10 votes

Skeptics Desperately Try To Deny Jesus Ever Existed Despite Ancient Secular Historical Records

Edit: I ought to give credit where it's due, and THANK, Mohusk, for his multiple challenges on this very topic! If not for his repeated, stoic insistence that no secular proof of Jesus' existence could be brought forth, I probably wouldn't have searched enough to find this video, though I've heard and read parts of these historical records over the years I've dealt with these subjects. I know some think this is purely a religious subject, but actually it's about how we deal with historical records of any person or events of the past. Either we insert and maintain our prejudicial views, or else we acknowledge consistent, proven methods of confirming historical facts, and then deal with those facts fairly. Here just one of several challenges:

"Submitted by Mohusk on Sun, 12/29/2013 - 13:06. Permalink

I only have one challenge for your uncanny knowledge of hidden things no one has ever seen or that actually exist outside of doctored photos and fake website information.

Please provide just one or two non-Biblical pieces of evidence that Jesus/Yeshua actually lived. And no, the Josephus forgery does not count. Nor do the Dead Sea Scrolls - while not Biblical, they are religious texts."

Skeptics, please help Mohusk out here. I haven't heard from him for several days now since posting this video in my reply.


This video is a presentation of the evidence for the existence of Jesus. It uses only non- biblical sources and goes through the skeptical arguments for each claim. It will be surprising for some to see how much evidence for the historicity of Jesus there actually is, in fact there is more evidence for Jesus' existence, as you will see, than there is for most of the prominent figures in ancient history. *Warning* Watching this video will take away your ability to claim honestly that Jesus was a myth.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Forty Plus Writers During the said Time of Jesus Christ

What confuses me is that there were 40 plus writers at the said time of Jesus Christ and no one wrote about him and his miracles. CNN and Fox news would have had a field day with it. Writings about JC only started 20-30 years later. What's up with that?


Argument from silence

"no one wrote about him and his miracles."

We do not know that. Of all the things that were written by those 40 writers, how much has survived until today? Not much. Eye witness testimonies have survived though.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

In 2,000 years from now,

what sort of records do you think we'll have of today's nightly news programs?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Phxarcher87's picture

George Washinton

was created to get people to think that they are allowed to be free but there is no scientific proof that he was ever around so therefor the clam that we are free people is a joke.

Everyone knows that our rights come from the state not a god. Not to mention i can "prove" the state exists, but not God. There for the state is our god, citizen....

James Madison

Asclepius's picture

This debate is irrelevant

Whether or not Jesus Christ was a physical person who walked the Earth is irrelevant. What's underappreciated by both Atheists and Christian literalists alike, is that the story of Christ teaches us the power of the Spirit of Truth, or "the Chrestos" in challenging the dogma of the Authorities. Jesus challenged the moneychangers, the Pharisees, and the Imperialism of the Roman Empire. Moreover, his teachings embody the core values of humanity, e.g., the importance of forgiveness, compassion, love, and not judging others. These teachings are what's important to me and no one can take that away because I accept these truths as self-evident.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

Kim Jong il once walked the earth too. But does that mean he

did all the things attributed to him?

Like changing the weather with his mind.
Hitting 5 "hole in one"s the first and only time he ever golfed.
Writing hundreds of books; dozens of operas that are performed by companies all over the world.

Proving that some guy walked the earth isn't that big a deal.

I'm not really a Christian, but I do believe in a Superior Power/Entity.

Could that entity have presented itself as Jesus Christ? I don't know. I certainly can't prove it DIDN'T happen.

Its impossible to prove the negative.

And how many North Koreans

And how many North Koreans roamed the world proclaiming the truth of Kim Jong il's stories even unto the point of their deaths by foreign governments? That is what I thought.

If they could get out and roam the world they would. They

heartfully believe this stuff. Its a cult of personality, a national hysteria.

They really do cry and attribute everything good and wonderful in their lives (as little as there is) to the Great Leader. They really do think of their nation as bless to be ruled by the Kim family. And they really do think that the rest of the world is envious of them.

I'll post for the umpteenth time

Iesus Christus did indeed walk the earth.

Read Cornelius Tacitus and Flavius Josephus. Both are worth reading in their own right.

The Tacitus passage is in the Annals of Imperial Rome, the Nero chapter. Agricola is also worth a read.

For Josephus it is in Antiquities of the Jews, and the Jewish War is also very good.

Forget the video, try picking up a book and actually reading such things.

What are you talking about?

That is not proof. I have done plenty of reading throughout my life. That's exactly why I am rational and skeptical. There is no evidence in the world that proves the existence of a historical Jesus Christ. I highly recommend you try reading material that doesn't tell you what you want to hear. Try some from this reading list on this Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

You may as well say Tacitus, Plato and Virgil didn't exist

Your argument is the refuge of the moron.

If a pagan Roman Senator and a Jewish historian and witness to the destruction of Jerusalem both agree Christ existed, that's good enough for me. (And that's not even to mention the religious account)

If your standard is higher than two accurate accounts with confirmation from a third, then you reject pretty much all of recorded history up to the Renaissance.

