this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
138 points (68.0% liked)

Atheist Memes

5564 readers
610 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Brokewood@lemmy.world 104 points 1 year ago (11 children)

This is just patently untrue.

Now whether Jesus was a divine being, sure that picture depicts the evidence of that. But we "know" that a man named Jesus certainly existed and was crucified.

[–] nadiaraven@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (35 children)

Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don't believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don't believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn't exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it's convenient.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem with all of this "evidence" is that Christians don't want to officially recognize any of it because it proves Jesus or Joseph as he was probably called. Was just a normal guy.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I am still waiting for the evidence. We have Paul who didn't see anything, despite being in the area when it all supposedly went down, we have him call into question the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and despite spend decades with Christians only seems to know 11 facts about Jesus. Then we get complete silence for 50 years and an off-hand mention of the some hearsay by a man who believed in a literal Adam and Eve as historical fact.

Meanwhile every single part of the Jesus con is found in the stories and history that was around at the time. It is a hacky unoriginal derivative work with all of the evidence conveniently missing.

[–] nadiaraven@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

His name was Joshua, or Yeshua, not Joseph. Joseph was his father's name. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua or Yeshua

[–] 0ddysseus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That wiki article presents zero historical evidence and is full of references to biblical scholars claiming there was s areal historical Jesus because the bible says so. Pure garbage source.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (11 children)

This argument is like saying “some guy named john did in fact live and was sentenced to life in prison in Louisiana”.

There was, in fact, lots of jeshua’s and Jehoshua’s that were alive at the time- and many of them executed. That’s not credible evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. It was a very common name, after all.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Show me the evidence, not what theist apologists argued later via tampered hearsay decades removed from the facts.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, Pompeii. Less than a century later, before Constantine reskinned the Roman religion with the Christian label, we've found hidden shrines and symbols used by followers of Jesus. And uncovered very recently - not much room for it to be falsified. There's also contemporary accounts that spread extremely fast throughout the Roman empire and beyond, but those weren't buried under ash until the modern era.

That's a long way to go in very little time - that's only maybe 3-4 degrees away from the original source. Not nearly long enough for a mythical figure to develop organically

You can dispute the details, but someone must've been the figurehead at the very least. The gospels themselves hint at the events being staged to some extent by a small group spreading an ideology according to a literal plan - the public events literally start with Jesus's cousin gathering support for the movement, and then Jesus goes around recruiting specific people as apostles

The Romans also kept records - there's a lot of corroborating evidence for certain events spread too far and wide for a pre-information age society to fabricate. Even things like his birthdate - I think they've been able to narrow it down to a few days in July, during the census, where we had accounts of a temporary new star in the sky

Even the papers that are given clickbait-y headlines like "historians dispute the existence of Jesus" generally dispute certain aspects, there was almost certainly a historical figure named Jesus who was killed by the Romans for inciting a resistance movement

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jumper775@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is just wrong. There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity. Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him, and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts, but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up, and is still enough that it’s widely believed that he was a real guy. If what he taught was true or not is another story.

[–] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Secular scholars consider the historical account of Jesus existing in the writings of the Roman Jewish Historian Josephus. There are extra biblical references to him. Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person. His ministry wasn't even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Roman Jewish Historian Josephus.

Repeating stories he heard decades later. Hearsay by people who had an incentive to lie. Josephus also said things like this:

Now Adam, who was the first man, and made out of the earth, (for our discourse must now be about him,) after Abel was slain, and Cain fled away, on account of his murder, was solicitous for posterity, and had a vehement desire of children, he being two hundred and thirty years old; after which time he lived other seven hundred, and then died. He had indeed many other children, 1 but Seth in particular. As for the rest, it would be tedious to name them; I will therefore only endeavor to give an account of those that proceeded from Seth. Now this Seth, when he was brought up, and came to those years in which he could discern what was good, became a virtuous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues.

