I've read the bible and enjoyed it and have delved into some Christian apologist books such as a Case for Christ, and Mere Christianity and they put forth some sound arguments.
So now I want the best arguments form the atheist community on debunking the historical Jesus, I don't mean atheists attacking some of the logic or rational behind the bible stories itself (Noah's ark, creation story, gospel inconsistencies etc) as those are obvious enough I was looking more for disproving the claims made about the Historical Jesus and his supposed Resurrection.
I asked for the best arguments, if that's the best argument on the atheist side (I know it isn't) then Christianity has a large leg up.
Aiden Torres
Why do you expect atheists to have an specific interest in dissproving the historical jesus? Christianity depends on jesus acts of wonder being true not his mere historicity. Dissaproving the existence of jesus would just be a bonus for them.
Wyatt Thomas
Because the historical Jesus being real lends credibility to the acts of Jesus and any argument against will be met with faith based arguments.
If one could prove he never existed or never resurrected with certainty it would be the killing blow to Christianity.
The Resurrection being the largest one, as long as that remains as something that can be open to debate about what the apostles/multitude claim to have seen rather than never having taken place it will keep Christianity grounded historically as well as having the entire point of christs story hinging on it making the dispute between the miracles irrelevant.
Ian Nguyen
>Dude, my friend Bob is the reincarnation of God. >Look here's evidence he's real. You can say hi to him even. This lends credibility to him being divine.
Nathaniel Gomez
A man resurrecting form the dead does indeed lend credibility to him being divine.
I'm asking for decent atheist arguments against what the apologists consider ample evidence of his resurrection. Not some dumbass green text post.
There must be some video out there that debates it? A book maybe? I assumed Veeky Forums could point me in the right direction. I could just google it obviously but I was hoping to save sometime.
Brayden Baker
Evidence for a rise of death saints in Jersualem after the crucifixion as described by Matthew? It's an event you except to be described by a lot of people if merely as fantastic legends.
Aiden Roberts
Yeah that is a decent argument, especially given the Jewish population in the area. I would imagine a lot more Jewish people would be going to Christianity when they see their prophets returning.
Jace Gray
> I was looking more for disproving the claims made about the Historical Jesus and his supposed Resurrection.
Try looking into the works by Bart Erhman. In general though the big issue tends to hinge on the accuracy and authenticity of the Gospels as being the eye witness accounts produced by the disciples. Not only were fabricated documents a huge issue in the early church but there are a lot of issues over basic things such as who actually wrote the accounts.
>Not only were fabricated documents a huge issue in the early church Why is this? I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm trying to understand the motivation for forgery or lying about a religious belief that could land you in some real hot water at the time.
what possesses someone to pull that shit?
Nicholas Kelly
Something also worth keeping in consideration, we have almost no documents from the ancient period and the very few documents that have survived kept were primarily preserved by an institution which made a point of destroying works it disagreed with.
So unlike a lot of modern religions there is no "gotcha" document for either side that wipes out all skepticism all you have is evidence or a lack of evidence that is cumulatively convincing.
Another interesting angle is to look at the arguments put forward by the Jews for Jesus not meeting the requirements/prophecies of the messiah.
Daniel Nguyen
>Another interesting angle is to look at the arguments put forward by the Jews for Jesus not meeting the requirements/prophecies of the messiah.
yeah that is a very good one, the apostles mentioning Jesus crucifixion in relation to psalms 22 is a good example of that.
Psalms doesn't appear prophetic to any degree so it seems really strange that they would try and make mention of it in relation to the death of Christ, of course you could argue the crucifixion being so similar to it MAKES it prophetic but thats sort of a fuck you from god in determining who their messiah is then.
I do enjoy christianity and part of me does want it to be real but a lot of stuff just doesn't make sense to me over all, so I'm mostly trying to get arguments form both ends and putting the arguments against each other to try and see if this is something I should consider spiritually if at all.
Angel Cook
>what possesses someone to pull that shit? Three main factors which will help you understand why it was such an issue.
Firstly, as a religion that spread through word of mouth it is only natural that false information and attribution would happen when you went to write this stuff down given you had roughly a half century game of Chinese whispers going on.
Secondly there were those who sought to give legitimacy, gain attention for their ideas, or tackle local/contemporary problems.
Thirdly the Church was scattered and very decentralised for a long time so it wasn't all that easy to have a clear cannon especially when even the Gospels we have today did not have clear authors.
Colton Phillips
>I do enjoy christianity and part of me does want it to be real but a lot of stuff just doesn't make sense to me over all, so I'm mostly trying to get arguments form both ends and putting the arguments against each other to try and see if this is something I should consider spiritually if at all.
