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]

@ Mithrae, Historia, Eden and Stubbornone

As I said before I am looking for a real answer to whether or not Jesus existed or if we can say with some sort of certainty that a man existed who was latter embellished. Thus far I have argued against to see where that would lead. It is all part of getting to the truth. Some of you guys have made some very good points. In my research I have for an article from Bart Ehrman that I feel needs to make it into this thread. It makes a good point for an actual figure that was later embellished. Here is the source link and below I am posting some of the article with highlights.

The short version: even though Paul is not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, he personally knew two people (at least) who were: Jesus’ closest disciple Peter, and his brother James. This is as close as you can get to eyewitness testimony as you can imagine, without an eyewitness actually writing up a report himself. It’s very good evidence.

The other argument is at least as important, even though it’s a bit complicated. Most Christians today think that the Jewish messiah was *supposed* to die and be raised again (showing that he was the messiah). The reality, however, is that ancient Jews had a variety of expectations of who the messiah would be – some thought he’d be a great warrior king like David, others that he would be a cosmic judge of the earth (a Son of Man figure), others that he would be a powerful priest who judged God’s people. In NONE of these expectations was there any sense at all that the messiah would be someone who would be executed by his enemies, squashed by his opponents. Christians who think that is what the messiah was supposed to be have been influenced by OT passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which seem to speak about a future suffering person whose death will make people right with God. But ancient Jews did not interpret these passages as referring to the messiah (and in fact, the messiah is not mentioned in these passages). On the contrary, for ancient Jews, these passages were decidedly NOT speaking about the messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not someone who was weak and powerless.

This means that if the followers of Jesus were going to make up the claim that he was the messiah they would not ALSO make up the claim that he was crucified, since that was the LAST thing that would happen to the messiah. But the reality is that Christians did call Jesus the messiah, and yet did indicate that he was crucified. How can we explain that? If a group of Jews wanted to make up a messiah (as the mythicists claim) they would not have made up a crucified messiah, since there was no such thing as the idea of a crucified messiah in Judaism at the time. And so they must not have made up Jesus. Instead, the historical reality was this: Christians thought that Jesus was the messiah, and they KNEW that he had been crucified. And so they developed the idea that the messiah was supposed to be crucified. (And they started to appeal to non-messianic texts such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in support of their views.)

That is why Paul talks about the crucifixion as the greatest “stumbling block� for Jews. Most Jews thought it was ludicrous to say a crucified man was the messiah. This is the reason they rejected the Christian message.

In short, Jesus must have existed, and must have really been crucified – since if Christians wanted to convert Jews, they would not have made up the idea that a crucified man was their messiah. But the reality is they had no choice. They thought Jesus was the messiah and they knew he had been crucified, and so they devised the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. Christians today would say that these early Christians were *right*; non-Christians would say they were *wrong*. But for the question of whether Jesus existed or not it doesn’t matter which side of that issue you stand on. The fact that Jesus was declared as the (crucified) messiah shows that he could not have been made up by his Jewish followers. And so he must have really existed, and been crucified.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

No source.

Open your eyes. It is sourced to Bart Ehrman as I stated in the introduction of my post and I also prvided a link directly to the quotation.

Plagiarizing the Internet is not debate.

Get outta here. I don't have time for your foolishness. Obviously you don't understand what a source is and how to comprehend a hyperlink connected to the source with reference to the author Professor Bart Erhman. Plagiarism? Please look up the word and get aquainted with the definition and discontinue your slanderous accusations.

I refuse to treat the results of a random google search dumped onto a forum as if its the result of research and intellect.

Ok then stop posting. You do have a choice. The funny thing is that you have no rebuttal and so you resort to personal attacks.

All this proves is that people posts their thoughts on the Internet and young atheists can use google word searches to dump their stuff on a forum.

This is an article from the Professor himself. He, unlike some other scholars, likes to actually associate with his readers and correspond. This is also him paraphrasing from his book "Did Jesus Exist".

