Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[robvalue]

Sure, well I haven't analysed any other characters in the era. If their evidence is just as bad, I'd not accept it either. I'd rather say I can draw no conclusion than guess at one I can't even give 50% chance of being true.

Going back to christian scholars, they literally cannot ever come to the conclusion that there is most likely no HJ, or no good case for a HJ, can they? So how can I take them seriously?

Not that anyone is saying I should, just thinking out loud.

[Mudhammam]

The problem is that we can't put our fingers on any writings from the first century.

When pressed they invent bullshit stories like "Q" but no one has ever seen so much as a fragment of any such work.  With the mania that later xtian scribes preserved what they considered early writings why do we not see such zeal in the first century?

That's not true. There are a number of Pauline epistles, one or more Gospels, the letter to the Hebrews, and extra-biblical documents that can be dated to the first century with little controversy, and there's plenty of reasons for historians to think that oral traditions preceded the literary forms.

[Cephus]

While the primary sources for Jesus' life can't be considered "objective" (historical record rarely, if ever, is), objective evidence for his existence can still be gleaned from them. Examples such as the cobbling together of a virgin birth narrative that places Jesus' delivery in Bethlehem while he was commonly regarded as a Nazarene, or the clumsy attempts to side-step the significance of his baptism by John the Baptist, suggest a historical core to the story. I've come to the conclusion that those who deny Jesus' existence shoulder a much greater burden of proof that involves a lot of handwaving and dismissal of evidence for no other apparent reason than to remain consistent in their prior bias, and reach conclusions which require more improbability than the basic thesis, that a Galilean named Jesus influenced others who then organized a church.

No, unsupported stories about a Galilean named Jesus influenced others that then organized a church.  This says nothing about whether or not those stories are factually true, which is really the whole point of this thread.  Much of the influence that church has had on the world has come from force and indoctrination, not by convincing people that the stories are actually so.  We have no more need to disprove the existence of Jesus than we do to disprove the existence of Harry Potter.  Unsupported claims of all kinds can be rejected, solely by citing their lack of supporting evidence.  Jesus isn't supported, thus it rests entirely on the shoulders of the believers to show why any of us ought to take this ridiculous story seriously.

[Mudhammam]

No, unsupported stories about a Galilean named Jesus influenced others that then organized a church.  This says nothing about whether or not those stories are factually true, which is really the whole point of this thread.  Much of the influence that church has had on the world has come from force and indoctrination, not by convincing people that the stories are actually so.  We have no more need to disprove the existence of Jesus than we do to disprove the existence of Harry Potter.  Unsupported claims of all kinds can be rejected, solely by citing their lack of supporting evidence.  Jesus isn't supported, thus it rests entirely on the shoulders of the believers to show why any of us ought to take this ridiculous story seriously.

It's not even a matter of believers versus non, as most non-believers acquainted with the data find many supporting evidences for Jesus' historical existence. You can dismiss them but then you do have the burden of citing why, or you risk being ignored altogether.

[Minimalist]

I had to go back into the archives to find something I hammered Drippy with once.  So much for the "more historical evidence" for fucking jesus than anyone else line of shit.

A greater gaffe in defense of Jesus' historicity is to make claims that are conspicuously opposite the truth of the matter, as when E.P.
Sanders boasts that 'the sources for Jesus are better ... than those that deal with Alexander [the Great]'. A more suicidal remark for his case
could hardly be imag­ined. Unlike Jesus, we have over half a dozen relatively objective histori­ans discussing the history of Alexander the Great (most notably Diodorus, Dionysius, Rufus, Trogus, Plutarch and more). These are not romances or propagandists, least of all fanatical worshipers, or anyone concerned about dogma, but disinterested historical writers employing some of the recog­nized skills of critical analysis of their day on a wide body of sources they had available that
we do not. Which doesn't mean we trust everything they say, but we still cannot name even one such person for Jesus, and 'none' is not 'more' than half a dozen.

Richard Carrier - On the Historicity of Jesus Pg. 21-22

[Mr.wizard]

There seems to be a consensus that man named jesus did exist, but once you get past that point, there is no consensus on who he was, what he said, or what he did.

