No, there’s barely any physical evidence that anyone a few hundred years ago existed.
But if writing is enough, there are some. Tacitus basically said: “Nero blamed the Christians, followers of that Guy called Jesus who Pilatus executed a few decades ago.”
Chances are he was more like a cult leader it wasn’t until a decade or two after his death that things really got into full swing, so chances are the actual Jesus would be quite surprised by everything “he” did.
But there were a lot of Jewish mystics cropping up at the time so it’s not impossible or even implausible for some one vaguely matching the description to have existed.
Good thing back in the day there were probably very few cult leaders…
Does anyone wonder about how the story of Jesus being plagiarized from the Egyptian myth of Horus affects the narrative about the Jesus that supposedly lived and died a century earlier? You know the one that happened to have incredibly important political value for the established leaders of the time?
Exactly. An example from outside the Bible might be Achilles. There was probably a great warrior with that name in the Mycenaean Greek world. Later storytellers probably just added more to make it sound better or the material was from other warriors who were like Achilles.
Some of Jesus’ teachings definitely come from the milieu of the Roman era in Judea and Palestina.
Personally my favorite head canon is that Jesus was, or his parents were, Egyptian born Jews or Coptic converts to Judaism. It’s a reverse Obamas birth certificate. There is so much time spent establishing the lineage and explaining the flight to Egypt.
You realize that a significant portion of the bible is the collected letters and works that were at the time (that it was assembled) considered credible, right?
There’s a period of around 80 years that’s pretty hard to account for, but unlike the four gospels where there’s little corroborating evidence that tracks back into that 80 year period, the epistolary works are pretty likely to be authentic. They also reference a bunch of other letters that didn’t survive, something that tends to make them more likely authentic than not. And they involve people who were eyewitnesses of a man named Jesus (or Joshua or Yeshua if you prefer) and his younger (step) brothers.
The rest of the statements about him were solidified by 80 years or so after his death, but all the accounts don’t quite line up — which is actually a good argument for them being based on actual events.
So while there may be plenty of room for debate as to how much of the biblical teachings actually originated with a man named Jesus, his actual existence seems more evident than, say, Shakespeare.
The mental gymnastics is palpable. That things don’t line up is evidence they’re true? And because people believed it at the time it must be credible? Did a guy really live in the belly of a whale for three days simply because some simpletons believed it?
That’s how epistemological analysis works… if the general structure is the same but everyone pulls different meaning out of an event, something probably happened. If everything lines up exactly, someone probably faked the letters. If there’s totally conflicting stories, the record has been tampered with too much to say anything. If there’s no record, there’s nothing to say one way or another.
Of course not because it’s a load of hogwash. Go play telephone with a class of 6th graders for 5 minutes and then tell me these stories are accurate. Also the events in most of them are clearly impossible situations.
Assembled a thousand years after the fact by a group with a vested interest in solidifying the narrative to fit their own.
Hell, the Tanakh didn’t really get put together until well after Christianity appeared and it was a reaction to Christians appropriating Jewish literary culture to establish their own.
It’d be similar to people a thousand years from believing that Christian Gray is literally descended from Edward and Bella.
My opinion: It’s a nice story. And with stories the most important thing is what it teaches us or makes us feel. Not that it’s true. Maybe they took inspiration from several preaching hippies who lived back then and made one story out of that. Exaggerated everything and made stuff up. Probably all of it because the bible was’t even written close to his supposed lifetime. It’d be like you now writing a story about a dude who died in 1870. Without any previous records to get information from. [Edit: The first things have probably been written down like 40-50 years after his death.]
And I mean if Jesus existed, he would certainly disapprove of what people do (and did) in his name.
My summary is oversimplified. I still think it’s the correct answer to OP’s question: is there physical evidence. Because there isn’t anything physical. But there are written records from a bit later, suggesting that somebody with that name must have existed. Glad someone else thinks I picked the correct article. Seems it’s not that easy to find good information. The English speaking internet is filled with low quality efforts to portray the facts in a way they’d like to have them.
I have a few good books though. Back when I was young (and became an atheist,) I used to read a lot about philosophy, the political message of the New Testament. And what life was like in that time.
Agree. But that specific article seems pretty alright. Also talks about the relics and history records for example by Tacitus.
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
(And the German Wikipedia article about sources for the historicity of Jesus seems very good. But it’s not exactly OP’s question and I don’t know if it helps: de.wikipedia.org/…/Außerchristliche_antike_Quelle… )
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
That’s because Christian apologists constantly brigade those articles.
Before Jesus, many people were sanctified in the flesh in this way.Later, Jesus imitated the practices of his predecessors and added hype, and he became a legend after his death.
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o’clock this afternoon… with nail polish.
how do you have sources for no? I mean I guess you can link to wikipedia and point out all the evidence is just some third party writings or such I guess.
The answers here are absolutely crazy. Go find some credible biblical scholars (ones whose jobs are not dependent on statements of faith) like Bart ehrman and read what they say. My understanding is that most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and even that he was crucified. Don’t trust lemmy, don’t even trust me, go find the experts, read what they say, and decide for yourself.
The only physical proof you can have of a person that lived before photography is a body. So no, Jesus did not have a publically marked grave and we do not have his bones.
That being said, there is a difference between proving something historically and proving it in the court of law. Historical evidence points to Jesus having been a person that lived around that time.