What historical evidence is there that Jesus was crucified?

Yeah, fuck me for actually trying to study the faith and what your holy texts say and examining them. I should just accept their word as fact, and of course yours because your sect is the only true Christianity.

You are conflating historicity of Jesus with existence of God. You are also very biased.

>There is already far better evidence against it
Against what? Against a historical Jesus? By all means provide a link to this evidence.

There is probably more proof for god existing than for Jesus existing. And if he did exist he's entirely likely to have been nothing like what the Bible says.

Also, wasn't Jesus god? So they're the same thing. :^)

And, yes, I am biased. I like things to have evidence behind them. When they do not, I view them as far less reliable. Especially when said beliefs demand I attend their meetings and believe or go to hell.

I meant evidence against Christianity. But the historicity of Jesus is pretty much the same thing. There's pretty much nothing proving his existence.

As I said before, the Battle of Troy has more evidence for it than Jesus.

>Hearsay from a bunch of people thousands of years ago is not evidence.
It actually literally is.
It is just rather weak evidence compared to, say, a hypothetical with current technology hard to fake 2 hour 1080p video clip of it.

An actual Roman historian named Flavius Josephus whose writings on the Jewish revolt are often cited by historians studying the Roman governance of Judea literally said that Jesus did exist.

I don't study history to push an agenda one way or another, and as such am only interested in the facts and being as objective and unbiased as possible. The historicity of Jesus to me is no different than the historicity of King Arthur or the historicity Agamemnon. I would suggest you take a similar point of view if you are to discuss history.

See:

Yes, a source later confirmed to have been later forged by a Christian because Josephus was a Jew and would not have spoken of Christ positively.

And if two paragraphs at best is all you have, that doesn't count as evidence.

I do look at it unbiased. The fact is that there is no evidence. We have gospels written almost 100 years after he died and none written by eyewitnesses, no real references to him outside of Christians, we have a few forged references in Josephus, etc.

None of this is very compelling evidence at all. Especially not for Christ being anything like what the Bible claimed. Even if we took it for granted that these sources prove he exists, whether or not Christ is actually portrayed accurately is another matter. At this point it's more likely that he is a mythological figure than anything

The only physical proofs are the shards of the cross which are kept inside the vatican with the rest of the historical treasures. the church keeps many sacred objects and the forbidden chapters of the bible, the prophetic letters of a virgin which i don't remember

You need to educate yourself about the Historical Method. Historians almost never have the luxury of a multitude of detailed contemporary sources by direct eyewitnesses when dealing with ancient history. We're lucky to have so much as a coin with a name on it for many rulers, let alone physical evidence for an apocalyptic prophet in what was a backwater province.

Multiple sources written within living memory of a person by people from different religious backgrounds is damn strong evidence for the existence of a historical figure - particularly one this unimportant during his lifetime.

I'm curious: do you similarly dispute the existences of Hannibal Barca, Queen Boudica, Socrates, and Pilate?

It seems likely, since Rome used crucifixion against rebel leaders at the time.

>Multiple sources written within living memory of a person by people from different religious backgrounds is damn strong evidence for the existence of a historical figure - particularly one this unimportant during his lifetime.

No. None of it was writren in living memory. The earliest references were years after Christ was dead. Josephus wasn't even born until after Jesus supposedly died.

Secondly, Josephus references were forged, the gospels could have been written by anybody and neither were eyewitnesses, they disagree with one another on pretty big issues, and all other references are from believers, so far from some unbiased sources or even reliable ones. If this were about anyone other than Jesus nobody would give it the time of day because the sources are so sketchy and sparse.

Thirdly, no. I don't doubt those people because we have a hell of a lot better evidence for them. We have people who knew them writing about them, historians at the time reference them and aren't forged, we have a larger variety of references from third parties that don't already "believe" in them, etc. We have myths and legends that are more reliable than this garbage.

We don't know the exact birth and death time of Jesus, and neither did the Romans, who in 330 something AD decided that the calendar should start in Jesus' birthyear. They had historians make an estimation, and that means it's probably very incorrect to say that Jesus was born in year 0, which invalidates your "100 years after he died" argument

Dig deeper. The version of Antiquities of the Jews that has survived comes to us via 3/4th century Bishop Eusebius. It is thought that there is an original core to the passage by scholars of religious history (ranging from Christians to Jews to atheists) in part due to the writings of 2nd-3rd c. ascetic Origen in his condemnation of Celsus. Celsus was a Hellenic philosopher who opposed Christianity and wrote a text characterizing Jesus as the bastard son of a desperate adultress and a Roman soldier, who gained a following by deploying black magic and trickery to deceive people into listening to him. Origen wrote a rebuttal that mentioned Josephus on numerous occasions:

>And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

(continued)

(continued from) Next:

>For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just.

