When atheists say "no evidence for the existence of Jesus" how do you dismiss every history book ever written?

The same way that the blind Christians deny evolution despite the mountains of evidence.

When you point a finger you will find three pointing back at you.

Edit: My apologizes, I had you pegged as anti-evolution.

In the final analysis, books and documents that quote some earlier document do not amount to evidence of anything but quoting the earlier document. All accounts can be traced back to the New Testament and few other books that were not included and opinions are that Luke partially copied Mark or Matthew, I don't recall which one now.

I have here two volumes of Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War. I also have Dr. R. V Jones's "Most Secret War" which detailed his own work in secret intelligence, mostly to do with the Royal Air Force, the Luftwaffe and the radio navigation "war" between them. Churchill and Jones both mention an incident where they met and the accounts agree.

This is probable independent confirmation of the meeting. Now if I were more widely read on the matter, I could probably find other memoirs that mention the meeting. Perhaps something by Prof. Lindemann or Robert Watson-Watt? Maybe they were just quoting each other or maybe the meeting actually happened. Perhaps memoirs of Luftwaffe navigation officers might bear on the matter indirectly. What do you think?

Does anyone suggest that Lindemann, Churchill, Watson-Watt or Jones were miracle workers?

"Not one legitimate historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person" I'd like you to support that statement with some evidence that every "legitimate" historian accepts the existence of Jesus. Or are those archaeologists who can find no evidence of the existence of Nazareth as a named locality in Herodian times and historians who can find no independent evidence not "legitimate"?

Don't tell me about Josephus, I already know one relevant passage is suspected of being a pious fraud. Even if it is not, it does not matter.

The opinions of atheists on the existence of Jesus vary. In my personal opinion he did. That does NOT repeat NOT mean he was divine in any way and some very early Christian sects seems to have agreed on that point. I also believe the Babylonian captivity happened as there appears to be independent evidence of that. That does not mean I accept the nonsense and exaggerations in Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. Exodus or the Revelation of St. John.

I dismiss "every history book ever written" as documentation of the factual existence of Jesus by noting that none of them actually do.

You are hereby invited to provide appropriate citations to an actual scholarly volume of World History that describes a "historical Jesus" in any other context then reporting the beliefs of Christians. As someone with a Masters in History, I assume you know that they are not the same thing.

Also, the claim that no legitimate historian denies the historical existence of Jesus is embarrassingly easy to refute. So easy that I can only assume dishonesty in someone making it.

In reality, historians generally have no professional opinion regarding the historicity of Jesus. It's no more relevant to a historian than is the historicity of Buddha or Zoroaster. The people who do have professional opinions on the subject are generally theologians or cultural anthropologists. Not historians.

--------------

>> skeptik: I already gave two basic trusted encyclopedias. How many more would you like. I could probably come up with 10,000 or so without breaking a sweat. Do you actually know how to research trusted sources?

Since when is an encyclopedia a "history book?"

Also, the Brittanica article itself states that the only real sources are theological documents that don't qualify as historical sources. And that the only non-biblical sources cannot be used to demonstrate anything other than familiarity with Christians and their beliefs.

You sure you have a degree in history? Because it sure doesn't sound like it taught you anything about valid historical sources.

So, you're saying that there might have been evidence but that you guys lost it. OK. I'm also not a fan of Islam. Islam makes Christianity look like a progressive lesbian scientist convention. And you're saying that God is not omniscient. OK. And you say "God has shown evidence of His Existence when it suited Him to do so.". Got Proof ? And you say "People missed the entire POINT of this Miracle, which was that GOD CAN HEAL-". Got Proof there even was a miracle ? "In recent times there have been similar manifestations. ". Got Proof ? "The failure is therefore of the Atheists to, if not find God when He is manifesting at will- which your kind really isn't expected to- then create the Environment by you, where God cannot fail to manifest" ---Therefore ? You fail to provide any proof and then you've the gall to throw on a 'therefore' ? God can 'fail to manifest' ? God can fail ? So he's also not omnipotent ? Well, at least you are now believing in a non-omnipotent non-omniscient god. Now if you'll just either find proof for your assertions or .... I don't know... whip up a longer rant... Whatever.

As a person with a masters degree in history, you must know of the importance of dealing with primary sources whenever possible.

All the accounts of Jesus are secondary sources. Most were written generations after he was allegedly crucified.

I happen to be one of those atheists who think that Yeshua ben Miram might have really been a rabbi who preached reform on the shores of Galilee. But let's not kid ourselves that there is anything like evidence that he ever existed. There is hearsay. There are traditions. Not only that, but they are traditions that don't even detract from Jesus's message in the first place. Jesus could have been entirely human, and his message would still have the same resonance. Jesus could have been a woman, and that wouldn't change the wisdom of what he said.

Here's an example: the tradition that Jesus never married. There is absolutely no evidence to say that Jesus was NOT married. There is also no evidence to say he was. There is simply no evidence at all. Church fathers, centuries after the time of Christ, decided to take a position regarding Jesus's marital status. But it was just that -- an opinion with no basis in fact at all. It is merely a tradition that has been around so long, most Christians believe it as if it were a fact. It is nothing like that. Had the same church father decided that Jesus was in fact married, then we'd all be believing that today instead.

I do believe that a "jesus" existed but not as the christians would portray him.

That which is attributed to him existed in ancient writing predating those in the bible.

I personally have know several others named Jesus in my life. I do not attribute divinity to them either.

The meir existence of a "jesus" is not debated and as far as I have researched accepted by most academics. This however does not establish in any way the validity of that which is attributed to him.

If you seek proof of a god, or to provide proof of a god then you are agnostic as there is no proof in or needed for a belief. If there was proof or some form of substantiation it would become a theory like evolution and no longer a belief.

Think about it!

Short answer:

Most historians (and history books) have simply assumed that Jesus existed, without examining the relevant facts. You are simply doing an argument from authority instead of presenting reliable evidence of Jesus' existence, which I see none of.

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, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time.

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 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, 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, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy. 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 like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. The gospels were also written in Greek, which the disciples would not have known.

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 Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus). Some early Christians attributed this 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 Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus -- whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths -- Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.

For much more evidence, see the links.

-

Historians and anthropologists deny that Nazareth existed, prior to its founding by pious Christians in the 4th century.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus, aside from a few fraudulent texts inserted by Christians into some (but not all) copies of historical writings (Josephus, for example). Historians will not, in general, discuss things for which there is no historical evidence.

By the way, the historical evidence against the Exodus story is quite strong. You won't find a serious Egyptologist anywhere who will back up the Bible story (as opposed to, say, the history of the Hyksos people).

You are intentionally rephrasing the point non-christians are making.

Very few people state there was no Jesus of Nazareth.

They state that there is no proof this man was the Messiah son of god.

Truthfully you know that, and are being intentionally deceptive for the sake of arguing with your brothers and sisters.

Jesus was real, no doubt. But he was a man, not a "Son of God". His divinity was agreed upon (voted) at Nicaea, and was whence forth published as thus. More than 80 gospels teach that Jesus was a man. Constantine chose four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that showed Jesus as a "Son of God", to back the "winning horse" so to speak, as Christianity was on the rise.

It is interesting that you say "legitimate historian". So, if they don't eat porridge they don't qualify? In other words, if they don't support your fantasy then they're illegitimate.

You might like to be aware that Nazareth did not exist till about the 3 century A.D. Ouch! There was no Jesus of Nazareth. Now, how could "legitimate" historians get that wrong?