User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
"Eyewitness Testimony to Jesus' Miracles"

Something I think isn't brought up enough is that even if we had dozens (or hundreds) of eyewitness testimony, going back to Jesus' time (from contemporaries who claimed to have witnessed it), and they all agreed, then it still wouldn't cut it. There are still miracle claims going on today, and when you look at someone like Sathya Sai Baba, who has over 1,000 centers run by people who are often educated, modern people who claim to have witnessed miracles he performed such as flying, raising the dead, etc. How is it that we should accept eyewitness claims from an ancient, backwater, pre-scientific people, while ignoring the testimonies of modern, educated people living in a scientific age?

The events surrounding Jesus were supposed to have taken place within a certain time in history, around 4 BCE to 33 CE. The main information sources of Jesus' life are from the documents known as the gospels. History written of the same period existing outside the gospels gives no information about Jesus (except for forgeries.) It is important to find out as much as is possible about the background of the gospels the authors, when were they written and are they valid and reliable.

The gospel written that claim to be written by the apostle Matthew, a follower of apostle Mark who followed Peter and a companion of Paul (Luke). An apostle Matthew didn't write Matthew, an apostle John didn't write the Gospel of John. Luke even in the beginning of his gospel said that he was not an eyewitness to these things but that he had made inquiries into the subject. John did not write the gospel of John. Bible scholars know this, and the evidence is overwhelming. John who wrote the book of John was certainly not an eyewitness to the resurrection. As for the Apostle Paul, he had a vision. Mark not Matthew was the earliest written gospel. Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark. Matthew and Luke also copied extensively from the lost document that scholars refer to as Q document. Mark was written about 70 CE. That is a long time after the death of Jesus. The author of Mark was not a witness nor was he the friend of a witness to the events in Jesus' life. His identity is unknown to us. Both the authors of Matthew and Luke are also unknown to us. The gospel of John is a late unreliable work. As in the case of Mark, Matthew and Luke - the author of this gospel is unknown to us.

There are no writings by any eyewitnesses. It is obvious that documents written by (unknown) authors who were not eyewitnesses at least close to half a century after the death of Jesus could not be reliable testimonies of a Jesus or the events involving his life. The time lapse (among other things) between the written account and the alleged events is reason enough to doubt the stories. There is no official Roman record of Jesus Crucifixion.

The Apostle Paul claims in 1st Corinthians the 15th chapter that he had seen Jesus in a vision after he had died. Visions are very unreliable evidence. Furthermore, eyewitnesses did not write the gospel accounts. On top of that there are no writings of the so-called eyewitnesses.

This is a forged statement in Matthew: "Go ye into all the world, and teach all nations." The avowed mission of the (Essenes), which includes the alleged Jesus, was exclusively to his fellow Jews: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"; and they expressly commanded their disciples not to preach to the Gentiles, nor even to the near-Jewish Samaritans.

It is impossible for a Jesus to so flagrantly contradicted the basic principles of his exclusive mission, and command the institution of a permanent and perpetual religious organization or "Church" to preach his exclusively Jewish Messianic doctrines to all nations of the earth, which was to perish within that generation. This is proof of the forgery of this passage. It is recognized by reputable scholars that what the so-called historians were doing was recounting what Christians already believed. Josephus did not write about Jesus, very reliable theologians admit it's a forgery. As for as eyewitnesses, what did they ever write? You don't know if they really said that they saw the resurrection, or whether they said they saw the empty tomb, or Jesus after he was resurrected. You have the word of someone who wrote a gospel account who said that they said. You have the account of the Apostle Paul's vision, and said that Jesus appeared to five hundred witnesses. There is not one word written about this happening that is not a forgery. It is nothing but hearsay evidence. People don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead any more than they believe that Osiris rose from the dead.

i must disagree with that, there are many acounts of people talking about jesus, there are even records of his death. there is much proof for jesus' existence, and amoungst biblical scholars its almost completely accepted that jesus exists (or so the websites i have checked have told me) generally the existence of jesus is almost undisputable, whether the events took place as it says they did is another question but its said there was over 500 witnesses to jesus after he died. at the time there were only eye witnesses, they had no other forms of proof, they couldnt take photos and video jesus walking down the street, just because they cant prove it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

confused christian--please present your evidence.

confused christian,

Saying something over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Maybe this worked on you and you think it can also work on others, but we are all adults here or at least most of us. Rather than perpetuate other people's lies and furthering your own confusion, please provide evidence. Without evidence outside your already flawed Bible or what you heard some Christian apologist told you to say, you're not going to convince anybody and it just makes you look silly doing a half ass job at having a real debate. You don't really have answers to questions posed to you, you don't provide creditable evidences and you keep repeat argumentative fallacies even after someone has tried explaining to you what they are and why. Either you are too dumb to understand what a fallacy is or you are not interested in educating yourself. Clearly you are not doing a good job at promoting your beliefs, which make your Christian beliefs even weaker.

To: confused christian - I guess you are disputing my answer to Ryan?

There are no writings from contemporaries of Jesus who claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' life or death or anything else. Historians know that there are no writings by any historian that were written at the time of Jesus' supposed life or any historical writing of any events that Christianity is based on. There are no original documents there are only copies of copies of copies etc. Where do you get your information? There are no Roman records (from the actual time period) of a Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus/god by unknown authors. The time period of these writings means that they could not have known a Jesus/god. There are forgeries and writings that are the retelling of myths about Jesus/god. The information and dates of these (so-called) historical writings show they could not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus/god, simply because they all came from hearsay accounts, which means these writings didn't come from a witness' own knowledge of a Jesus/god. There are no accounts by eyewitnesses it is all hearsay.