Origen repeatedly called Josephus a non-believer while extensively using quotations and information about Jesus from the text. In our surviving version of the Antiquities of the Jews copied by Bishop Eusebius, "Josephus" is calling Jesus the prophesied messiah who rose from the dead.This indicates that when Origen read it, the passages did not contain these praises and affirmations of Jesus.

One may thus conclude that the insertion of those lines happened between the times of Origen and Eusebius, or that Eusebius himself is in fact responsible for the alterations.

All that does is make it even more doubtful. We can't pin down an idea of when he lived or died, the only sources from "eyewitnesses", disagree on tons of shit they all apparently saw directly, all have a different spin and yet are apparently guided by the holy spirit, and the only "secular" sources or third party references we can find are from forged Josephus passages and him saying "yeah some dudes apparently talk about this Christ guy a lot and follow him".

That is laughable at best. And to compare such sparse and sketchy sources to other historical figures makes you dishonest as fuck.

There are lots of historical figures that we do not know exactly when lived, who have little to no evidence to prove their existance, yet are considered real historic people. Why should Jesus' existance require more evidence?

These doubtful existences are really fascinating, actually. My favorite example is Hygelac, a mythic king from the poem Beowulf. Until they recently found out that he was a real person, which lead to a big restudying of the sagas.

>There are lots of historical figures that we do not know exactly when lived, who have little to no evidence to prove their existance, yet are considered real historic people.

After evidence is found. Even your example shows that.

>Why should Jesus' existance require more evidence?

He shouldn't. He needs any evidence at all beyond some very bad and unreliable hearsay. Secondly, because if you want anyone to worship and treat him like the perfect person, you better have some strong evidence he even existed before you try selling them on the idea that he was a god. And they have to worship him or burn for eternity.

>No. None of it was writren in living memory. The earliest references were years after Christ was dead. Josephus wasn't even born until after Jesus supposedly died.

Look up the definition of "living memory" then look at a timeline, genius. Jesus of Nazareth was executed around 30-35 CE and was by no means an old man. Paul's nonpseudigraphical letters were written 20 years later. Mark was written 40 years later. Josephus was born right after it happened. Plenty of people born in the 10s and 20s were still around. Tacitus started writing 60 years after it happened; it's been 72 years since WWII and that's still within living memory.

>Thirdly, no. I don't doubt those people because we have a hell of a lot better evidence for them. We have people who knew them writing about them, historians at the time reference them and aren't forged, we have a larger variety of references from third parties that don't already "believe" in them, etc. We have myths and legends that are more reliable than this garbage.

Nope, you're just assuming that. I asked whether you were suspicious of those historical figures for a reason: no contemporary sources for any of them. Ditto for Jesus of Nazareth. If we have nothing contemporary for someone as famous as Hannibal, the man who nearly brought Rome to its knees, why on earth would you expect more than that for a backwater preacher?

Basing an argument for his non-existence on the fact we have no contemporary sources on him is absurd - it's just the nature of ancient sources.

>Secondly, because if you want anyone to worship and treat him like the perfect person, you better have some strong evidence he even existed before you try selling them on the idea that he was a god. And they have to worship him or burn for eternity.

For fuck's sake, everyone here but you is talking about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure. We're saying we agree with the academic consensus that Jesus of Nazareth- the apocalyptic preacher who got nailed to a stick for pissing off the Romans and Sanhedrin - existed.

Do you think that everyone who agrees that Muhammad existed is saying they believe he split the moon in half, spoke with angels, had divine abilities, etc?

Jesus is just a fantasy, not a historic figure.

>An actual Roman historian named Flavius Josephus...
wrote that there were Christians who believed in Christ. NOT that he himself had seen any actual EVIDENCE that Jesus ever existed.

Poor quality hearsay, at best.

The best argument for Jesus's historicity is that if he wasn't a real man, the jewish scholars would have tried to discredit his existence and the growing christian faith. Since they didn't, we can assume we was a real man.

It's definitely a strong point.

A lot of people did not like early Christianity, Jewish and Graeco-Roman pagan alike, and in the writings that have survived they say that Jesus wasn't the messiah, that he was a liar, a black magic practitioner, insane, etc - but they don't argue that he never existed. If you were an early critic of Christianity, the easiest way to neuter the religion would've been to demonstrate that nobody in his hometown had ever heard of the guy.