Firsthand accounts of Jesus...?

I met Jesus when I was in Bethlehem looking to buy some bagels, they were like "we don't serve Purples here" and He was like "Don't make me sing you a happy song" and then He bought a bagel, multiplied it, and gave me one.

No, atheists point out there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus because Xtians keep claiming that there ARE first-hand accounts.

"'We have no first-hand accounts of Julius Caesar (besides what he 'allegedly' wrote himself), since the earliest primary source is Plutarch--born about 70 years after Caesar died. Yet, we don't doubt Caesar's existence."

Outright lie, since Cicero was a contemporary of Caesar and wrote about him extensively.

-We have two first hand accounts by Caesar whose authorship are not questioned by scholars: His account of the Gallic War and the Civil War that ended with Pompey's death

-An account written 70 years after the events the account described is not a first hand source. It is a second hand source at best

-There is more evidence for the Greco-Persian wars then just Herodutus' writings.

*regardless of whether Jesus actually existed (personally I think it is a moot argument) does absolutely nothing to address the miraculous claims that he is the center of.

Julius Caesar didn't perform magical supernatural acts, cause zombie saints to come out of the ground, feed 5000 people by magically multiplying bread and fish, etc.

As well, Julius Caesar wasn't supposedly sent by an omnipotent deity who would see that there was plenty of evidence for a supernatural mission.

Also, there are no contemporaneous spiteful reports by the Jewish clergy Jesus was supposedly always trolling.

Matthew 7:6

Which atheist said that he doesn't believe because there are no first hand accounts? That's effing stupid.

The issue with Jesus is that all the accounts of Jesus Christ are all conflicting and unreliable. Jesus might be a character and, if he isn't/wasn't, then our current sources certainly are not reliable when it comes to information about him.

there is not something, purely many years after the meant crucifixion the 1st claims are made. by employing common historic standards the terrific clarification for the memories of a prophet having a small following of devotees that later grew right into a considerable faith is that the form of guy or woman quite existed. however the terrific clarification for a prophet that performed miracles approximately 2 millennia in the past is that his followers made up those claims for apologetics applications and for evangelizing unbelievers. As there are numerous shown fabrications interior the bible the record won't be able to be seen as an precise historic record that desires no very reliable exterior aspects to lower back it up. The externals aspects that exist like historians maximum in all probability purely repeated what the Christians believed so as that they are not claiming that Jesus did any miracles or that he even existed. some areas of the exterior aspects, the main specific ones, became out to be a forgery. it fairly is amazingly tricky to chop up the authentic from the fake if there have been lots of centuries of opportunities by employing apologists to well-being practitioner information and all of us comprehend that there are various examples of apologists forging information. astounding claims require astounding information. historical historic previous is stuffed with astounding claims yet regrettably historical historic previous won't be able to grant information of astounding nature so it fairly is impossible for any historical miracle declare to be shown as information it fairly is adequately good won't be able to in all probability settle for, ever.

Short answer:

There are overwhelming multiple independent accounts of Julius Ceasar, including writings by him. No such evidence exists for Jesus Christ.

Trying to deflect the question of JC's existence by mentioning other potentially mythical accounts is called a "red herring."

The gospels give different accounts of many events (such as Jesus' birth), and Matthew and Luke show that they were based on Mark. John is just too wacky for any intelligent analysis.

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 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).

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. 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

-

"First-hand accounts" are only one part of what constitutes evidence. There are other sources that prove Caesar existed. Wars leave behind TONS of evidence.

There is nothing outside of the Bible that proves the existence of Jesus. And the Bible cannot stand alone as its own evidence - especially with all of its flaws and outrageous claims.

You have no clue

When no first hand account of something is present the information is always cross checked or compaired with physical evidence.

Physical evidence of jesus is not present and even if he did exist that does not mean hes a son of god or even a prophet

Try reading the book, "The case for Christ- by Lee Strobel and it will detail a lot of some first hand accounts of Jesus Christ.