rudolph Buttman is biased. 8. in uncomplicated terms biased morons say Jesus became genuine, so G. Bornkamm is inferior intellectually. 9. Albert Schweitzer suggested the different of what W. Marxsen says. 10. Michael furnish knows not something approximately "first rank pupils". that's biased crap. 11. Geza Vermes isn't clever in his rant.

Answer 10

If there were incontrovertible evidence we would all know about it and you wouldn't be pouting, stamping your feet and posting youtube links. That's what incontrovertible means. It is a definite possibility he existed, but it's not a fact. That's just Erhman's opinion.

Answer 11

I like it when historians say "a historical Jesus probably existed" or "a historical Jesus existed".



Because what they are saying by not directly saying it - in the negative space, the flip-side of the coin they tossed...



"Divine Jesus did not exist."

Answer 12

I note that you failed to provide any reliable evidence that Jesus existed.



Short answer: The evidence shows that Jesus Christ is just a mythical character and never existed.



For Jesus-believers, here's the long answer (with evidence), which is needed to cover all bases:



All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the 1st century, and the lack of writings about Jesus by anyone until a decade or more after his supposed life.



The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus) (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.



Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.



If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, teachings and miracles. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul even wrote (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that Jesus did no miracles. Also, Paul thought that Peter and James were other (competing) epistle writers. Paul referred (Galatians 1.19) to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. Note that "brother" is used about 130 times in the Pauline epistles - with no use meaning blood brother. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.



If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format, often with the supposed thoughts of Jesus. The gospels should also have been original. Instead, Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarized from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. All we have are hearsay accounts.



If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law. The story of the trial is just a re-telling of the Jewish ritual of scapegoating, where one goat is set free (i.e. Barabbas, which means "son of the father") and one goat is sacrificed (i.e. Jesus). In addition, many scholars have pointed out that the entire crucifixion scene is created out of material extracted from the Psalms.



If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.



Therefore Jesus didn't exist.



The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.



Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like over a dozen others whose birthdays were also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”



There were also over a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected (often after violent deaths). Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.



For much more evidence, see the links. There are also several good books on this, including:

"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All"

by David Fitzgerald

"The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty

"Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier

-

Answer 13

There are many. Fact is, they want to believe Jesus did not exist and they use their FAITH in their RELIGION of atheism to do so. Clearly when "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.", the argument for Jesus never having existed become similar to the argument that the Earth is 6000 years old.



They have faith in their religion and thus they believe.



Here is the real interesting thing though. There is a ton of evidence of conflict between Jews and Christians in the early years. Heck Paul himself was a Jew who fought against Christians. What you will not find is Jews claiming Jesus never existed. Given the nature of the Jewish scholars of the time and how they reason, logic and especially research historical texts, this would have been the very FIRST thing they would have done.



Why did Jews not do this? Because Jews are SMART.



It is only now that you have many people willing to accept stupid logic like "The universe didn't need a creator" to find a group so absolutely deluded in their religion, that they would deny something like this. You truly need to capacity to deny the OBVIOUS TRUTH of the amazing complexity of the universe and her laws, to accomplish this feat of stupidity.



I am not a Christian and I doubt the miracles claimed, but I am certainly not STUPID enough to deny the existence of Jesus, when there is more evidence for his existence then for Socrates.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus



Mercuri,

Freudian slip?

"Typical Christian behavior: Ask for evidence and get nothing."

Christians ask for evidence from atheists to back up their claims and get nothing? Yeah, sounds accurate.



Edit:

For those thinking I am being too harsh? WAAHHH. Seriously, people need to start acting like grown ups. If you want to make claims that no historians accept as true, then whine about how theists do not provide enough evidence for their claims, and then have the audacity to act like you are indeed to intellectual elite, then this is the response you get.



I actually have respect for atheism and understand why people are atheists. What I do not respect, however, is this assinine crap of bashing religion with stupidity. You don't want to respect the beliefs of others then TRY to show my disrespect for your religion is unjustified. TRY IT. I want you to, because the moment you do, you may see that the same argument you make can be used against YOU. And I will gladly take back saying that atheism is a religion, RIGHT when atheists stop treating it like a religion.



Show respect and get respect. You all are smarter than this.



As far evidence of Dawkins having said this, He said:



"'I dont think its a very important question whether Jesus existed. Some historians.. MOST historians think he did.

I dont really care, precisely because its petty. Maybe I've alluded to the possibilty that some historians think Jesus never existed. I take that back Jesus existed........ However, if you’re going to say that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus walked on water, that he turned water into wine, that is palpably anti-scientific. There is no evidence for that. And if there were, you would be, well, I mean, no, there simply isn’t any evidence for that and no scientist could possibly take the idea seriously."





You really want to look like a fool?



