It ought not be surprising that that there is scant evidence that Jesus existed given his supposed poverty, low social class, relatively short life and lack of travel. It would be incredible if we did. Most everyone agrees that Pontius Pilate was a real person, a person of wealth and position, but we know very little about him.

The Romans wrote down pretty much anything notable. Feeding 5000 people with two fish and a few loaves of bread would have been legendary, yet nobody bothers to write it down at the time.

Alexander the Great was a pretty famous fella and one would think there'd be a wealth of first hand accounts written by people who knew Alexander but there is little as just a few fragments ind inscriptions survive.

Much of what we know about Herod the Great comes from one source and that is Josephus who was born some 41 years after Herod died.

It's extremely rare that original records survive, but the provenance of those records can build a case for their existence. Josephus frequently references other records which have been lost to history, but they can still be verified by other people referencing the same documents. As such a chain of evidence can be established. Multiple people known to exist that knew Alexander and Herod wrote things down. People that are known to exist referenced those writings. On and on it goes. That's how we know with a reasonable degree of certainty those people existed. This is not the case for Jesus. All we really know is Josephus references a person named Jesus had something of a ministry and was crucified. We don't know where he gets this information from. For all we know he could have just been repeating a myth that was already well established.

He was supposedly poor, owning nothing but the clothes he wore.

There is the Paul the Apostle, who many historians believe was a real person, and who is widely accepted to have written at least 7 of the first books of the New Testament some 25 years after the death of Jesus. Paul names several of the disciples and gives 1st hand accounts on meeting several of them (Galatians 1-2).

Jesus' allegedly adopted father was allegedly a carpenter which would have made him a tradesman and middle-class as would have been typical for a Jewish tradesman. Jesus allegedly paid taxes and had a treasurer, which suggests he had income from his ministry which was allegedly successful.

Paul never met Jesus unless you count the time the holy poltergeist allegedly whispered in his ear. The best source is actually James, allegedly the brother of Jesus, which we are reasonably sure is a real person and if we assume the Jesus figure existed we can further assume James knew him as a sibling. So in one sense we actually have a 2nd person account from someone we can be reasonably sure was a real person. However, both James and Paul were part of the early church, so if we consider Jesus was mythological both James and Paul (and others) would have profited from perpetuating that myth. That doesn't make for an independent source.

Now I know he did. And does.

How do you "know?"

Thanks, in advance.

He showed me.

I was 42 and dumb.

I’m 58 now, and even though it was for a short time 16 years ago (over about a six month period) I became absolutely, totally convinced with my own eyes, and personal experience, that without any doubt He is real.

I’ll just leave it at that.

And He will let you know too, if you ask.

Are all non-Christians dumb?

I was talking about me.

between your Christianity and your intelligence. Would you explain it to me, please? You consider it important enough that you mentioned it in your post.

would be recorded somewhere in the records. Just one thing.

Herod the Great supposedly did many wicked things during his reign but there are no contemporaneous sources that document those crimes. Our primary source, Josephus, is one who lived close to a 100 years after Herod.

Catholics, for example, don't view scripture as a history or science book full of evidence-based facts.

This is an article from a Catholic Jesuit publication. It echoes what I first heard in CCD classes in 6th grade, when I asked the young Seminarian about the Adam and Eve story. His answer: we weren't meant to believe it literally.

https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/786/article/fundamental-challenge

I led a Bible study series recently at a parish in Manhattan, where most of the participants were hip, advanced-degree-holding professionals. . . . When the participants raised questions about scientific theories concerning the origins of the universe and humankind, I made reference to the 2004 statement by the Vatican-sponsored International Theological Commission, which spoke positively about the Big Bang theory. I also quoted Pope John Paul II’s affirming remarks on the theory of evolution.

Nonetheless, a number of individuals were shocked at the suggestion that the first and second chapters of Genesis did not contain literal, historically accurate accounts of creation. One woman protested, saying, “How do you know the world wasn’t made that way? You can’t prove otherwise!” Another was flabbergasted that I did not affirm the historicity of the talking serpent in Genesis 3: “Are you saying that God can’t create a talking snake?” Finally, an irate young man sent me e-mail to tell me, among other things, that my treatment of Genesis had no place in a Catholic parish and that I should consider becoming Protestant.