Julius Caesar was deified a god 100 years before Jesus was deified a god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).

The name Jesus was decided upon by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea long after the supposed death of the savior/god. Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar (who lived 100 years before Jesus) looked like (statues and paintings) and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death. These are called artifacts (the things required to prove that someone ever lived) and we have no artifacts for Jesus/god who was the most important figure in the history of the world according to the myth.

Flavius Josephus - Not a single writer before the 4th century - not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. - in all their pleading against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum). The third century Church Father Origen, He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this from Testimonium Flavianum, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." Origen did not quote the Testimonium Flavianum because this paragraph had not yet been written. It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum. Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. He wrote in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written. Most scholars who have examined the writing say it is forgery, but even if it was not forgery his information could only serve as hearsay. It's not an eyewitness forgery.

Eusebius served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop, and he had great influence in the early Church. Eusebius openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church. None of the early church fathers mentions any historical writings about a Jesus/god. Eusebius wrote about that it might be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides" (a la Alice in Wonderland). Considering what we know about the early Church's intolerant and biased position these so-called historical writings that supports the Church are not reliable evidence - and they are not eyewitness forgeries.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus - Roman historian's born 64 C.E., well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his writings around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions "Chrestus," a common name. No scholar believes this is a reference to Jesus Christ- Christ is not a name, but even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about a real Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

The story of Osiris, Isis and Heru was a story of antiquity, which had been told thousands of years before the Christian version of Jesus. Christians who regurgitated these ancient pagan myths as divine phenomena believed that would give them authority over other faiths.

Jesus was supposed to have been the first world savior born of immaculate conception on December 25, suffered the crucifixion and was resurrected as an act of defying death and ascended (all this mythology was more related to birth and decline of the physical Sun) from myths Krishna, Mithra, Addonis, Buddha Apollo, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl and others shared this so-called divine phenomena long before Jesus. The pyramids were built to preserve the soul and this is the origin of the immorality of the soul. The Egyptian Book of Dead provides us with this information.

Some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. The Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. It is a combo Christian - pagan legend; it is not evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use these sources as "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, Clement -Justin Martyr - Lucian - Ignatius - Tertullian - Hippolytus - Cyprian, all of these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account; all of it is simply hearsay.

Just proves that forgeries and people who probably never existed can't prove the existence of Jesus/god no matter what equivocation is claimed as proof. Where are any artifacts that prove a Jesus ever lived or any written documented proof by someone living at the time of Jesus' birth or death? Even the forgeries were written long after the alleged death of Jesus.

What evidence do you have to Prove that Christ did not exist?

Proving a negative is generally not a possible venture. For example, no one can prove that invisible flowers do not exist. We can only conclude, based on evidence, if a particular flower does indeed exist or have existed. Absence of proof 'for' something is good enough to assume that the given 'something' is not real/true like so. Simple as.

I am always bewildered by the Athiest's infatuation with God and religion, the seemingly neverending quest to prove and disprove negatives, and the obsession with what they "know" is to be true. If God doesn't exist, and you are absoutely certain of it, by your own definition you are attempting to prove a negative. Why is there a need to promote atheism? What compels the "Atheist Community" to spread their message and attempt to change the minds of those who don't hold the same beliefs? If you know that you are right, why do you care if I'm wrong? If you can't prove a negative, why try so hard to do so? I think that atheist's do believe in something greater than their own ego's, but fear of commitment to the idea brings you all together on websites such as this. In your quest for no answers...Godspeed my brother.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. We're not trying to prove a negative.

Some of us are against religion because of all of the harm it has done.

From: Michael Michael (Posted Jun 13, 2014 at 6:28 pm) Michael Michael said, "I am always bewildered by the Athiest's infatuation with God and religion,"

Linda said, I am always bewildered by the theists ignorance of their own religion or any religion, yet they want to argue about it. Intelligent people examine the information and evidence before they make a decision.

Michael Michael said, "the seemingly neverending quest to prove and disprove negatives, and the obsession with what they "know" is to be true."

Linda said, I think you have things backwards; it's the Christians who worship a God for which there is no evidence. Talk about being obsessed with a negative.

Michael Michael said, "If God doesn't exist, and you are absoutely certain of it, by your own definition you are attempting to prove a negative."

Linda said, atheists are rejecting a proposition that is made without evidence; they are not trying to prove anything.

Michael Michael said, "Why is there a need to promote atheism? What compels the "Atheist Community" to spread their message and attempt to change the minds of those who don't hold the same beliefs?"

Linda said, The atheists who write books and appear on programs have just as much right to express what they think as anyone else does. Christians don't think they do and that's why they call; it's not to ask a questions, discuss information or to educate themselves, it's to proselytize to the atheists. Why are they so stupid that they continue to believe something that is devoid of logic or evidence?

Michael Michael said, "If you know that you are right, why do you care if I'm wrong? If you can't prove a negative, why try so hard to do so?"

Linda said, Are you kidding? Atheists are on every TV station on Sunday screaming about atheism I suppose?

Michael Michael said, "I think that atheist's do believe in something greater than their own ego's, but fear of commitment to the idea brings you all together on websites such as this. In your quest for no answers...Godspeed my brother."

Linda said, What a hypocrite. I'm sure you won't respond because most fanatics are a cowards who only want to preach. Atheists don't have to believe what you believe even if you think they don't have a right not to believe. You have been pumped up so much by fellow fanatics that you can't see anything for your inflated head and ego. Guess what? You are not special you are just a jerk. When you die you will go nowhere and (absoutely) is not a word and (neverending) is two words.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup