Atheos Dialogue: Evidence for Jesus

Jesus was a real person & the events in the Bible actually occurred.

Select an ideal response for:

All historians agree Jesus existed.

I'm wondering how anyone could make that determination.

That’s just an appeal to authority.

How do you know that’s true?

What if they’re all wrong? They’ve all been wrong before.

Select an ideal response for:

It’s just a fact.

How do you know? Are you a biblical historian?

Biblical historians today are convinced of facts that used to be considered blasphemy.

To biblical historians who are also Christians, or other groups?

Interesting. How did you determine that?

Select an ideal response for:

Yes, all biblical historians agree.

I'm curious how you might explain the secular biblical historians who don’t agree.

Don’t you mean all biblical historians who are also Christians?

How do you know? Are you a biblical historian?

There isn’t anything all biblical historians agree on!

Select an ideal response for:

Even secular biblical historians agree.

We have no official records of any kind for Jesus; no birth certificate, death certificate, no trial transcript, absolutely nothing.

There’s no evidence at all for Jesus.

Is the actual truth of the claim—any claim—dependent on the agreement of historians?

If you were to discover dissenters, how would you react?

Select an ideal response for:

The Gospels are evidence!

A book is evidence for the claims the same book makes?

The Gospels are filled with contradictions.

What about all the other Gospels that didn’t make it into the Bible?

How so?

Select an ideal response for:

The Gospels are eyewitness testimonies!

Let me see if I have this right: the book says there were eyewitness testimonies, so that makes it more believable?

But how do you know they were telling the truth?

Concluded because you read it in a book, it seems.

In a court of law, all four Gospels would be dismissed as hearsay.

Select an ideal response for:

Those are just a tiny minority—they aren’t real historians!

But that minority is right!

Christians are squelching the truth about biblical history.

At what point does a "tiny minority" become something to honestly consider?

What would a 'real historian' look like for you?

Select an ideal response for:

What are some indications that they were written much later?

I'm wondering if you would be open to such indications.

Our oldest New Testament texts only date back to the second century.

If examples were available and presented, would that change your mind?

We have no Christian writers citing the Gospels until the second century.

Select an ideal response for:

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John all knew Jesus personally.

Even if that were accurate, how does that have any bearing on the truth of the claims each made?

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are all fictitious characters.

Actually even in the New Testament, Mark & John didn’t know Jesus.

People's stories are more believable if you happen to know them personally?

Select an ideal response for:

Paul knew Jesus, too.

Alright. But aren't we still talking about a claim that something happened?

Paul’s genuine letters & Luke-Acts disagree on virtually every point when they overlap.

Paul’s conversion story is an invention of 'Luke’s' – He never says anything remotely like that story.

Did you conclude that was true because it was written in a book?

Select an ideal response for:

All the other New Testament writers knew Jesus, too.

I'm still wondering how that distinction—valid or not—would support the truth of the belief.

How does that make the liklihood of the claims more true?

The New Testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus.

The whole New Testament isn't anything but forgeries.

Select an ideal response for:

We have better evidence for Jesus than almost any figure in history.

How do you know? Were you there?

We don’t know enough about anyone in history to be sure they existed.

Is such evidence testable to the point that it could be shown to be false?

How did you conclude that?

Select an ideal response for:

Well, there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him.

Doesn't that concern you in some way?

But there were plenty of historians who would have noticed him.

Yet much less interesting messianic wannabes noticed by contemporary historians. Hmm...

That’s because he was nothing but just another first-century failed apocalyptic preacher out in the boonies.

Select an ideal response for:

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord.

What does C.S. Lewis know?

How do you know he wasn’t a liar or a lunatic, Poindexter?

Could he also simply be a legend—or an entirely mythical savior of a mystery faith? Perhaps that's something to consider.

It seems we don’t have enough evidence to know for sure what (if anything) Jesus actually said or did. I wonder why hearsay is sufficient for some people.