The following rather famous people are doubtful:
Pythagoras
Homer
Lycurgus
Confucius
Sun Tzu
Aristotle
King David- well, there was a “King” named David, but that’s about all we know.
For a non-King, Jesus is actually pretty fairly well documented. For decades, some thought Pontius Pilate was also made up by the NT writers, but they found one small piece of stone that mentioned his name . So there is a guy who was the Prefect of Judaea, a Roman Procurator- who other than a brief mention in a couple ancient works- had no archeological evidence until 1961.
Infrequently mentioned, yes. Documented, no. There is a difference, and for all we know, the mentions are generated by hearing about fictitious events and believing, or wanting, them to be true, then repeating the bullshit. Repeating a fairy tale doesn’t make it true no matter how many times you do it or how sincerely you believe it.
Whether or not Pontius Pilate existed has no bearing on Jesus’ existence, let alone resurrection.
If I write a fictitious story and include names of New York and Donald Trump, that doesn’t cast any light on the veracity of my fiction. In fact, there’s a whole genre of writing that performs exactly that way. Check your library for the vast “historical fiction” shelves.
As the story in Matthew goes, the Pharisees put a guard in front of the tomb, fearful that Jesus’ followers would steal the body and claim he was resurrected.
It apparently doesn’t occur to many that this suggests stealing the body then making holy claims about it was entirely a thing people worried about. So if the accounts were correct and Jesus’ body did vanish from the crypt, Occam’s razor and Bayesian reasoning tell us that it’s far more likely that shenanigans by his followers is far more likely than a supernatural event.
And if the Jim Jones cult becomes a big thing in 75 years, it will still be true that Jim Jones was a real man, who really did lead a cult. But that would not constitute proof of his divinity.
And we know that Joseph Smith really existed, and the Mormom Church is doing fine and may well still be around in 2,000 years in some form. If people then want to prove his existence, they will certainly be able to. But that does not constitute proof of the claims he made.
Josephus was pretty much in the know about the happenings with the stoning of James, the Brother of Jesus. No one seriously doubts his sources on that. Josephus is one of the major historians of that period, and much of what we know about that period is based upon his writing.
No one is saying that the existence of Smith proves the Book of Mormon. But desperately trying to affirm one’s Atheism by trying to prove that Smith never existed doesnt add anything to that side either.
Which Historian are we 100% sure has mentioned Christ in his book as a real person - keeping in mind that both historical accounts have indications that the mentions of Christ were added by different writers afterwards?
Example: Most of John’s work (or the person(s) who are now called “John”) appears to be an embellishment of earlier writers like Mark. If Mark didn’t provide enough detail to make the story complete, John supplied it, even though he wasn’t closer to the events than Mark. Lacking corroborating evidence, we can safely speculate that he made it up. “Damn it, Jesus is a god, and if he doesn’t come off divine enough, we’ll make him divine!”
Today, we would call them forgeries, a common way of writing back then.
I didnt say “you” I said “one” , I was not accusing *him *of doing that. Several other posters are doing that very thing. They cling desperately to their religion- Atheism, and in order to prove they are True Believers, they have to try to prove a person never existed.
Josephus. Josephus had two mentions of Jesus, one is original, the other was there but has been edited so we dont know that the original said. Most historians believe it was some mention of Jesus, but indeed, that mention was almost certainly edited later.
Who the fuck is trying to prove that he never existed? Many people have questioned whether there is ample evidence to show that the person in question actually lived. I see no one literally trying to prove that he did not. Solid proof either way is probably not to be had. The burden is on the christians, who claim that this stuff genuinely did happen, to support it with real evidence. Because there are some gaping flaws and inconsistencies in the story.
I’d say many, not most, and some also discount the first. But a single source or even two does not create a verifiable existence. Moreover, there are no copies of Josephus that predate the eleventh century, make it very difficult for scholars to verify what was actually wrote contemporaneously. Finally, standards for ancient Historians (even Historians writing as recently as the early 20th century) were very different than standards for Historians today. By 19th century standards - much less 1st century standards - there is plenty of evidence to write about a historical Betty Crocker - there are photos of her, and letters written by her and magazine articles about her (which do not state she is fictional) - that is far more evidence than Josephus would have had access to in order to verify the existence of Christ - had it ever even occurred to him that verification was a necessary part of being a historian.
I believe Christ probably existed, and I believe Richard probably ordered the murder of his nephews - but as someone who considers myself a historian (albeit amateur), I’d never state that there is proof for any of that - evidence - yes - somewhat weak evidence of both, but evidence. But not proof.
There is no “proof” of the Resurrection, nor of any Miracles. There is evidence, but certainly the evidence is likely biased and to many not strong enough to prove extraordinary events. Fine. The Burden here is on the Christians. Believe it or Not.
But there’s plenty of evidence that Jesus actually lived. Even Cecil sez so. The Burden here is on the Atheists.
Whether he lived or not doesn’t prove a supernatural event happened. And since there is a supernatural claim involved, the burden is on the claimant and those are not atheists.
