I’m not sure what you’d expect to see regarding physical proof but I’d say probably not much. Maybe there’s something in an ancient bible?
That’s not the real question though. The real question is rather are there any “real physical proof” that Jesus had literally anything special that is in itself being the “son of God” or anything related to religion.
Anybody (sadly) can be crucified, especially during a period where it is trendy. Anybody can walk through part of the desert. Anybody can organize a meal, give a speech, etc.
Even if it’s done exceptionally well, that does not make it special in the sense of being the proof of anything religious. We all have friends with unique talents, and social media helped us discovered that there are so many more of those around the entire world, but nobody in their right mind would claim that because Eminem can sing words intelligibly faster than the vast majority of people he is the son of “God”.
I also read a book about a decade ago (unfortunately didn’t write down notes about it so can’t find the name back) on the history of religion, from polytheism to monotheism, and it was quite interesting. If I remember correctly one way to interpret it was through the lens of religions maintaining themselves over time and space, which could include growing to a sufficient size in terms of devout adepts. The point being that veracity was not part of the equation.
Praise be Sol Invictus, the real OG Jesus
No, OPs question was perfectly fine, because it is necessary to stress the fact that we have not a single contemporary primary source that Jesus existed. So adding extra parameters is pretty pointless, since we cannot convincingly answer whether he actually existed, much less whether he was a religious figure. Scholars have reached a conjectural consensus that a Jesus in some form likely existed, but it is a consendus based on congecture and circumstantial evidence in the form of later secondary sources.
Well, that’s the question if you want to believe in Christianity.
It’s nearly universally accepted that he is a historical figure, though there is little to no evidence of that. The OP is asking why is that the case with so little evidence. They (presumably) aren’t asking for a religious reason, just as an interest in history. If you are Christian and asking this question you are well past the point of no return for your faith
Eminem claimed to be a Rap God though. Praise be onto him.
Physical proof? No. But if that’s the criterion for proof that someone existed, then that mean 90% of historical figures can’t be proven to have existed. We don’t have the remains of Alexander the Great or any artefacts we can be sure are his. We have no remnants of Plato, none of his original writings remain.
Did a person name Jesus live sometime during the first century AD? Scholars are fairly certain of that. We do have textual evidence other than the bible that points to his existence.
It is highly unlikely that he was anything like the person written about in the bible. He was likely one of many radical apocalyptic prophets of the time.
We don’t have too many details about his life but because of something called the criterion of embarrassment we have good reason to believe he was baptized by a man named John the Baptist and was later crucified. (i.e. most burgeoning religions seeking legitimacy don’t typically invent stories that are embarrassing to their deity)
We do have textual evidence other than the bible that points to his existence.
Idk why you would need textual evidence besides the Bible to be certain the guy existed. It’s not like these are magical books that sprung from the earth. They have historical reasons for existing and the most likely reason includes the existence of the dude.
then that mean 90% of historical figures can’t be proven to have existed
Well for most of those we tend to use independent verification for their existence. And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero Credible examples of independent verification.
And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero independent verification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion, which suggests that Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves,[3]:344 especially since Tacitus was writing at a time when at least the three synoptic gospels are thought to already have been in circulation.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tacitus
According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in the passage to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.[15][30] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic.
Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value
A. The first line of the Tacitus passage says Chrestians, not Christians.
Suetonius says Chrestus was personally starting trouble in Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Suetonius is writing years after Tacitus yet doesn’t mention that Chrestus died.
So Chrestus can’t be Jesus because it’s the wrong decade, wrong continent and missing a death.
B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.
P.S. Even if the second line was somehow authentic, the information would have come from Christians. This would be the equivalent of deriving Abraham’s biography by talking to Muslims.
This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.
In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens, if this is all you got, you are holding an empty bag.
Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion
Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it
According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah
So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.
B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.
I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.
This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.
Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?
If you mean Jesus as described word for word in the bible? Yes you are right. Such a mythical figure never existed.
A man name Jesus from the first century AD? Who preached in the Levant? Who was baptized by a man named John and was later crucified? There is good enough evidence of such a person existing. This isn’t even a debated question among new testament scholars anymore.
I see you are familiar with Bart Ehrman, Even he doesn’t dispute that a historical Jesus existed.
Here’s an even deeper dive from Bart Ehrman.
The only evidence of Jesus, is a few random mentions of someone named Jesus.