It's interesting to me that you consider him a valid source for one thing you can't prove but reject pretty much everything else the man said especially since you can't really disprove the Adam and Eve story.

Enough so that secular historians consider the person known as Jesus of Nazareth to be a historically real person

Interesting because your boy Josphius was in the area and wasn't aware Nazareth even existed. In any case truth doesn't depend on how many people assert something.

His ministry wasn’t even that uncommon at the time. There were many apocalyptic preachers around that time and other magicians/miracle workers, like Simon the Magician.

And?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed

How do we know this?

Now the evidence is essentially that the book exists about him,

Spiderman must exist as well. Also all the books about him were written multiple decades later.

and that he is referenced in other adjacent religious texts,

You mean the Gnostic stuff written two centuries later or the Talmudic stuff written only a mere 150-400 years later?

but that evidence is still more than the evidence that it was made up,

Means motive and opportunity. Means, the early stories are all ripped off. Motive, sex and greed. Opportunity, if Paul is to believed in his 7 undisputed letters the only two people to see the resurrection are Peter and James and "the twelve" who he doesn't name and never met.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There isn’t any evidence anything he said was true, but we know that the guy that the Bible was written about existed and was crucified and taught what would become christianity.

We actually don't know any of that, and that is not what the historical consensus is either.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Moc@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

I’m an atheist and this is a dumb take

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

You easily could've just said God instead and avoided a lot of controversy. Leave Christians to ignore the history books. Don't go down to their level.

[–] AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's pretty bold to say that there's no evidence for him.

For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn't too remarkable. This means that we don't need a ton of strong evidence. Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it's not expected that he'd leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.

Since there seems to be a consensus by experts that he existed, and since neither of us are experts (probably, I don't actually know about you), you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.

I'm not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it's validity. Thus I need to trust other people's findings.

If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they're religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree), then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

There’s no surviving records of his (or anyone named Jeshua or any variant there of,) ever having existed.

In fact if any such record were to be found, it would almost certainly be fraudulent.

There are records of people saying he existed well after his reputed death… but those records are pretty universally from individuals with extensive motive to lie- what with being cult leaders and all that.

Even if there were records of someone with his name existing, matching them to jesus-of-the-bible would prove almost impossible- the best would be a “well maybe it was him” kinda deal.

It would be like finding some guy named “John” had been incarcerated in Louisiana and insisting he was John Coffey and here to save us all.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Just making shit up now? Folks there are plenty of memes to be had without fabrication of patently untrue comments.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

OP, I am with you.

I have researched the historicity of Jesus in the past to try to confirm my faith, but all we have is either Christian sources or sources written more than 300 later after Jesus supposedly died.

What we are sure of is that Paul really existed, and it's him who mainly spread this new religion. That he was telling the truth, no, we will never be sure.

I am sorry for the other comments here. I thank you for you submission but seeing the response of the rest of the community here I am going to block it and move on.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A Dutch historian wrote a book that analyzed Paul's actions as if he was a Roman double agent who had to stop religious uprising against the Roman empire. If you read the bible in that way it gets hard to ignore it. The romans were treated as an instrument of god, whose taxation should be payed without disagreement.

It's my personal favorite interpretation of the christian faith ever. How a disinforming operation became bigger than the institution it was meant to protect and eventually overtook it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who is this for? What point are you trying to make? There is arguable evidence for a jesus-like character (as seen in the comments), so this post really helps no one and makes you look like an uninformed, angsty, immature person.

And maybe you are and will grow out of it to be helpful to any sort of community, but this post isn't part of that.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (27 children)

There is arguable evidence for a jesus-like character

May I see it?

so this post really helps no one and makes you look like an uninformed, angsty, immature person.

Will personal attacks produce the evidence?

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

Arent historians pretty sure jesus existed? You know he just couldnt walk on water and turn water into wine and everything else they say about him lol.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The caption left out an important word: All the contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

"The signs are all there, is your lack of faith to stop you from seeing them" - [ Says every religion EVER]

load more comments
view more: next ›