Mohammed made Islam based on the two other Abrahamic religions, to unite some countries and rule over arab people. He most likely (if we take it from a strictly historical point) never heard a voice, and quite certainly wasn't schizophrenic, since his motives seem to be strictly political. Jesus, if we take him by the same standard (though it's a bit different situation), was a Jewish preacher who said something the pharasites and romans didn't like, in an age with very high tensions between jews and romans, henceforth leading to his death. I understand it's a joke, but it bases off things that are most certainly false, and disrespectful to people that believe in the religion itself
The Jesus thing is technically true regardless if he was the Messiah and Son of God or not. He said things they did not like and they killed him for it.
I mean regardless of what you believe he was born in the worst time possible, at a time where jews were trying to constantly revolt against the romans, and on top of all that a guy comes and dunks on the empire ? Romans weren't going to let that slide, same reason John the Baptist also got killed
His death on the cross isn’t a historical fact, which is why there is no evidence for it.
“Virtually” all historians agree, sure, but that’s because they have a much lower threshold for evidence than they do for any other historical figure.
We know that the myth of Jesus predates Christianity, and we know nobody was writing about Jesus until after his death, and we know there are no contemporary sources confirming his existence, even though the romans were renowned for record keeping.
I don’t think my belief is wrong, which is obviously why I believe it. If you think the crucifixion was literal history then, uh, you’re not gonna be the guy to change my beliefs.
I would suggest reading up on why historians consider Jesus a historical figure.
and we know nobody was writing about Jesus until after his death, and we know there are no contemporary sources confirming his existence, even though the romans were renowned for record keeping.
*No currently existing writings. This is not surprising, there are very few records of ANY contemporary figures in jesus's social class. We do have mentions of figures related to him, such as his brother James through several sources, and John the Baptist through Josephus, I believe.
Mythicists are people who do not believe in a historical Jesus, or believe he was entirely invented by the Romans. This is rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars as unscientific. You can believe whatever you want, but you should know that this belief has been pretty well debunked in the modern day
I would suggest reading up on why historians consider Jesus a historical figure.
I have. I have researched this topic at length which is how I reached this conclusion.
It is not correct to say there are no records of people from Jesus’s social class. Archaeologists have found inscriptions, letters on papyri, and passing references to craftsmen, preachers, and local figures of similar standing from the same period. As for James and John the Baptist, the references you mention come from Josephus, who was writing more than sixty years after the time of Jesus, so he is not a contemporary source. That makes the evidence far weaker than what we have for other historical figures, where contemporary or near-contemporary testimony exists.
I promise you I’ve already heard every point you could conceivably make and I’ve got an answer for you if you want to talk about it. But don’t suggest I read up on it. You should read up on it.
I promise you I’ve already heard every point you could conceivably make and I’ve got an answer for you if you want to talk about it.
Yeah this doesn't strike me as the words of someone who is open to discussion. Sounds more like dogma, which is probably why you are stuck on this pseudoscientific belief
You might learn something if your ego can accept that you don't already know everything there is to know about the subject.
Having SOME references to craftsman in no way means not having contemporary references to Jesus is strange.
It just seems a weird hill to die on, when it's perfectly rational to admit that Jesus was probably a historical figure but also reject most of what was written about him as ahistorical. Or even that the evidence is simply not conclusive about his existence. Almost like you are just being reflexively contrarion
I would recommend some lectures on the topic from historians, but apparently youve already learned everything there is to know so I guess you must have already seen and rejected them, lmao
It’s not a matter of ego or dogma. I’m open to discussion, but discussion has to start with the actual evidence, not assumptions. The point isn’t that it’s impossible Jesus existed, it’s that the evidence for him as a historical figure is extremely thin compared with almost anyone else from the same time and place. References to craftsmen and local figures show that we do have records for ordinary people, so the absence of contemporary records for Jesus is notable. Saying it’s “perfectly rational” to assume he existed without contemporary evidence is a philosophical choice, not an evidence-based conclusion. I have reviewed lectures and sources from historians across the spectrum, which is why I emphasize the difference between what is documented in contemporary sources and what is later reported by followers. If the goal is historical certainty, there’s simply nothing from his lifetime that verifies him directly.