And it wasn’t exactly a rare name.
Like, if I found written evidence of a dude named Paul, that doesn’t mean Paul Bunyan was real.
It just means some dude named Paul was real.
All the crazy claims about being a Messiah wasnt until long after he was dead.
This isn’t really right. The primary texts corroborate more facts than the name: that he was put to death by the Romans for inciting disloyalty.
Yes there is. Amen brothers and sisters.
There had to be multiple Rabbi rabblerousers in Roman occupied Judea. Pick one.
He was created by Roman elites in order to divide the Jews and get them to pay taxes.
Some people say yes, some say no. Christians, agnostics, and atheists on all sides. I hope that answers your question.
To be fair, if someone said Jesus never existed, they clearly wouldn’t be Christian 🤣
It really isn’t so clearcut. You don’t need an actual Jesus for the words attributed to him to be true. “Jesus” works perfectly fine as a container for an idea.
Thing is, it goes against man’s desires. The other religions that took off generally allow men to take more than one wife, fight wars, etc. Christianity basically asks of one to be poor and selfless and pure
The context within which you are raised matters so much more than what’s written in your chosen scripture. That and self interest. Between those two, pretty much anyone can wrangle themselves into believing anything they want. The history of how we got here from there is similarly irrelevant.
There’s quite a bit of contrast between Christianity and Islam in terms of how scripture is presented, as Islam teaches that the Qur’an is literally the words of God. As for Judaism, it’s unfulfilled, and if the New Testament about Jesus is actually true to what happened, then the Jewish prophecies clearly point to Him. Other than that it’s a very elaborate scam made by well educated people which doesn’t really give them any benefit.
Comfort and well-being, or so they believe… for some reason. Personally I like knowing I only get one shot
They were all executed horribly
That doesn’t work. Either there is physical proof or there is none. Afaik the latter is correct.
Ehhhhhh, you probably aren’t trying to be technical, but it’s worth noting that circumstancial evidence is definitely a thing; is evidence that suggests but doesn’t definitively state. As mentioned in this tread, Nero calls out pilate for executing Jesus. There’s also the often overlooked circumstancial evidence that there’s a whole ass religion to the guy, which sure there are other religions etc etc, but most of them don’t have a semi Devine being that you can point to specific dates and times…
I will continue on, I’m an atheist, so I’m not arguing for Christianity, so here’s obligatory circumstancial evidence against historical J.
Wasn’t a census when he was supposed to be born. No written accounts of Herod executing every baby boy in Judea. Etc etc lmgtfy if you need it
The Nero reference you are mentioning was written by Tacitus over a century after he was supposed to have lived. The fact of the matter js that there is no contemporary primary rvidence of hus exisrence.
Frankly, I have no primary evidence of your existence. I could be arguing with a bot right now and it wouldn’t be unbelievable. Primary evidence is a motherfucker, the guy we are talking about was probably illiterate, talking to more people who were illiterate, what kind of primary evidence could there be? Even if we had a body, could we really point to it and say with any real confidence that it was Jesus or just some other person that was crucified?
Honestly ask yourself, what would you accept as primary evidence?
He wants a time machine with Mel Gibsons camera crew to accompany him
No, Jesus never existed. He is a fictional character.
Nope. But that’s also not as big a deal as a lot of folks make it.
Also, he’s far from the only important(?) historical(?) figure we can’t prove ever existed.
Jesus never led an army or ruled a country, so we cannot have coins bearing His face or remnants of an army, etc. However, there is plenty of physical proof of the early Church. There is evidence of pilgrimages to Bethlehem early on and Jerusalem as well, such as the church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is a plausible candidate for Jesus’ actual tomb.
They’ve never been able to find Jesus’s bones, which is itself strong evidence for the Biblical story that he was resurrected.
Strong Poe’s Law energy with this comment.
Agreed.
It is said that the foreskin of Jesus still exists…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
For all I know it could be just an ancient dried up piece of bacon 🤷♂️
It seems like the consensus is that the stories probably stem from a real guy because that’s deemed more likely than no person existing as a basis for the story, but no, there is not material evidence for jesus christ’s existence
The only physical proof you can have of a person that lived before photography is a body. So no, Jesus did not have a publically marked grave and we do not have his bones.
That being said, there is a difference between proving something historically and proving it in the court of law. Historical evidence points to Jesus having been a person that lived around that time.