SNIP

Most Catholics who are literal readers of the Bible do not realize that this method is not a part of their faith tradition and that such interpretations have been repeatedly discouraged by Catholic scholars, pastors and bishops.

Make up your mind. Is any part of the Bible true? When someone says a particular event didn't actually happen, how can they say any event did happen? If Adam didn't exist, then Jesus didn't. If Noah didn't exist, then Jesus didn't. When a book is full of lies, how can you claim one part of it to be true? It's not like a broken clock is right twice a day

which stories in the Bible really happened, and which ones are fiction. I've never received s straight answer to that question.

And that this person was a god, actually The God, one aspect of the trinitarian christian deity, and that this god-person was the result of one of the non-person forms of this god impregnating a woman named Mary without, you know, actually having sex with her.

It is babble of impossible nonsense, and yet billions of people believe it is literally true.

Catholics have plenty of literal beliefs too.

A conflict that I think cannot really be resolved in any rational way.

Did Jesus rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven? Literally? If not, then what was the point? Those things, which are the core beliefs of Christianity either actually happened or they did not happen. There's no metaphorical truth there.

Does the host become the actual body and blood of Jesus? The Pope says so. The Catechism says so. Really? Either it does or it does not. If someone insists that it does, as the Catholic Church claims, then it is a laughing matter. If it does not, then the ritual does not make sense in any real way.

What is literal and what metaphorical? What's the author of that article's opinion, verse by verse?

The Jesuits are known for their rational discourse, but try asking one of the two questions above. You'll get a sputtering response, because neither thing makes any logical sense, nor is either a rational thing in a literal way. So, are both things metaphors? For what? And why does RCC doctrine clearly state that both things are literally true?

The answer typically given is that we are not supposedly capable of understanding them. They are "Mysteries." Fictions.

Fictions we are meant to believe as if they were literally true, even if they're not. And that's where the whole thing breaks down.

If Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and a cracker and some wine turn into the literal body and blood of Jesus, then anything could be true, including all of the weird stories in the Old Testament.

So which is it? Literal truth or metaphor? You can't have it both ways. Truly.

Nonsense. All of it, in my opinion.

...

"Grandma? I thought you died 5 years ago?"

...SAINTS!!! I tell you, waking up from the dead!

Walking, talking Zombie SAINTS!

And NOBODY took a selfie...metaphorically, on parchment....

O...M...G!

like that. a ripple of females in the death records? or a change in the gender of property owners? were there mostly male property owners, then suddenly a shift in the inheritance pattern to unmarried daughters?

to me this is all just a history puzzle, but these are the stories i was raised on.

seems to be on record, so it's not a big stretch to think he might actually have killed some babies in a backwater too

Killing all the male children in a town would be unusual enough to attract attention, I would think. Have any kings ever done that, outside of the two Bible stories?

I asked about records. Outside of the two Bible stories, is there any record anywhere of a ruler having all the male babies in a town, village, or area killed?

The history we know from records is almost entirely the history of the powerful

Being a wealthy, powerful people within that area of the Roman Empire and also being a highly educated, civilized and literate people, might have left a written record of all their male children being killed. You know it's not as if they would have been indifferent.

They left many written accounts of far less traumatic experiences, that still survive today. Except nothing contemporary about Yeshu Ben Joseph, brother of James son of Miriam etc and the many miraculous/calamitous happenings around him.

Oh and the point of a census is to record things, so why is there no record of a census in Judea at that time? A lot of things don't stack up. That there was a person named Yeshu seems to be beyond doubt, only far too many Yeshu's, it's just a form of Joshua after all.

That doesn't solve the problem, you see. It's not the Gospels I was looking for, I know what's in them. I was looking for corroborating evidence that the male children of Judea were slaughtered.

It's a lot of male children from many different backgrounds, including the educated and literate, wealthy or not. Herod had many enemies, as did the Judeans. Yet none of them mention this mass slaughter, across an entire Roman province. It's hard to believe.

The Romans themselves would have been aghast at this kind of thing and yes the Romans would have used it against the Judeans. Pontius Pilate the rather sadistic and cruel anti-Jewish Roman Governor would have been loathe to let this opportunity to berate the people he reportedly detested escape.