Im in a very similar position, its a rough slog especially when you consider other religions and the sheer scale of the information and philosophy you have to digest.
People dedicate their entire lives to studying this stuff and we are trying to figure it out in an instant.
[spoiler]It also doesnt help that one truth is vastly more comfy than others[/spoiler]
Parker Morgan
I thank you for the resources you've given me and you've answered some questions for me well.
I'll take a look at this website and look into Bart Erhman tomorrow and go form there.
reality is I may never come to a solid conclusion on if I fully believe or disbelieve in Christianity, its something I've struggled with since childhood. I feel there is some truth to "feeling the living god" its almost like you either have that experience and commit fully or you don't.
Xavier Robinson
Yeah its hard, makes one jealous of the complete certainty others have and how easily they reached it.
I dont know what to believe or what would actually change my beliefs
Christian Sanders
>some desert cult head suspended all the laws of nature >doubting that is not a great argument
James Reyes
>So now I want the best arguments form the atheist community on debunking the historical Jesus Not possible.
Approach it from the other side: what evidence is there IN FAVOR of a historical Jesus? I.e. are there any primary sources to support his historicity? Answer: No.
Aaron Stewart
>we have almost no documents from the ancient period and the very few documents that have survived
Indeed and whenever they dig up a pot with early Christian documents it tells a totally different story. The "orthodox" view was just that of the gang who won out, and then destroyed all the contradictory evidence.
Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" is pretty good.
One problem on the other side is that there is virtually on the other side - no actual credible case that jesus existed. It is just assumed.
Bart Ehrman wrote "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" but it is embarrassingly bad.
While most biblical scholars say Jesus existed, many of them have jobs that depend on their saying that. And I think it is fair to say that even if he did exist, we have very little solid information about him. Many of the gospel stories were clearly later additions.
Wyatt Barnes
And Paul who is the only writer close to the times, says very little about Jesus as a historical figure. His knowledge comes from visions.
N.B. About half of "Paul's" letters are forgeries. The rest have mostly been amended later on.
The fact that virtually nothing survives from the early church is very telling. Why destroy what would have been very powerful evidence?
Brayden Martin
The historical trend has been that less and less of the bible is seen as historical. Noah, Moses, the exodus, Daniel is a forgery etc etc.
Jonathan Jones
Have you had any experiance with Ehrmans book the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture?
Carson Collins
>I want the best arguments form the atheist community on debunking the historical Jesus
The main argument boils down to the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which does not exist.
Brandon Butler
What benefit is there for the early church to lie and make forgery to get Christianity off the ground?
If Jesus either never existed or did not preform the miracles he did and remained in the ground why then did his followers continue with the charade?
I come across this argument a lot, as well as people saying doing such things was met with death and I'll be honest I have a hard time picturing someone willing to die for a farce they know is a farce.
Is there good arguments from the atheist side against this?
Cooper Jenkins
Not that user but see >If Jesus either never existed or did not preform the miracles he did and remained in the ground why then did his followers continue with the charade?
Why would the 12 people who claimed to witnesses the golden plates of Smith continue in the charade of Mormonism if they did not exist?
Why would Scientologists stay in a church that costs vast amounts of money if their teachings didnt give people super powers?
>Is there good arguments from the atheist side against this?
Failed prophecy doesnt automatically loose believers and can in fact trigger more activity.
Isaac Perry
Neither of those examples had the threat of death as a very real possibility for continuing to preach the religion.
I do recall Paul mentioning a couple who was keeping money from the early church being killed by god right then and there so it appears at some point they were getting money by donation.
Grayson Allen
>Neither of those examples had the threat of death as a very real possibility for continuing to preach the religion
Do you think the Mormons trekked all the way to Deseret for fun check out the extermination order
Headquarters of the Militia, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.
Gen. John B. Clark:
"Sir: Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids [sic], information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Willock, of Marion county, to raise five hundred men, and to march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with five hundred men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express, you can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead therefore of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and then operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command."
>What benefit is there for the early church to lie and make forgery to get Christianity off the ground?
I mean, if you joined a little after Jesus went away you wouldn't know any better and reliant on heresay and stories. And those are malleable to change.
Exaggerating situations or explaining what happened in a way that better appeals to peoples sense of wonderment and morality wouldnt exactly be lying and it helps spread the local church. Do that for a few hundred years and the truth would have been warped out of whack.
Its all very logical really. Why wouldnt the early church fathers not try to improve the reach and brand of their religion to attract more followers?
Evan Gomez
That said here are two things to reflect on - what actual evidence do we have of the lives of the Apostles prior Jesus and at the point of their deaths?
