Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[stubbornone]

All of the Jesus Mythers are atheists ... all of them. And there is no evidence to support their contentions.

You would do well to apply your standards to your own position. Then again, it wouldn't be much a conspiracy if you did.

One must wonder if Tom Harpur, and ordained minister is an atheist.

I would have to say that coming to the conclusion that a person is a myth wouldn't drive someone way from the religion who relies on it's historical reality. So, your claim that those people who doubt the existence of a historical Jesus are all atheists are, in fact, can be documented to be incorrect. Such is life.

I personally do not know if a 'historical Jesus' existed. I will say that the extra biblical evidence presented is weak at best, forgeries at worst, and dependent on Christians for much of it.

I am sure that if a historical Jesus existed, his 'existence' has little if any comparison with the 'gospel Jesus'.

And here we are with some more easily verifiable facts.



He is not denying that there was a Jesus, he takes issue with some of the gospel about Jesus. He is not in the same camp as the Jesus Mythers at all, but you present him as he is ... all while changing goal posts.

How many times must it be said that the historical Jesus is real? But that the gospel Jesus can neither be proven nor disproven.

And yet here you are, denying all the authors that make the historical claims, and providing fringe elements that don't even back up your claim that Jesus was a Myth. In short, it is again another random selection of an expert who you WANT to believe ... but only when he agrees with you?

Clearly though, its evidence that drove your conclusion ... not a random reference from an atheist web site you belatedly referenced using gogglology rather than study to confirm your preconception?

[stubbornone]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

[Nickman]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

Can you show me evidence that Jesus existed and the reason why? Just one piece is all I am asking. You have yet to do so.

[stubbornone]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

Can you show me evidence that Jesus existed and the reason why? Just one piece is all I am asking. You have yet to do so.

If you bothered to click on the links provided, you would already have it.

That you don't is a testimony of your adherence to 'evidence'. As it always is with Jesus Mythers.

Not all atheists are Jesus Mythers BTW, but pretty much all Jesus Mythers are atheists - or, as you see above with goat, deliberately misunderstood critics.

[Nickman]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

Can you show me evidence that Jesus existed and the reason why? Just one piece is all I am asking. You have yet to do so.

If you bothered to click on the links provided, you would already have it.

That you don't is a testimony of your adherence to 'evidence'. As it always is with Jesus Mythers.

Not all atheists are Jesus Mythers BTW, but pretty much all Jesus Mythers are atheists - or, as you see above with goat, deliberately misunderstood critics.

I read your links. One is a list of extant writings that are not evidence. I am asking for a piece of evidence from you sourced and articulate, which I can then review and come to a conclusion and present a rebuttal. Give me your number one evidence.

[Mithrae]

This is the same tactic that Creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other conspiracy theorists take when defending their "theories," and is why others here have labeled your arguments as such.

What theory have I put forth? I sense here that some of the posters have no idea what a conspiracy is, and labeling my argument that is honest and undecided is far from conspiracy. In this argument or debate the people I am debating are in the camp of Jesus' historicity as if it is confirmed. I can argue from both sides for and against so, since the opposition is arguing in the affirmative position for Jesus, I am providing evidence to the contrary.

What evidence to the contrary? In your initial response to Historia, you suggested three factors to consider:
> "blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record. . . . Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources?"
> "the earliest writings we have, by Paul, do not speak of his earthly life"
> "and the extraordinary claims made pertaining to his life"

It has been pointed out that your first claim is inaccurate at best, since what you're referring to (the Testimonium Flavianum) is a single forgery which was not by an early church father. You have chosen not to acknowledge this correction.

It's been pointed out that your second claim is likewise inaccurate, since Paul very clearly refers to Jesus as an earthly, historical person on numerous occasion - in fact his reference to James the brother of Jesus has been a major point in discussing Josephus' reference to the same. In response you've said you meant merely that "he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels" such as the virgin birth. But saying that Paul comments on Jesus' culture, mother, ancestry and brothers but not a virgin birth is not an argument against Jesus' historicity. You're actually pointing out a very good reason to suppose that the later stories and legends were built around a real man, seriously undermining your third point.

I look at evidence, and thus far in this debate I have not seen evidence for Jesus' existence, even though I know of some good arguments which no one has provided. Its not up to me to provide such when I am debating the opposition.