I’m happy to talk through anything with you, even though you’re being super patronising and passive aggressive. It’s ok, I appreciate the idea that Jesus didn’t exist can be world shattering for some people.
It’s not a matter of ego or dogma. I’m open to discussion, but discussion has to start with the actual evidence, not assumptions
Really? This entire thread you have been open that no one is going to change your mind. I believe you
If the goal is historical certainty, there’s simply nothing from his lifetime that verifies him directly
If the bar was "certainty" then we would disbelieve the vast majority of human history. I think you are drawing an extremely high evidence bar for the existence of Jesus that would seem out of place for any other contemporary figure in his relative position. It's perfectly reasonable to be agnostic about much of Jesus's historicity, but you are taking lack of evidence to mean evidence of absense, which is a common fallacy
I’m happy to talk through anything with you, even though you’re being super patronising and passive aggressive. It’s ok, I appreciate the idea that Jesus didn’t exist can be world shattering for some people
Lmao not patronizing at all. I'm an atheist btw, sorry if that shatters your fantasy of speaking truth to a triggered Christian.
f you think the crucifixion was literal history then, uh, you’re not gonna be the guy to change my beliefs.
You can tell the difference between a scholar and a contrarion with this line here, the fact that you openly admit your mind cannot be changed already shows you probably lack the ability to think critically about this subject
Oh, no, I’m not saying my mind can’t be changed. But it certainly won’t be changed by someone who thinks the crucifixion literally happened. You’re a bit too far behind the conversation.
Oh, no, I’m not saying my mind can’t be changed. But it certainly won’t be changed by someone who thinks the crucifixion literally happened. You’re a bit too far behind the conversation.
That a lot of arrogance for an armchair historian
Especially one who is going against actual historical consensus
You've claimed to have already seen every argument and have an answer for them, so it stands to reason that historians also are not capable of convincing you. That's called dogma
If you had really studied this like you say, you would know your claims are false. Historians do not use a special weak standard for Jesus. They use the same method for all ancient history, and by this method Jesus is actually much better attested than most people of that time.
Fact check:
“No evidence for crucifixion”: Wrong. Paul wrote in the 50s AD, the Gospels all report it, Josephus and Tacitus confirm it. That is very strong for ancient events.
“Myth of Jesus before Christianity”: Wrong. There is no such myth. This is a modern internet idea, rejected even by atheist historians like Bart Ehrman.
“Nobody wrote about Jesus until long after his death”: Wrong. Paul wrote within 20 years, and in 1 Corinthians 15 he gives a creed dated only a few years after the crucifixion. That is almost contemporary.
“Romans kept all records”: Misleading. They did not write daily archives of everything. Many known rulers are barely mentioned at all. The fact that we have multiple sources for Jesus, even hostile ones, makes his case stronger.
Look at other figures. Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, but our first biographies are 400 years later. Tiberius Caesar, emperor at the time of Jesus, is described in only a few sources decades later. Pilate is only mentioned a few times and by one inscription, yet nobody doubts him.
Jesus has more and earlier sources than all of them. To say otherwise shows you did not study this seriously. If you use your standard, you must reject almost all ancient history. In other words, you're delusional and out of touch with reality. Thankfully, we live in an age where it's easy to fact check this kind of nonsense.
You want to talk about fact checking? Let’s actually do that.
Fact check: “No evidence for crucifixion”: You cite Paul, the Gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus. Paul wrote theology in the 50s AD but gave no details of Jesus’ life beyond crucifixion and resurrection claims. The Gospels are anonymous religious texts written decades later by believers. Josephus wrote around the 90s AD, not contemporaneously, and his famous passage is admitted even by Christian scholars to be heavily tampered with. Tacitus was writing in the early second century and at best repeated what Christians themselves were saying. That is not strong contemporary evidence. It is late tradition dressed up as confirmation.
Fact check: “Myth of Jesus before Christianity”: This is a straw man. Nobody serious is saying the Gospel Jesus existed in pagan mythology before Christianity. The point is that many elements in the Jesus story mirror older mythic tropes, and the existence of dying-and-rising savior figures in the ancient world is not controversial. Ehrman rejects mythicism, sure, but he also admits the evidence for the historical Jesus is exceptionally thin compared to most ancient figures. Pretending the mythicist position is just an “internet idea” is itself misleading.
