Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Did Jesus exist?

Yes
12
39%
Likely
12
39%
Unlikely
4
13%
No
3
10%
 
Total votes: 31

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept
I still have a problem with what you mean by "Jesus".

I have no problem accepting that a man (possibly named Jesus) may have existed, preached, and was executed.

What I do have a problem with, is how well the Gospels report those events. Even when supernatural claims are ignored. This is why I'm not prepared to support any claim that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Gospels represents any actual historical person.

There may have been a preacher named Jesus who existed, preached, and was executed and may even have been associated with some of the things claimed about him in the Gospels.

But this in no way suggests that I'm agreeing that the "Jesus" portrayed in the Gospels was an actual historical person.

The closest I'll get to that is to accept that a "historical Jesus" may have been the fodder for the Gospel rumors. But this in no way means that I accept, or need to defend everything the Gospels rumors have to say about Jesus (even excluding the miracles the supernatural things)

As I mentioned in the other thread that was trashed. The Gospels have Jesus predicting that Judas would betray him, and that various disciples would renounce him even three times which the Gospels claim actually happened.

I just want to make it crystal clear that by accepting that there may have been a "historical Jesus" in no way implies than I need to then explain things that the Gospels claim their "Jesus" might have said or done.

~~~~~

Here's the problem Z.

As soon as you tell a theist that you accept that "Jesus" actually lived, then they immediately start pointing to things the Gospels have to say about him and expect that you need to explain how Jesus could have done these things.

In other words, they don't make a distinction between a possible person who was merely used as "fodder" for the Gospel Rumors, versus a historical person who actually fits the Gospel description of Jesus to a "T".

This is why this is not so cut-and-dried.

I accept that there may have been a "real person" who gave rise to the Gospel Rumors. This does not mean that I am saying that the "Jesus" described in the Gospels actually "Existed".

Perhaps I can put this another way:

Imagine you have a book written about Elvis Presley. The book claims that Elvis was a popular rock star and movie star. It even mentions real historical concerts and movies he was in. The book also mentions his military service record, and you can check that he was indeed in the U.S. Military.

So far so good. But then the book goes on to make all manner of claims about Elvis that may have never actually happened to the "Real Elvis".

The question then becomes, "Did the Elvis written about in this book actually exist?"

Well, obviously an actual historical Elvis did exist. But the character in the book never existed because the character in the book includes many things that the "Real Elvis" never did.

So they aren't the "Same Elvis"

And this is what I'm trying to say about the Gospel Jesus versus a Historical Jesus.


Look again at the wording of your question in the OP:
Zzyzx wrote: .
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?
The question then becomes, "What do you mean by Jesus?" Who was Jesus? Am I supposed to know? And if I do know what you mean by "Jesus" then where did I get that information? Who is it that you are asking lived 2000 years ago? The "Jesus" described in the Gospels?

This might seem trivial but I would rather rephrase the question to ask:
Zzyzx wrote: .
Did some guy named Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?
This at least makes it a little more clear that we don't really know much about this person.

To just ask "Did Jesus live 2000 years ago?" already implies that we know who we are talking about. We are talking about the person described in the Gospels.

And if that's the person we're talking about, then I have no clue whether that person existed or not. Probably not considering everything the Gospels have to say about their Jesus.

~~~~~~

Sorry to be such a stickler on this but I've been through this many times in the past with theists. Once you "confess" that a historical Jesus actually existed, then then quickly turn to the Gospels and start asking you to explain how Jesus could have possibly known certain things that the Gospels claim that "Jesus" knew, etc.

So this is why you need to be extremely careful when agreeing that a historical "Jesus" might have actually existed.