If your reasoning peaks with "Paul didn't mention a virgin birth, so he must've met the brother of a man who didn't exist," I can see why you haven't been able to see any evidence for Jesus' existence There are indeed some good points which haven't yet been brought up, but just for a laugh - since you think that Paul counts for nothing - why don't you tell us what you think a good argument should look like?

I'm afraid this claim is simply false. As far as we know, not a single pagan or Jewish critic of Christianity ever leveled the accusation that Jesus didn't exist. Not a single Early Church Father had to defend the existence of Jesus, and nowhere do such arguments exist in their writings.

Ill agree here, but I do ask why Eusebius had to forge an accou n into Josephus that deal with Jesus' existence, and making Josephus out to be a person who agrees with Christology?

You keep saying that it was Eusebius who did this, but I'm pretty sure it's not known precisely when or by whom it occurred; Eusebius is simply the first person known to have quoted it. You must have very different standards of what you'll declare to be "most likely" true when it's unflattering.


Edit:

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

Might want to re-read that passage; Trypho is talking about 'Christ.' That's the Greek word for 'Messiah.' Trypho isn't suggesting that Jesus didn't exist; he's arguing that there could be no Christ until Elias (Elijah) anoints and declares him to the world. Jesus' credentials as the Christ, or lack thereof, has always been one of the biggest points of disagreement between Jews and Christians. If you read on a bit you'll see that Justin's response to Trypho has nothing to do with proving Jesus' existence, but rather appeals to Scripture regarding the nature of the new covenant and the one who was to institute it.

You're seeing what you want to see there, I suspect.

[otseng]

If you bothered to click on the links provided, you would already have it.

Moderator Comment

You cannot simply provide a link to a website as evidence. You'll need to present your argument and be as specific as possible when providing a link.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[stubbornone]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

Can you show me evidence that Jesus existed and the reason why? Just one piece is all I am asking. You have yet to do so.

If you bothered to click on the links provided, you would already have it.

That you don't is a testimony of your adherence to 'evidence'. As it always is with Jesus Mythers.

Not all atheists are Jesus Mythers BTW, but pretty much all Jesus Mythers are atheists - or, as you see above with goat, deliberately misunderstood critics.

I read your links. One is a list of extant writings that are not evidence. I am asking for a piece of evidence from you sourced and articulate, which I can then review and come to a conclusion and present a rebuttal. Give me your number one evidence.

Then you clearly do not understand how history works. Its made up from exactly those sources which you dismiss ... which is exactly the criticism I leveled against Jesus Mythers.

Additionally, that sense is only highlighted when you ask someone to produce a piece of 2,000 year old history by themselves? All this states is that you have not done any research, other apparently then checking out the odd atheist web site. And when confronted with the historical documents that historians weigh and use to make decisions ... you quibble - as Jesus Mythers tend to do.

Historians weigh actual evidence, and conspiracy theorists ignore it.

The Jesus Myth is nothing more than an example of confirmation bias from atheists.

[stubbornone]

mmmmm

[historia]

Im arguing the evidence against a historical Jesus, just because I can. Which I think should be a telltale sign that the evidence can go both ways.

Believe me, I fully appreciate the point you are making here about being undecided and just engaging in a good, old fashioned debate for the fun of it.

But here's the point I'm trying to make:

I think we both agree that we can never know (with 100% certainty) what happened in the past. And so there will always be some level of doubt about what "actually" happened.

For that reason, you can always argue both sides of the evidence -- especially if you are willing to entertain the notion that some group of people have corrupted or planted evidence. This is the game conspiracy theorists play, and, consciously or not, you are following that play book to a tee in this thread.

As I look at your arguments here, they all boil down to the same, basic point: Historical sources, by their very nature, cannot give us complete and certain knowledge about the past. The sources we have for Jesus of Nazareth therefore do not "prove" he existed.

And if that is your point, then I agree unreservedly. But here's the thing: You can level all of these same arguments against virtually any person or event of the ancient world. The sources we have for Jesus of Nazareth are not uniquely problematic in this regard.

And, even we are forced to operate with some level of doubt and uncertainty when looking at this (or any other) issues, that doesn't now mean we can operate as if all historical hypotheses are equally valid. The hypothesis that Jesus existed accounts for the available data much better than the hypothesis that he didn't. That, in the end, is all we can ever say.