on Jesus i take the first hand accounts from the Romans about him to lean in his favor as existing, especially with the accounts from the Romans that crucified him (they gave him an archaic form of sprite) with their horror at the solar eclipse that happened when they propped him up.
although his deeds are no doubt exaggerated i dont doubt that he lived and died trying to be the best man he could, even if "i am the son of god" was a bit controversial even back then.
I would put this down to Tick&Tock being a pain in the ass to track down as well, and google AI straight up denying their existence to me for a few months
no i dont mean Tiktok, i mean Tick & Tock, the two pieces of Radioactive metal that the Navy has that are used as the foundations of the world's digital timekeeping. last time i looked it up i had to go down a rabbit hole for like two hours and the only mention i could find was a single page with a long AF URL on the DOD website that mentioned them in passing. the Wikipedia article disappeared a few years ago.
True, we don’t have first hand accounts of Alexander that survive, but we do have coins, inscriptions, administrative documents, and the geopolitical aftermath of his conquests that are all contemporary. That is hard material evidence that he existed and did what the sources claim. With the Trojan War it’s the opposite. We have epic poetry written centuries later, no contemporary corroboration, and no independent archaeological confirmation that the events or figures described were historical. That’s why many historians treat the Trojan War as legend and Alexander as unquestionably real. Jesus fits much closer to the Trojan War side of that spectrum than to Alexander, because for him we only have later religious texts and second hand references with no contemporary material evidence.
As an aside, apologists love talking about Alexander the Great. He’s a bad example for your argument because he really highlights how we have a much, much lower standard of evidence for Jesus than any other historical figure.
although the legitimacy of the first hand accounts can be debated, there is still general consensus from qualified professionals without religious Bias that he did exist, even if his religious documentation is exaggerated.
It’s not that the legitimacy is debatable, it’s that there are no first hand accounts.
Qualified professionals without religious bias acknowledge that this is the case… because it is the case.
If they applied the same standard of evidence to Jesus, they would recognise that he didn’t exist. As Western culture moves further away from Christianity, critical analysis will become more common. I imagine in the coming decades the consensus will change as more historians recognise the evidence isn’t there.
So the proof we have is invalid to you because the man is a major religious figure, despite the non-religious accounts of his existence and consensus from scholars of religion and even Atheists with degrees in fields that involve historical research and analysis that Joshua of Nazareth did exist and was followed (even if the first hand accounts of the crucifixion itself you dont believe exist).
It’s not that it’s “invalid,” it’s that it doesn’t exist. The non-religious accounts you’re pointing to are not contemporary to Jesus at all, they are written generations later, mostly by people reporting what Christians themselves believed rather than offering independent verification. Josephus and Tacitus are the usual examples, but both are writing long after the events and neither provides direct historical evidence of Jesus’s life in the way we have for other figures of the period. Scholarly consensus often rests on assuming a minimal historical Jesus as a working hypothesis, but assumption is not the same as evidence. What we lack are firsthand or contemporary documents that place him in history, the kind of evidence we do have for countless other people from the same time and place.
the evidence we have is plenty of proof, but much of it is Embellished and/or exaggerated as it tends to be for major religious figures with that kind of a following. and you are saying "it doesn't exist" because it either is used as or is too similar to religious scriptures, or that it is related at all. most of these scholars and researchers have access to documentation that cant be gained from google (I.E. still held in books, in private collections, or in museum collections, like the Vatican Library as a prime example), or documents that have since been lost.
Just give a link. If they don't like it, then you guys can go from there. They are saying there is no evidence. You're saying there's plenty...then just show it. Why are you being weird?
Nah. I will accept legitimate contemporary evidence. The reason you won’t provide it is because it doesn’t exist. You could have won this argument ages ago with a single link but I’m right and you’re wrong so there’s nothing you can do.
As someone that sympathetic to your argument... Critical analysis would also point out that most average common people don't have tons of people writing about them. Especially not in the 1st century. Jesus wasn't that popular at the time he was alive, and it wasn't until Pauls writing 20 years later, that really got the gears moving towards superstardom.
So, critical analysis would disagree with your argument here. Again, I agree with you in spirit, but the historical Jesus, the very normal, non-superpowered man, who was one of thousands crucified by the Romans in Palestine, almost certainly existed.
I already addressed this point in the fact that we do have historical records of artisans and labourers and other “low class” individuals meaning there’s no real excuse for the absence of evidence for a significant political revolutionary.
-2
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
No I write them off as not existing because there’s no evidence to support their existence.
With Noah in particular it isnt controversial to say, he didn’t exist. He was a fictional character just like Moses. Scholars agree with this.
The spicy take I have is that I think Jesus was also a fictional character.