You may as well claim Israel never existed. The Torah is a fraud. The New Testament is a fraud.

My only conclusion can be that you are the fraud.




Does This have anything to do with Liberty?!

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?



I hope this link will help explain why.

Jesus (Yeshua the Mashiach as he was called) triumphed not only over sin, Satan and my old nature, but over tyranny and the state.


"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Religous Zeal doesn't prove anything

And how can we prove/disprove something that is impossible to do.
Especially when someone says we must ignore this, ignore that to begin with.

One controversial scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls says The term Jesus Christ is not a name, but instead it is a title like "movie director" is in modern times.

He says Christianity started as a mushroom cult from a separatists Jewish group, the Essenes, that lived in isolation for 200 years. The real Gnostics who started it all.

His claims are that the leader of this group who was crucified in about 80 bc, was the basis of the story of Jesus.

Just because one outspoken person says this doesn't make it true or untrue, but as we know from history in uncovering coverups, its important to pay attention to the dissenters who go against the grain of traditional thought to find the truth. Put aside our cognitive dissonance once in a while.


Why were certain gnostic text excluded from the bible at the council of Nicaea?


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon


Re:"Why were certain gnostic text excluded from the bible at the council of Nicaea?"

Have you read them? It seems pretty obvious based on their content.

wolfe's picture

Obvious to who?

A man rising from the dead after rotting for three days in a crypt seems less implausible to you than the allegories used in the Gnostic texts? And their claim that he did not rise from the dead?

If you want to be objective, be objective. Or, if you want to believe, then believe. But pretending to be objective doesn't do your argument any favors.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you, nor am I trying to be insulting. The opposite of that.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -


Gnostics have their own theology which seems much weirder to me. Arriving at a belief in the resurrection can be based on believing a series of unremarkable things as William Lane Craig points out. But I was pointing to consistency here. The theology of the ante-nicean fathers(some of whom were students of or were appointed by the apostles into positions of authority) is not really different from post-nicean theology. Gnosticism on the other hand is completely and utterly removed from the ante-nicean fathers theology as well as from the theology of Judaism.

This video does not prove the existence of historical Jesus.

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a historical Jesus. And this video definitely does not prove his existence. I recommend this Wikipedia page. It lists several notable authors who have published interesting works concerning the topic.

Eliminate doubt is a big claim.

I think a first hand account of him would go far. Two independent first hand accounts would clinch it for me. Ill give it a watch.

2 beyond those in the book?

I'm thinking of the obvious ones, Peter, James, and John.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Let me just share this perspective

The Ancient Documents Rule: "Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a permissible method to authenticate a document. Under the rule, if if a document is (1) more than 20 years old; (2) is regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations; and (3) found in a place of natural custody, or in a place where it would be expected to be found, then the document is found to be prima facie authenticated and therefore admissible." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ancient_document_rule

In other words, we take the document at face value unless there is some compelling reason not to do so. So the burden of proof is on the challenger. They need compelling evidence that these three statements are false or forged.

Theses are translations from wiki:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus" 1 Peter 1:1
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” James 1:1
"I John... was in the isle that is called Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." Revelation 1


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

This ...

... does not work when the documentary evidence is not an autograph. Copies of works (which in the early centuries were all manually copied)cannot be evaluated as having no alterations without an original by which to compare. Also, a natural place of custody is an anachronistic standard of modernity that is totally impossible to demand of the documents we are discussing.

Copies cannot be evaluated for obvious alterations?

Without the original autograph?

Some how I doubt that, but I will look into it. Any sources would be appreciated.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.


..what we are trying to do is establish that a document hasn't been changed (tampered with), we would need to see the original document in order to compare the copy and make sure there were no changes from original to copy.

With the early manuscript copies, one can also evaluate whether the copy has been tinkered with later, but this only establishes alterations to a copy without affirming that the copy itself is prime facie valid evidence. We still do no have the original evidence so we can't be sure what alterations, if any, are reflected in the extant copies.

It seems to me

We would just look at the oldest surviving copy and check for obvious signs of tampering.

Obvious evidence of tampering in our oldest copies could be devastating if it showed up in Peter, James, Jude, and Revelation.

I haven't seen that evidence yet though...


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

It's more complicated

It's more complicated than just looking at the oldest copy. Textual criticism can show how later copies are more reliable than older ones in certain instances. There are all sorts of factors involved in those kinds of studies, and maybe that is what you were getting at when you mentioned checking for tampering. Here is a video that touches on some stuff:

wolfe's picture

This doesn't work.

There is ample evidence of tampering and changing at every stage throughout history between the first known, and the most recent used.

So there is significant precedent to believe this was the case even before our first available copy of anything. Just because it is the oldest version we have, doesn't mean it was not modified. In fact, historically, it is guaranteed.

Second, there is no compelling reason to believe it is factual testimony of any kind, but more than ample reason to believe it was used to manipulate peoples behavior, and therefore makes it suspect as "factual" at absolute best. Therefore, even if untampered, there is no reason to believe the original wasn't wholly fabricated.

These rules, as mentioned, would equally apply to the Gnostic texts which tell a VERY different story.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -