The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
One common claim you'll hear from some atheists, pagans and other non-Christians is that "Jesus didn't exist." The claim that Jesus didn't exist is rejected by historians. It's a subject now known as the "Christ Myth theory" or as I like to call it "Christ Myth Conspiracy Theory."
The most recent conspiracy nut looking to gain his 60 minutes of fame from this "theory" was a man named Michael Paulkovich, a quick Google search tells you all that you need to know about him: He's not an academic of any sort. He doesn't belong to any university. He's a self-professed anti-theist who has self-published a book on Jesus. The Dailymail eventually decided to publish his story for click-baits and it led to this:
Michael Paulkovich's bad scholarship becomes apparent when you read the list of the "126" people he's put there. Only a few were actual historians who recorded the history of their time and at least several there did mention Jesus (which Michael refuses to mention). Anyone with Google is able to debunk the lies actually and guess who does? An atheist.
As the piece goes on to explain, most of the people mentioned in the list didn't record history and therefore citing them as evidence for Jesus not existing because they didn't mention him is a fallacy since they didn't mention many of their own contemporariness in their writings.
This is also mentioned in this article:
Published two years ago so we see that the Christ-mythers are still using a long since debunked argument.
When we look at actual contemporary historians, we find many that did mention Jesus.
Carm.org
These were the ancient historians who mentioned Jesus, even mentioning his trial and crucifixion.
-Cornelius Tacitus (AD55-120) Roman historian.
-Suetonius (AD70-130)
-Pliny the Younger (AD61-112)
-Tallus(AD50-75)
-Phlegon (AD80)
-Mara Bar-Serapion (1st century)
-Josephus Flavius (AD37-100)
-Lucian of Samosate (AD125-180)
It should be noted that four of these writers were pagans. Two, with a notable dislike for Christianity and yet they still refer to Jesus a real person.
Inquisitr.com (Jesus Christ Never Existed? Atheists And Historians Dispute Michael Paulkovich’s ‘Jesus Myth’)
(My note: And incidentally, Jesus is mentioned by 9 historians so I'd say the argument is pretty much in favour of Jesus having existed).
Just goes to show the dishonesty of "journals" like The Free Inquiry which claim to advocate a "lifestance rooted in science, naturalistic philosophy, and humanist ethics" but publishes poorly researched junk against Christianity (quite similarly to the atheist group of Moddb I might add!).
In any case, given all the refutations against the Christ myth conspiracy theory and the historians who mentioned Jesus, I think it's safe to say that Jesus existed and that this is an undeniable fact.
When going thousands of years back in history, I remain skeptical of many things. I wouldn't call his existence an undeniable fact, but I wouldn't think his existence a myth either. Usually even a myth/legend/deity or otherwise, is based upon real events or real people. Whether they really were the son of god or not.
As for "poorly researched junk" on the Atheist group. Somehow I don't doubt it it happens (I've stopped paying attention of late to be honest). But it is common for other parties in such things as well.
The miracles certainly don't have "historical physical evidence" but everything else does (the fact that a man named Jesus existed around this time, went around preaching, formed a group who would later become known as Christians and who was later executed by Crucifixion). We know these facts without the gospels thanks to the historians who referred to him.
You can doubt the miracles but to doubt that the man himself existed would be foolish given the evidence.
Thomas Jefferson, a deist, made the Jefferson Bible which is simply the collection of teachings from Jesus. Jefferson believed the miracles of Jesus were exaggerated/or made up by his followers.
I know many atheists who accept this view too.
The atheists who happen to despise Jesus and think he's a myth often do so because they haven't researched the subject. They only see him as part of religion which they hate and think is all lies but what angers me is that they try to "debunk" the existence of Jesus and remove an important part of history from our records and whether you believe in Christianity or not, you cannot deny that its establishment was a significant event in history.
Ironically, these same conspiracy theorists do not doubt the existence of Paul even though there's no evidence of his existence outside of his letters in The Bible (which are historical evidence themselves and no historian doubts Paul's existence but still, the Christ myth conspiracy theorists think almost everything in The Bible is a lie not to be relied on so their "logic" here is amusing).
The earliest record of Christianity existing goes as far back as AD60-70, so approximately 30 years after Jesus. By then, Christianity was described a whole religion that existed in Rome itself (and you know the rest, Nero's persecution etc). Clearly it hadn't be just made up on the spot as Christ myth theorists believe. It had to come from someone influential enough to challenge thousands years old traditions.
Agreed, the Christian group has creationist material but the atheist group, asides from acceptance of evolution, contains worst. "Hitler was a Christian" "Christianity caused the Dark Ages" "Religion is responsible for all wars" and of course, the anti-historical claim I just debunked here "Jesus never existed."
You can argue that the creationist Christians are anti-science but ironically, atheists, instead of being rejecting of science, reject history in its place or use poor and deliberate biased and anti-historical research to support their claims of history.
Of course this isn't true for all atheists just as not all Christians are creationists.
Jesus did exist. He is a historical figure and his existence is not up to debate. What it is debatable however is whether he was really the son and envoy of God to Earth, or a zombie with magic powers as others would say. You may believe in his miracles, the way he was conceived and where he came from or not; but he was undeniably a real person who lived in the Eastern Mediterranean coast between 0 and 33 a.D.
But yeah, as I say, having faith in him as son of God or think of him as a politician with a good ability to make people follow him and believe fantastic stories about him; that is where the debate is.
PS: if anyone wonders I am a Catholic, but that never gets in the way of my logical reasoning.
Thomas Jefferson, a deist, believed the miracles were actually exaggerations made by his followers. The secular historical view of Jesus is that too, that he was a preacher, possibly a healer too and that his followers later exaggerated the stories about his miracles. They'd say "Jesus raising the dead" was simply Jesus healing someone close to death with medical knowledge.
In fact some certain researchers even suggested that Jesus used a medicine containing cannabis for its medicinal properties!
Theguardian.com
You know, people accuse us Christians of following this "God" of ours blindly without questioning things.
To be honest, that's part of what faith is. Just simply believing, even if you see nothing there in front of you.
I believe every word the Bible says. Even the miracles. Ive seen enough people touched, lives changed, and people healed to believe it.
Now look, if you want to deny Christ's existence, than that's your decision. All I can say is He left such an impact on this world that it's never been the same since. And only God could've done that.
If you still disagree, then fine, call it what you like. I'm a narrow minded zealot for suggesting to you otherwise. But at least my narrow view sees better. Simply "because" it's more focused on the light, and less on the riff raff.
You want some evidence of Christ and what He promised? Take a look into the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and tongue talking (like in the book of Acts chapter 2). That's something I doubt anyone here could explain logically. And yet it happens for real. It was God's greatest gift to the church, while his greatest gift to mankind was Salvation.
I believe Christ could raise the dead simply because he was God incarnate. Just a different form of him. You Catholics should know, after all it is the Trinity. Each form serving it's own purpose.