Claim no evidence of Dawkins saying this, when you have easily googled evidence available. Continue acting as this, then why should anyone take you seriously when you say you have not been supplied enough evidence?



I am starting to think you don't want to know. Closing your eyes and placing your fingers in your ears may work for you, but it looks childish to me.

Answer 14

a theist Lies>> Only delusional low IQ people would deny that Jesus was a real person



when in reality it is the delusional low IQ who claim jesus was real..but just can't fins any valid evidence to support that claim

Answer 15

Not really.



A few extremist anti-Christians just use the (flse) idea to try to undermind the belief of others.



People accept what Greeks and pro-Greeks wrote about Greeks,

People accept what Romans and pro-Romans wrote about Romans,

But people refuse to accept what Christians and pro-Christians wrote about Christians?



Luckily there is an abundance of anti-Christians who wrote about Christ.



One example, the (Pagan) Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus Christ, His execution by Pontius Pilate and the persecution of early Christians in Rome in his 109 AD work, "The Annals,"



"Consequently, to get rid of the report (that Nero started the great fire of Rome), Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."



Book 15, chapter 44 of "The Annals" by Tacitus, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html



See also Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith (Why Believe in Jesus?) http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Is_There_Historical_Evidence_for_Jesus.3F



With love in Christ

Answer 16

If Jesus was real then why was he never mentioned in any historical document until 300 years after he supposedly walked the earth?



Just because Spider-Man takes place in New York, and New York is a real city, does not make Spider-Man real.

Answer 17

The evidence for Jesus is very shaky. Historians have to rely on second and third person accounts which are not always reliable. I'm just saying there's a lot of room for error.

Answer 18

There is no evidence for existence of Jesus.

Those biblical scholars who took "evidence" for Jesus took the 3 different accounts of Jesus as evidence. But in true historical sense, such cannot be considered as evidence because Mark was the first gospel and the other gospels copied from Mark, thereby in essence, only 1 account, and this account is neither by eyewitness nor disciple.



The reason why the 3 could not be taken as separate independent accounts could be given by this example. If I fabricated a lie that XXX stole my money, then I told YYY and ZZZ about the lie that XXX told my money. YYY and ZZZ could not be witnesses in court as independent witnesses to prove that XXX stole my money because it was I who actually told YYY and ZZZ about the "theft". If YYY and ZZZ could be considered independent witnesses, then my lie would succeed to frame XXX.



Similarly, the evidence for existence of Jesus could not be based, as biblical scholars claim: "3 different accounts in the gospels about Jesus, and therefore Jesus existed". And this is the only evidence biblical scholars gave for existence of Jesus.

Another weak evidence, even if based on gospels were that the gospels were written in the 2nd century. Biblical scholars claimed for earlier date of gospels without providing evidence for the earlier date. However, from various writings, like Eusebius: "Papias, second century bishop, claimed to have heard of gospel through oral tradtion from someone who heard from Peter who heard from Mark." is very revealing in that gospels were not in written form yet in 2nd century. But Irenaeus' 180 CE quotes from the gospel, too, revealed to us that gospels were in written form around 180 CE. These form a clear picture that gospels' stories were passed orally and that the stories could be edited, distorted, embellished, altered to fit the agenda or religious flavour of that era or sects.



@Bart Erhman and many scholars relied their existence of Jesus on the few accounts of gospels, nothing more. It doesn't take much to be biblical scholars, just lots of research. If there's any clear evidence for existence of Jesus, it would be out easily from googling, but there's none except the gospels' accounts (which biblical scholars take it as evidence).

Answer 19

Yes, there are may who do not accept the existence to Jesus, or any part of the New Testament.

Answer 20

Me.

I seriously think it was all sorts of people and stories being combined into one.





Hey, if you can prove that he existed, historically, other than a name in a book, by all means...



Alright.

And I would suggest you only find fault with stupidity, not ignorance.

Answer 21

Yes, the vast bulk of historians. Others as well.

Answer 22

Please show us a link of Richard Dawkins "recanting" based on archaeological evidence.



If what you are saying is true, please show us this evidence.



* edit: If Richard Dawkins "publicly recanted" based on "ancient archaeological evidence", why don't you provide us with a link so that we can see this for ourselves. We're still waiting …

Answer 23

If the supernatural claims are excluded, then this supposed "Jesus" is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Answer 24

There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Answer 25

I know he exists he mows my lawn on wednesdays, he's a really good landscaper

Answer 26

There is absolutely no credible contemporary evidence that Jesus did exist. If you alone know of any please name a source.

Answer 27

who cares. If he was real he was a conman and doesn't deserve to be remembered

Answer 28

Well you said it. Only delusional low IQ people would deny that Jesus was a real person

Answer 29

"still" LOL

what "new" evidence is there perchance?



Show me the evidence then, you fraud



http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/



TROLL FAIL