This is the ONLY behavior that even gives the Jesus Myth the pretense of respectability. I for one see its clearly a pretense, and see little or no point in rebutting an argument when it will be immediately forgotten about and replaced by a different random google result.

Obviously you don't read posts and I am not even gonna guide you to certain things I said which you have ignored. Anything you don't like and which is against you, you ignore and throw accusations at and break the rules doing so.

A reminder, instead if reading only those who support your preconceptions, I highly suggest you use those massive google abilities to search out the evidence for Jesus and cut and paste that. You will quickly discover that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Jesus, and that those who deny him ... Have issues with integrity.
Again, it is how I started, inviting people to look at the record. What I get, as always with he Jesus Myth, is random google support that deliberate avoids the actual evidence.

You have not invited anyone to do anything other than "here's a book read it" which is improper debate and I doubt you will ever get anyone to take you seriously. Also, posting a random link to a website that most people on this forum have in our favorites (because we use it to disprove your ideas) is not debate either. You first need an argument, then support that argument by citing your source and quoting from it and then wait for a rebuttal. Next maintain civility and give a counter rebuttal to disprove the other's rebuttal. That's how it works. Don't worry you will figure it out one day.

Still no link.

You have no thesis, no idea that you are apparently attempting to support.

I have said multiple times in his thread that a historical Jesus is beyond doubt, and the contentions about gospel Jesus and his miracles are not verifiable one way or the other. It boils down to assuming that otherwise honest men were lying ... Or not.

Simply put, the miraculous Jesus cannot be confirmed or denied. The historical Jesus is quite verifiable, and so, we are left with the problem set of how a religious figure, ostensibly no different than any other, can become the center of such a large and loft religious virtue?

Your piece addresses none of that, nor indeed does it seem to postulate much in support of anything you have previously written.

Ergo, rather than posting random pieces, I am looking for you to actually spell out your position and support it.

Furthermore, actual history is about information. Rather than searching JUST for Internet sources that support your position, assuming you define one, I am looking to see that you have enough familiarity with the actual subject to even hold an honest opinion ... Rather than prejudice ... On the subject. Making claims about they're being in extra biblical sources, or that there are no first century sources are claims that strongly point to sources that are deliberately misleading ... Like atheists.org, rather than scholarly, or even popular, historical accounts.

Ergo, and as you see throughout this thread, asking atheists sites that prominently feature Jesus Myth narratives about Jesus is a bit like asking Nazis about Jews, especially in light of the scholarly rejection of the position. This is made worse when evidence that counters it is simply dismissed as 'apologist' ... Comments that drive me to question the very integrity of the process of denial entirely.

In short, define your thesis statement, and then support it.

[Lux]

Moderator Warning

I refuse to treat the results of a random google search dumped onto a forum as if its the result of research and intellect.

All this proves is that people posts their thoughts on the Internet and young atheists can use google word searches to dump their stuff on a forum.

I believe I warned you a few of posts ago about making blanket statements and uncivil comments. Please be warned that we do not tolerate incivility in this forum.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

It makes a good point for an actual figure that was later embellished. Here is the source link and below I am posting some of the article with highlights.


Still no link.

Let me point something out. See that little blue word that says 'Link'. That is a pointer to a web site that has the source.

[Lux]

Moderator Warning

Get outta here. I don't have time for your foolishness.

That's how it works. Don't worry you will figure it out one day.

Condescending remarks and uncivil comments are not proper debate either. More importantly to me, they are against the rules, a fact that I pointed out just a few posts ago.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

What topics do you suppose that we make a side topic for?

I was thinking of starting a thread on the TF specifically. It seems that some of the more interesting points here could be reformulated in that thread.

I think that is a great idea. I like the TF topic and I also would like to debate the Book 20.9.1-4 topic as well, in favor of an interpolation.

Please try to stay on topic and don't make posts that are irrelevant to the debate. You may use the PM function to discuss what you want to debate about next, threads in debate forums should not be used as chat rooms.

But you are right about one thing: this thread needs locking.

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.