The Jews of Judea were a rich and powerful people, the Romans did not mint the face of the Emperor on it's coinage in the region out of respect for the Jewish prohibition on graven images. You don't get that kind of respect from the Romans without serious clout.

Yet there is no evidence for a mass slaughter of Judean children. Unless you consider the rather later (and not at all contradictory) accounts in the Bible with all the miraculous comings and goings as undeniable truth. No evidence where evidence should exist doesn't help your case.

Oh yes above all else, do you think that the literate, wealthy or no wouldn't write down their grief and sorrow at the loss of their child? Do you not think that people would protest and gather, appeal to other powers and the Romans for help rather than carry out this massacre of their own children? Yet none of this is recorded by anyone outside the New Testament.

I notice tales reflecting much of the history of the rich and mighty misusing the poor and weak

you've never seen that the eagles of war
whose wings lent you glory
they were never no more than carrion crows
pushed the wrens from their nest
stole their eggs
changed their story

the mockingbird sings it
it's all that she knows

"ah what can I do?" say a powerless few

OCT 11 2017
BY EMMANUEL SEHENE RUVUGIRO, CORRESPONDENT IN KIGALI

JusticeInfo: Approximately how many children were killed during the 1994 genocide?

Valérie Mukabayire: The genocide perpetrated against Tutsis in 1994 left more than a million people dead – 1,074,017 to be precise, according to the Rwandan Ministry for Local Administration. Children and young people under 24 were the main victims, representing 53.7%. It is difficult to establish the proportion of boys to girls, but we know that there were orders to kill boys and that they were the most persecuted, to the point that some dressed up as girls to try and survive.

Children are innocent, so why were they targeted?

The extermination of the Tutsi ethnic group was planned through a well elaborated and well taught ideology that the perpetrators took to heart. Targets were clearly identified as Tutsi and all associated with them or resembling them. “He who kills a serpent should not spare its eggs” was an injunction broadcast by hate media. This encouraged the Interahamwe militia to kill even children, saying that even babies could be threats in the future. “Didn’t Paul Kagame and Fred Rwigema, the military commanders of the RPF, flee the country on their mothers’ backs?” they repeated, regretting that they had let them flee abroad ...

https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/tribunals/ictr/34925-online-exhibition-pays-gruesome-tribute-to-child-suffering-in-rwandan-genocide.html

...events of history were recorded and those records have been preserved from the purported time and location of the magic events of the man-god-sky-daddy-avatar, except the magic events of man-god-sky-daddy-avatar.

... which they are not. I know some happy people with Jesus in their hearts, and good for them. I also know some unhappy ones, and sorry for those - but both groups might have felt the same way tugged into other sources of belief. Most are saying "I believe in Christ", so why this need to hunt for actual facts?

Facts are anyway difficult to find, even for recent history. We all remember the brutal images on TV when the chinese slayed the students at the Tiananmen Square - though they never existed...

come to my place of business at 5:00 and watch my workers suddenly come to life.

Faith is evidence of, well, faith. If you have faith, it must be true that you have faith.

One assumes they must have eaten somebody to start it all off.

people are going to be convinced that Paul Bunyan was a real figure. And Batman, and Superman and Spiderman and all the other comic book characters movies are being made of.

Even now, look at all the people who believe the DaVinci Code is historical fact.

Too many people are incapable of thinking critically, and for the religious, they are taught NOT to think critically when it comes to their beliefs. Which sets the groundwork for disbelieving in science.

But I have a personal relationship with Spiderman. I know in my heart he's real. And even if you don't, how can you not admire the original message he brought to the world that with great power comes great responsibility.

Christains believe the Gospels were written by the Apostles.

I have run into quite a few.

In fact, some get very testy about it, indeed.

very testy.

"You are attacking me because of my faith!"

Eventually this oral history found it's way to written form generations and in some instances centuries after the events they describe. As such it's a safe bet many of them are going to be adapted from earlier oral histories.

All of this happened during a period in which small bands of nomadic tribes were coalescing into larger civilizations by virtue of conquest and cross-cultural trade. When one culture is assimilated or associates with another such things will blend together. Monotheism and Christianity's tritheism simply worked more efficiently as a method of control which is why they were mandated throughout western and middle eastern civilizations. But it's not as if paganism was going to simply vanish. It was instead absorbed and modified to make it more palatable.