I would much rather just say that I believe that a real person may have been the fodder for the Gospel rumors, and just leave it at that. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #3

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Divine Insight wrote: Sorry to be such a stickler on this but I've been through this many times in the past with theists. Once you "confess" that a historical Jesus actually existed, then then quickly turn to the Gospels and start asking you to explain how Jesus could have possibly known certain things that the Gospels claim that "Jesus" knew, etc.
I understand -- and do not disagree. It is not a simple question; however, if one says only that such a person existed, preached and was executed they are NOT agreeing to accept (or explain) actions and conversations attributed to him in gospel tales. Even though Theists might like to take things in those directions, one can ask for verification.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #4

Post by wiploc »

Yes, no, likely, or unlikely? Why can't I vote for "I have no clue"

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

Zzyzx wrote: I understand -- and do not disagree. It is not a simple question; however, if one says only that such a person existed, preached and was executed they are NOT agreeing to accept (or explain) actions and conversations attributed to him in gospel tales. Even though Theists might like to take things in those directions, one can ask for verification.
It's been my experience that that's precisely the direction that theists are going to want to move toward. And it's also been my experience that if you refuse to move in that direction then they will start claiming that your "historical Jesus" isn't the same as the Gospel Jesus.

Well duh? Of course he isn't. But they don't seem to recognize the significance of this.

They'll even accuse you of just making up an "imaginary Jesus" that we don't have any information about. And then they'll say, "You can't say anything about your historical Jesus, but I can say quite a bit about the Gospel Jesus". And then they act like they have more "evidence" for their Gospel Jesus via the Gospels themselves than you have for your "historical Jesus" that you can't know anything about.

You should know by now how it goes. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #6

Post by dianaiad »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)
Taking all divine claims about Him and putting them aside (and as a Christian type theist, y'all know that I do believe He existed pretty much as described), I see no reason at all to assume that He did NOT exist. At least, that an itinerant Jewish teacher named Jesus or Joshua wandered around for three or so years, teaching all sorts of things and generally making Himself a pain in the Roman and Pharisitic behinds. We have as much evidence for His existence as we do for many other historical figures, and not all of it is included in that collection of books called the Bible.

One of the things that points to this (besides extrabiblical evidence that such a man actually existed) is that traditionally myths of important leaders and gods and mighty heroes place their existence 'long ago and far away,' or at the very least, 'long ago.' Certainly more than one or two generations back. I know of no religious or other group that based it's founder upon a non-existent person who would have existed within living human memory.

Yeah, I've seen people exaggerate the accomplishments of a figure (Elvis, anybody) and put one into 'cult worship' status...but that person always, actually, existed.

I find it, frankly, more than bemusing to see the almost desperate attempts that some make to disprove Jesus' mere existence as a teacher and as a man...as if simply acknowledging that He actually wandered around Judea a little means that one must acknowledge His divinity and all the miracles.

No.

I can see where His followers might, having lost Him in so dramatic and tragic a manner, exaggerate and formulate a religion around him; he wasn't there any more to goof up the system. I can't see them making Him up out of whole cloth, especially to a group of people who would have been around and would have expected to MEET this person, listen to His speeches, etc.

It just seems to me that it is an exercise in.........silliness?....to insist that no man named Jesus lived.

The real question is whether this Man named Jesus, or Joshua is actually the Only Begotten Son of God. I think He is. However, acknowledging that He actually was a real man who lived, taught and died 2000 years ago doesn't mean that one must acknowledge His divinity.

OpenYourEyes
Sage
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #7

Post by OpenYourEyes »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)
I chose the option "likely" from your poll. I chose that option because all we have to assess the situation is the field of history, and the most it can offer are probable answers. Here are my reasons:

- We have multiple and independent sources that make reference to Jesus and his brother James.
- We have multiple sources that state that there were many messiah-type figures in the 1st Century. This does not prove Jesus but it does show that it was not out-of-the-ordinary for their to be messiah-type figures in the 1st century. Jesus fits in that picture perfectly.
- The majority of scholars (as claimed by other scholars in the field) accept Jesus's existence. I know that going by the majority does not ensure validity but that to me is better to go by than a one or two credentialed contemporary scholars who think otherwise, especially if those minority are on the extreme side of the spectrum (ie Jesus is COMPLETELY made up as opposed to existing with some legendary accretions).