Secondly does that the faith of people who believed in others make the origin stories true? For instance Islamic and Sikh martyrs
Brody Bell
>I don't mean atheists attacking some of the logic or rational behind the bible stories itself (Noah's ark, creation story, gospel inconsistencies etc) as those are obvious enough I was looking more for disproving the claims made about the Historical Jesus and his supposed Resurrection.
If you want to understand the historical Jesus you have to interpret the gospels in the context of their history.
Jesus would deny his own resurrection - the gospels are clearly partially trying to reeducate Jews as well as making sick jokes at their expense. For example, this passage is clearly a servant of God sardonically mocking Judaism. God is an omnipresent eternal spirit - everyone but the Jews knew this in the early 1st century.
We were having such a nice thread, too. Please, if you have any love for your fellow man, put a trip on so we can block you again.
Carter Smith
There really needs to be a rule that there should be no proselytizing and threads should be kept to a secular perspective unless otherwise noted
Landon Young
Many of the "Historical Jesus" people are very liberal Christians rather than outright atheists
Eli Mitchell
Christian apologetics are mostly circular. Assume all the New Testament accounts are true, then use the stories as proof of other elements of the story. OP seems to be asking for evidence to disprove the stories, which is a near impossibility. Of course the writers were not idiots, and tried their best to remain internally consistent.
The big break is that atheists do not accept the New Testament accounts as valid to begin with. Oral traditions spun decades afterwards that then got written down. Who knows how much they changed?
Charles Foster
>Disregard all primary witnesses >Disregard all secondary contemporary sources >Therefore there is NO EVIDENCE!!!!1one >Assert that it's "Scientifically PROVEN!" even though we did no science with the equations and experiments >If you don't understand this then you are too retarded to understand our intellectual destruction of your side >Only those who are enlightened and un-indoctrinated like us can see the depths of our deep arguments!
Literally the same /pol/ tier arguments used to deny the holocaust or advance any other conspiracy theory.
Adrian Hughes
Then read my Books I wrote, four Gospels and Revelation.
Holy Ghostwriter
Levi Stewart
Five books by Moses Five books by Jesus
Cool
Tyler Garcia
Thank you.
Ayden Martin
Read Bart Ehrman. Practically mandatory reading
David Rogers
Oy vey never forget your six million jewish brothers Isaac. Donate to Israeli orphans today
Daniel Nelson
But he sucks. All he has are plausible sounding stories without the evidence to prove them. The only people that like him are those who are looking to read exactly what they want to hear.
Carson Baker
The best argument against the ressurrection of Jesus is that no members outside of Jesus's cult ever spoke of his resurrection.
Luis Green
Sparta didn`t do any of them yet they lost everything lmao.
Connor Rivera
Didn't even really defend Europe either. Hell, they even helped the Persians at some points.
Mason Roberts
>>The best argument against the ressurrection of Jesus is that no members outside of Jesus's cult ever spoke of his resurrection.
>Oh looked, I pulled a statement out of my ass! Check and mate!
Protip: Jewish records mentioned Jesus' resurrection and claim it was by the power of demons he escaped from hell before being caught and thrown back in. Why would they acknowledge it and try to explain it away when they could have just said they didn't see nuffin'? It only makes sense if it was too widely seen and attested to in the Jewish community and couldn't be simply denied. For comparison, they don't say Mary had a virgin birth because of the power of demons but rather that she simply slept with a Roman.
Brody Green
>Jewish records mentioned Jesus' resurrection Why don't you post a link to those records or tell us which specific records you mean?
I'll wait.
Matthew Bell
No they fucking don't.
The only person who mentions Jesus is Josephus, and he only mentions him in relation to the discussion of Jewish sectarianism during the 1st century.
Your "sources" don't exist. Especially as Jews don't believe in demons like that, and didn't have that concept of hell.
You're a full of shit moron.
Asher Thompson
It's in the Talmud.
Logan Wilson
"The Talmud" is a collection of books that is roughly as long as the encyclopedia britannica. Nobody can verify your claim without a bit of guidance. What book, what page?
Aiden Garcia
>Because the historical Jesus being real lends credibility to the acts of Jesus Not at all.
Jackson Collins
There are no primary sources on the life of Jesus. The gospels are arguable secondary, though written by people who did not even speak the same language and get basic things about Jews and the region incorrect.
No one asserts that the historical Jesus theory is scientifically proven, but it is subject to the historical method, which is more reliable than individual theorizing, and certainly more reliable than assuming a series of religious documents should be taken at face value. Do you take non-Christian accounts of gods and miracles at face value?