[Minimalist]

There had to be 100 guys named "jesus, son of joseph" in first century Judaea.  They were both common names.

So what?

[Pyrrho]

I don't deny him, I just say he has not met his burden. I don't need to make a positive claim "he didn't exist" any more than I need to say that about Sauron.

To be consistent you would have to be fairly skeptical about the existence of any individual who ever lived in the ancient world, and such extreme caution about Homer or Jesus or Socrates or anyone else---when there are reasons to think some facts can be more ascertained than others, at least in terms of probability---requires further justification than simply saying, "People sometimes write fiction."
...

Your examples are quite a bit different from each other.  I will address them in chronological order.  Generally speaking, the more recent the person, the more evidence that there should be.  And generally speaking, the more important the person, the more evidence there should be.

In the case of Homer, I would not be confident that he was as described, but we can be sure that someone wrote The Illiad and someone wrote The Odyssey, or some group of people did.  But whether they were written by someone named "Homer" or not is not really known.  We don't have any proper documentation on that, but given the era in which he lived, that is hardly surprising.  So Homer is, at best, semi-mythical.  There is no real confidence that he actually existed, but he might have.  I am nearly a pure agnostic on Homer.

In the case of Socrates, we have the testimony of three contemporaries (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes), which puts him in an entirely different class than Homer.  We can be reasonably sure that he existed, and lived in Athens, and was a philosopher who inspired a play by one (which is not complimentary, and makes fun of him), and many of the writings of the others, and Socrates likely said some of the things in some of their writings (though not all of things which Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates).  What adds to the value of the testimony is that they do not attribute miraculous properties to Socrates.  So we have a rough idea about him, and can be reasonably certain he existed.

With Jesus, we are in a different situation still.  He is supposed to be supremely important, and yet we have nothing written during his lifetime.  And unlike the case of Socrates, the earliest writings are all propaganda pieces for a religion, in which miraculous things are attributed to him, which detracts from their value as testimony.  And we also have known cases of fraud, in which Christians have tried to alter texts to support the claim that Jesus existed, which further detracts from any trust one might have otherwise had in writings purporting to support his existence.  Some of the stories (in the Bible) seem like they are adapted from seeing magicians, but this does not tell us whether they are based on a particular one, or on having seen various magicians and making Jesus fit the type.  So we really have no good reason to believe that the stories of Jesus are really based on a particular person, and is, at the very best, semi-mythical, though given his supposed importance, one would expect better documentation if he were real.  I am inclined to think he did not exist at all, but, of course, such a thing isn't likely to ever be provable.  He might have existed, though certainly not as described, and we really don't have any good reason to believe he existed at all.

As for the fact that most people, who have addressed the question, believe Jesus existed, most who enter into the question do not do so without bias, as they generally start out with the belief he existed and conclude, after looking at the evidence, what they already believed before looking at the evidence.  I find this very unconvincing, and am not inclined to alter my opinion based on the opinions of others.


So, I would say that one of the three existed, and the others are uncertain at best, and likely did not exist at all.  Of course, one cannot prove they did not exist, at least not based on any evidence I have seen.


Edited to add:

I forgot to mention the fact that the oldest writings of Christianity are the most vague, and the later ones are more detailed, which strongly suggests that the details are all fiction.  This is obscured to many readers of the Bible, who falsely assume that the books of the New Testament appear in the order in which they are written.  But even most Christian scholars say that that is wrong, and that the earliest writings are ones that lack detail, just as I say.

[Chad32]

He wasn't even supposed to be called Jesus. He was supposed to be called Emmanuel. Prince of peace. But we get this Jesus guy that wants to bring a sword.

[Alex K]

He wasn't even supposed to be called Jesus. He was supposed to be called Emmanuel. Prince of peace. But we get this Jesus guy that wants to bring a sword.

Emmanuel couldn't make it, so Jesus had to step in as a last minute replacement. Hilarity ensued.

Erm.... look at the birds, yes.... erm... right, so the birds...