What type of evidence should we expect to have for Jesus's existence?

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
848
159
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

I've watched and participated in many debates on Jesus' existence. It seems that many skeptics expect to have absolute certainty before accepting that Jesus existed. It seems that they want every biblical detail corroborated with no holes or missing pieces. View the following clip for an example:


I don't really want to discuss absolute certainty because I presume that most would agree that it's not attainable. Not even science gives us absolute certainty so we shouldn't expect it for historical matters. But what I do want to discuss is the level of evidence that we should expect for Jesus' existence.

For debate... What type of evidence should we have for Jesus' s existence? (Please focus more on the nature and/or quality of the evidence and not on the specifics of it).
 
Last edited:

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
848
159
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

What type of evidence should we have for Jesus' s existence?
In my view, I wouldn't expect any more evidence for Jesus than I would any other historical figure. At bare minimum, I'd expect written testimony or some artifact. We have that in multiple independent sources starting with the New Testament. And then we also have Josephus, Tacitus, etc.

Of course, there are holes and areas of doubt to this evidence and here's my position on that which I shared on another forum (DC):

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence for every historical figure has some holes in it. It's probably the case that no historical figure has the same amount the evidence as another historical person. For this reason, I don't buy the argument that Jesus should have the same amount of evidence as Julius Caesar (or vice-versa) in order to be accepted as historical. I mean is there more evidence for Julius Caesar than there is for king Sargon of Akkad? Are historians and skeptics really going to weigh that evidence and reject the one with lesser evidence? Of course not! Both are accepted as historical!

Generally-speaking, I wouldn't doubt anyone's existence unless or until every bit of evidence for their existence can be reasonably doubted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TracyRN