Search This Blog

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Is there more proof that Jesus existed than Julius Caesar?

Of course not. It is another absurd claim by Christians when they are trying to provide evidence that Jesus was a real person. The comment that there is more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar gets repeated so often that many people assume it is true. And it is not just Caesar, this comment gets made about many different historical people. However, like many comments made by Christian apologists, it is not only inaccurate, it is hugely inaccurate. It is said that if a lie is repeated enough times, people will believe it. It is time to send this lie to bed.

There is not the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts or pictures of Jesus. Almost nothing is known of his early life. All of the stories of Jesus came along long after his death. Now, contrast that with what we know about Julius Caesar.  We know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself . Artifacts confirm his life and death. There were dozens of friends and enemies who wrote of their interactions with him.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is depicted as having been brought up in a city called "Nazareth," a purported biographical detail upon which much speculation has been hung over the centuries as to a "historical" Jewish messiah figure in the gospel story, buried somewhere underneath layers of pious elaboration. In this regard, countless Jesus biographies have been constructed significantly around this purported place of origin that would indicate a historical personage. Indeed, whenever scholars wish to distinguish between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith," they use this designation "Jesus of Nazareth" to depict the former.

Despite all of this speculation, there exists no hard scientific evidence that the polis or "city" of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament even existed at the time when Christ was supposedly being raised there. Although there exists a centuries-later "historic Nazareth" in Israel, archaeological explorations during the past century have failed to demonstrate any such city of the time in the general vicinity. In reality, it appears that Jesus was made to be "of Nazareth" so that he could be called a "Nazarene" or "Nazoraean/Nazorean," a member of an ancient pre-Christian sect, of which the Old Testament hero Samson was said to have been an adherent as well.

Compare that to the the birthplace of Julius Caesar which was Rome. There is clear evidence that Rome had existed for hundreds of years before Caeser was born.

The only people who could possibly believe this outlandish claim is the Christians who are desperate for some kind of proof for their fable.



  1. They also put up bullshit documentation that Jesus existed.

    Here's a sample.
    None of it pans out though. It would be good to see someone do a step-by-step fisking of this.

  2. What the creationists do frequently is manipulate the definitions of and criteria for logic, reason, truth, and evidence. Somehow, the phrase, "because god said so...", has become a beacon of truth for them. To them logic is asserting, "God is real because I know he is...", as if it is a valid point. They point to the bible and debunked biblical "scholars" as if that is providing evidence.

    Liars for Jebus have no problem with blatant confirmation bias and no qualms with applying logical fallacies at the serial level.

    1. God is real because the evidence that He is real is incontrovertible.

    2. What evidence are you referring to?

  3. We know what Caesar looked like because of contemporary sculptures of him, there are numerous contemporary accounts of him, and we have books that he himself wrote. There is abundant evidence for Caesar and none at all for Jesus.

  4. The lists of documents given in the link are all biblical. None of the purported documents that contain the information alluded to, has any text anyone can read. What am I missing, if anything?

    1. The references are all secular, which contain historical accounts by non-christians, which are in agreement with the historical accounts contained in the bible.

  5. Julius is still in the grave. So much for veni, vidi, vici.

    Jesus is risen. Deo gratias qui dedit nobis victoriam per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum!

    1. And your proof that Jesus is risen?

  6. Your logic is completely flawed and is based on the premise that if you don't write a book or a tract (self-publish) you never existed. That's complete nonsense.

    Although I consider you a real person, I doubt anyone is going to make an alabaster bust of you. Despite this, your identity could be confirmed by immediate sources like accounts from your family, friends and social security records if a historian dug deep enough. etc.

    So, for historical veracity, the eye witness accounts of two or more people are considered completely acceptable and valid.
    The Bible has more than two eye-witness accounts to testify to the life and times of Jesus.

    Perhaps, it's time to pull your head out of the sand and visit a site like , where a renowned philosopher of science might just enlighten you enough to reconsider your shaky position.


    1. You're missing the point here. The debate is only about the evidence. And there is more evidence showing, that Cesar lived than for Jesus. Doesn't mean necessarily Jesus didn't exist.

  7. Since I never said that one must write a book or a tract in order to prove you exist, your comment is absurd. I am merely pointing out that contrary to the often and totally wrong statement that there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar or other historical figures.

    It would be unusual for someone to make an bust of me since I am not a prominent person. However, Jesus was supposedly known by thousands.

    It is not known who actually wrote the books of the bible. To claim there are eye witness accounts that can be supported is just nonsense.


  8. Simon Greenleaf wrote the book on how evidence is properly used to prove things from a legal standard when he was a rank unbeliever. A student challenged him to apply these standards to the validity of biblical evidence especially about the New Testament and Jesus. He became a believer!
    Are you telling me you can judge evidence
    better, and then, even contrary to a lawyer who was one of the principal founders of
    Harvard Law School? I saw a commercial and got good advice from a goat: NAAAAAAHHHH!

    You need to drop your bias, get some good books on apologetics ( start with Josh McDowell - Evidence That Demands A Verdict,
    Gail Riplinger - In Awe of Thy Word, and Grant Jeffrey - The Signature of God ) and then view The Truth Project. Then do an experiment: ask the God you do not believe in to reveal himself to you so that YOU know
    he is real. If you want to prove your point you will sacrifice truth - even lying to yourself; but if you willing to sacrifice your point you are prepared then to find truth and receive it. Why believe a lie?

    By the way, if you like math, look into the bible codes. Israeli mathematician Dr Rips - reputed to have an IQ over 200 says they are real. Can you explain them away? Jeffrey Satinover a former cryptologist for the NSA
    says they are real. While your at it, look up
    Ivan Panin who used biblical numerics to show a divine origin for the bible. And so on
    ...just go read the evidence for yourself.

    Do you want truth or do you want to try to bolster your ego with lies you want to believe? I have examined both sides of the issue: you should too.

    1. I obviously seem to be able to do just that.

  9. Wrong. Houses built by Jesus are well known amongst the local population. They are still standing.