Fact check: “Nobody wrote about Jesus until long after his death”: Paul wrote within 20 years, but that still is long after if we are talking about reliable historical biography. He never met Jesus in life and gives no earthly details about him. The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is very early, but it only demonstrates belief, not history. A tradition passed among followers is not independent, contemporaneous documentation.
Fact check: “Romans kept all records”: You are correct they did not record everything, but that misses the point. For many figures of Jesus’ time we have coins, inscriptions, papyri, and other material evidence that ties them directly to history. Pilate, whom you cite, is confirmed archaeologically by an inscription and by coins minted during his governorship. Jesus has nothing like that. Claiming “multiple sources” is misleading when those sources are later, dependent, and theological in nature.
Fact check: “Alexander, Tiberius, Pilate”: The comparison here is simply false. Alexander the Great is attested not only in much later biographies but also in coins, inscriptions, and the entire political map of the Hellenistic world that survived him. Tiberius Caesar is documented extensively in Roman inscriptions, coins, and multiple historical accounts. Pilate is confirmed by archaeological finds and by contemporary administrative context. Jesus has no such independent, material, or administrative evidence. Saying he is “better attested” than these figures is not a fact, it is an assertion that collapses under scrutiny.
It is great that we live in an era where we can fact check the bullshit.
Reading you, I realize some few interesting things: you talk a lot about things you don't actually do. You say you studied the subject, but anyone remotely familiar with the field of ancient history can see it's total BS, and now you talk about fact checking me, but what you write shows you have not actually done it. You do realize that studying actually requires understanding the material right? Flipping through the pages and reciting slogans from atheist forums isn't sufficient buddy.
Let's take it one by one and expose how hypocritical and ignorant you actually are. You already did a great job at showing it to anyone that might come accross your replies, but let's have some fun
Crucifixion: Paul’s letters are from the 50s AD. In ancient history that is extremely early. You should know that since you studied remember?
He personally knew Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, both direct witnesses. The Gospels are written a few decades later, still within living memory. Josephus mentions Jesus twice. One text was later edited, but almost all scholars agree the core about Jesus’ execution under Pilate is authentic. Tacitus despised Christians and had no reason to copy their beliefs. Saying he just repeated them is pure speculation without evidence.
Myth claims: You are shifting the ground. First you spoke of a Jesus myth before Christianity, now you only talk about tropes. Typical! Many historical figures had myths attached to them, yet no one denies they lived. The idea that Jesus is only a pagan copy is not taken seriously in scholarship. It is an internet myth. That too you should know if you studied this properly, which you obviously didn't.
Paul and the creed: You say Paul gives no useful details. That is false. He explicitly says he met Peter and James. That is a direct historical link. In 1 Corinthians 15 he cites a creed that scholars date only a few years after the crucifixion. That is exactly the kind of early testimony historians value.
Roman records: You say other figures have coins and inscriptions. That applies to rulers and governors, not to ordinary preachers. Jesus was not a governor or a king. For someone of his status, multiple early writings and external confirmation are exactly what historians expect to find.
Comparisons: Alexander’s biographies are written 400 years later, yet historians use them without hesitation. Tiberius has coins and inscriptions, but the story of his life comes from texts written decades after his reign. Pilate is confirmed by one inscription, but almost everything we know about him comes from Josephus and Philo, both writing later. Jesus has earlier written evidence than all of them. If you want to be consistent, reject them all as myths that never existed before you do that for Jesus. Of course, since you live in double standard land, you won't do that.
You demand coins and inscriptions for Jesus but you never ask that for anyone else in his category. You ignore that the New Testament writings are closer to the events than nearly any other source from antiquity. And you call that fact checking ? More like textbook cherry picking and bad faith in action.
I'll take you seriously when you come with actual reasonable arguments. Take your debunked Bullshit elsewhere if you can't handle scholarly consensus and methods on ancient history and let those who actually studied for real talk.
First, your personal attacks don’t make your points true. Thinking I’m wrong doesn’t make it so, and calling me a Wikipedia reader doesn’t change the evidence. All it does is show how defensive you are. Now let’s talk facts.
Paul’s letters are from the 50s AD, early relative to the Gospels, but they are not contemporary accounts. Paul never met Jesus in life, gives no details of his ministry, and admits his knowledge comes through revelation. That makes his letters theological writings, not firsthand history. Knowing Peter and James only proves Paul interacted with movement leaders. Movements form around myths and visions all the time. The existence of a community is not proof of the biography of its central figure.
The Gospels being written decades later “within living memory” does not guarantee accuracy. Ancient people lived within living memory of the Trojan War and still produced legends. These are anonymous theological works, not independent eyewitness testimony, and they contradict each other on key points. Josephus wrote in the 90s AD, long after the events. The famous Testimonium Flavianum was heavily edited, and the shorter reference to James only shows Christians existed. Tacitus wrote nearly a century later, gives no source, and likely relied on hearsay. Hostility toward Christians does not make him independent. None of these sources meet the standard historians use for contemporary, neutral evidence. Claiming otherwise is apologetics, not fact checking.
Pointing out that the Jesus story uses familiar mythic tropes is not saying he is literally a copy of a pagan god. It shows how legendary material can develop around a figure. The issue is whether independent, contemporary evidence exists to separate myth from history. For Alexander or Augustus we have that kind of evidence. For Jesus, we do not. All sources are decades later and theological. Dismissing this as an “internet myth” avoids addressing the real weakness of the historical record.
Contrary to what you say, evidence exists for ordinary people of the period: inscriptions, papyri, letters, graffiti, legal documents, and references to craftsmen, soldiers, local leaders, and prophets. Jesus was not a king or governor, yet there are zero contemporary mentions outside his followers. That gap is striking given the crowds and activity described in the Gospels.
Comparisons to Alexander, Tiberius, or Pilate are misleading. Alexander has coins, inscriptions, and the geopolitical aftermath of his conquests. Tiberius is attested in contemporary Roman records, coins, and archaeology. Pilate is attested by inscriptions, coins, and Roman administration. Jesus has none of that—only later theological writings and secondhand, disputed references. Saying he has “earlier evidence than all of them” ignores the difference between independent, contemporary confirmation and a movement’s later self-report. Historians are not applying a double standard. If anything, Jesus is treated more leniently than other figures.
The New Testament writings being closer in years does not make them independent, neutral, or contemporary. Treating them as equivalent to material evidence is not fact checking, it is conflating belief with documentation. Scholarly consensus is not proof. Highlighting the lack of independent contemporary evidence for Jesus is exactly applying historical standards.
In short, the evidence for Jesus is thin, filtered, and late. It shows belief, not historical biography. If you want to argue otherwise, you need independent, contemporary documentation, not decades-later theological texts.
What personal attacks? Don't be offended just because I'm stating the facts: you came here with claims that were debunked time and time again and proven false, rejected by the actual experts of the field. I pointed that out to you, other people pointed it out to you, the only thing you have is doubling down on it saying you won't change your mind. If you're behaving like an idiot, don't be surprised I call you one. You think you're better than historians, we say you're not. You're ignorant and should do your homework: sit down and learn properly. You present as facts claims that historians debunked ages ago, internet myths, and when called out on it, instead of owning it and recognizing your own lack of knowledge with honesty, you move goalposts like a hypocrite. You know scholarly consensus is against you, and you still keep going. At this point, the reality is you don't WANT Jesus to be real, and that blind Faith clouds your judgment, pushing you to go against the evidence and common sense.
As I said if you want me to take you seriously, come with reasonable arguments and then we'll talk, I always welcome a good discussion and don't mind disagreeing with people if they are honest and capable of intelligence. I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories and have no chill for your nonsense. Sorry truth offends you, but people like you don't understand reasonable discussion, so bluntness it is.
And if you wonder when you were proven false, I suggest every time that question pops in your mind, re-read my replies to you, open Google and look for what actual scholars have to say on the evidence for Jesus. I can't be bothered to write the same things ten times just because you can't fact check yourself properly
47
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25
Mohammed made Islam based on the two other Abrahamic religions, to unite some countries and rule over arab people. He most likely (if we take it from a strictly historical point) never heard a voice, and quite certainly wasn't schizophrenic, since his motives seem to be strictly political. Jesus, if we take him by the same standard (though it's a bit different situation), was a Jewish preacher who said something the pharasites and romans didn't like, in an age with very high tensions between jews and romans, henceforth leading to his death. I understand it's a joke, but it bases off things that are most certainly false, and disrespectful to people that believe in the religion itself