Here's some additional info. about my 2nd point from another thread:
Acts 5:36-37
36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.
From Josephus, The Jewish War
Book II, chapter 13, paragraph 4
There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty

It's beyond me why hyperskeptics like Richard Carrier would not at least consider that Jesus was a literal being with some added legends. This is especially convincing given the there were plenty of other 'literal' Messiah-type figures in Jesus's time. All talked about in the context of being literal people. I'm sure I can find other examples of this occurring today, like with the popular gurus in India.[/quote]

User avatar
tfvespasianus
Sage
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #8

Post by tfvespasianus »

OpenYourEyes wrote:
It's beyond me why hyperskeptics like Richard Carrier would not at least consider that Jesus was a literal being with some added legends.
Without endorsing or dismissing Carrier’s argument or approach, I will state that his work on the question of the historicity of Jesus is almost 700 pages long and he does consider that hypothesis (i.e. Jesus was an actual personage with embellishments) alongside other hypothesis in a very methodical way. In fact, in another work Dr. Carrier evaluated the evidence for four competing hypothesis that are roughly:

1. Jesus was a historical person mythicized
2. Jesus was a mythical person historicized
3. Jesus was a historical person not mythicized (triumphal)
4. Jesus was a mythical person not historicized (postmodern)

Although, he does give the latter two categories briefer treatment based on his assessment of probability (i.e. their assessed probability is near zero).

In any case, we can read things that we disagree with, be it a book or a long-form essay, but it’s more problematic to strongly disagree with things we have not read.

Take care,
TFV

OpenYourEyes
Sage
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #9

Post by OpenYourEyes »

tfvespasianus wrote:
OpenYourEyes wrote:
It's beyond me why hyperskeptics like Richard Carrier would not at least consider that Jesus was a literal being with some added legends.
Without endorsing or dismissing Carrier’s argument or approach, I will state that his work on the question of the historicity of Jesus is almost 700 pages long and he does consider that hypothesis (i.e. Jesus was an actual personage with embellishments) alongside other hypothesis in a very methodical way. In fact, in another work Dr. Carrier evaluated the evidence for four competing hypothesis that are roughly:

1. Jesus was a historical person mythicized
2. Jesus was a mythical person historicized
3. Jesus was a historical person not mythicized (triumphal)
4. Jesus was a mythical person not historicized (postmodern)

Although, he does give the latter two categories briefer treatment based on his assessment of probability (i.e. their assessed probability is near zero).

In any case, we can read things that we disagree with, be it a book or a long-form essay, but it’s more problematic to strongly disagree with things we have not read.

Take care,
TFV
Keep in mind that a book is not the only way to get information about someone and I say this because I've listened to plenty of Richard Carrier's debates and read his blog. He has debated on Christ myth view for years and perhaps his book is just a symposium of his debates put in writing. So his views about Jesus being a COMPLETE myth are nothing new. I plan on buying his book in the near future.

The word "consider" in my statement was wrong. I should've said "accept", as in the majority of scholars ACCEPT Jesus's existence as a 1st century Jewish MAN. Not sure why it's so hard for Dr. Carrier to accept that given the facts.

I should also add that on matters of history, I think like an agnostic. I tend to steer away from the views of hyperskeptics and from radical believers (historians favoring too much that's in line with Church tradition). Both of these types are on the extreme side of the spectrum and I find that I'm in good company since a majority of scholars accept Jesus's existence to some degree.
Last edited by OpenYourEyes on Wed Sep 07, 2016 2:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

OpenYourEyes
Sage
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

Post #10

Post by OpenYourEyes »

[Replying to post 8 by tfvespasianus]

What is your view on Jesus's existence?

Assuming that you've read Richard Carrier's recent book, please explain why you agree with his conclusion. Post some of his strongest arguments and include your sources for those, as well.

Post Reply