Did Jesus exist?

[unknown soldier]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect? If Jesus did exist, then how much was he like the Jesus of the New Testament? Was the "real" Jesus so different from the Biblical Jesus that the Biblical Jesus is essentially a myth like Osiris or Thor?

My position on the issue of the historicity of Jesus is that although I wouldn't say he was not historical, I'm not convinced by the evidence that he existed either. As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist. In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

[unknown soldier]

Peace to you,

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #39]

Christians don't seem to understand that when they harp about a historical Jesus, they are harping for a Jesus they really don't want. Apologists know that it sounds good to assure the faithful that "Jesus" existed, though; they're just careful not to let the faithful know which Jesus presumably existed.

I do not think the above is correct. When scholars argue for the historical [Jesus], I believe they are only dealing with those things that can be asserted via the historical method. Such as did the man exist.

My own view, as you may know, is that "the men" existed. "The man" historians speak of simply was not unique. Many Jewish men from that time could have inspired Christian beliefs.

The historical method does not speak - one way or the other - to the miracles (the resurrection, walking on water, Christ being the Son of God, etc).

As I see it, as long as the evidence is good enough, any event can be historical regardless of its nature. So if there was a Jesus who performed miracles, then we can know about him (at least in principle) via the historical method. Any Jesus who never performed a miracle that we know of just doesn't qualify as the Jesus his followers are looking for.

So it is not one or the other. It is simply 'we can establish the likelihood of the one - that the man existed (and some things that man did and said) - via the historical method'.

OK, Tam, I give you Jesus a man who lived and died like we all do. Are you satisfied?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #39]

Christians don't seem to understand that when they harp about a historical Jesus, they are harping for a Jesus they really don't want. Apologists know that it sounds good to assure the faithful that "Jesus" existed, though; they're just careful not to let the faithful know which Jesus presumably existed.

I do not think the above is correct. When scholars argue for the historical [Jesus], I believe they are only dealing with those things that can be asserted via the historical method. Such as did the man exist.

My own view, as you may know, is that "the men" existed. "The man" historians speak of simply was not unique. Many Jewish men from that time could have inspired Christian beliefs.

I'm not overly interested in your view, but if you're going to give it, then you should at least post evidence for it.

I was simply commenting on your statement about what the historical method actually claims to be able to provide.

The historical method does not speak - one way or the other - to the miracles (the resurrection, walking on water, Christ being the Son of God, etc).

As I see it, as long as the evidence is good enough, any event can be historical regardless of its nature. So if there was a Jesus who performed miracles, then we can know about him (at least in principle) via the historical method. Any Jesus who never performed a miracle that we know of just doesn't qualify as the Jesus his followers are looking for.

I was not commenting on 'what you see'. I was commenting on your claim of what the historical method gives people.

So it is not one or the other. It is simply 'we can establish the likelihood of the one - that the man existed (and some things that man did and said) - via the historical method'.

OK, Tam, I give you Jesus a man who lived and died like we all do. Are you satisfied?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my satisfaction, but as far as I understand, this is what the historical method points toward as well.

Christ lived and died. Men live and die.

Christ also ate and drank food and drink. Men eat and drink food and drink. Christ would have slept. Men sleep. Christ spoke. Men speak. Christ had (has) emotions. Men have emotions.

None of this contradicts the miracles, or the resurrection, of Christ.

It simply affirms that He was indeed a man who existed on the earth, two thousand years ago.


Peace again to you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #38]

I avoid if I can appeals to authority, and I recommend you do the same.

Surely I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, right? Are you not the one who said just the other day,

Carrier is a competent historian. Since I cannot verify the history of the church myself, then I must rely on his expertise.

How in the world can one fix their fingers to type both of these statements?

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #38]

I avoid if I can appeals to authority, and I recommend you do the same.

Surely I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, right? Are you not the one who said just the other day,

Carrier is a competent historian. Since I cannot verify the history of the church myself, then I must rely on his expertise.

How in the world can one fix their fingers to type both of these statements?

Yes, I avoid appeals to authority if I can exactly like I said. Only in cases when I cannot verify history myself do I seek the expertise of historians like Carrier.

Where's the contradiction you seek so hopefully?

I've noticed that some of the apologists on this board, you and Tam included, try to trap me in my words. It's not the first time a person has been treated that way. See Mark 12:12-14. Christ evidently did not foresee that his followers would become the "Pharisees" of today.

[brunumb]

In other words, I am not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact.

That's good, because it is not a fact.

You see, now it is you who is making a claim, and you now own the burden to demonstrate this claim. The problem is, you can in no way demonstrate your claim to be a fact. Sort of strange coming form one who loves to preach to us about the "burden of proof"? In other words, there are those who love to point out when others own the burden, but somehow the rules to not apply the same in their own case.

You said that you are not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact and I agree with you. What's the problem? Establish it as a fact if you can, otherwise there is no reason to believe it happened other than you need it to be true.

[unknown soldier]

M

y own view, as you may know, is that "the men" existed. "The man" historians speak of simply was not unique. Many Jewish men from that time could have inspired Christian beliefs.

I'm not overly interested in your view, but if you're going to give it, then you should at least post evidence for it.

I was simply commenting on your statement about what the historical method actually claims to be able to provide.

I don't normally post links to what is either common knowledge or what is easily found online, but I can't resist this one. To demonstrate the existence of many Christ-like Jewish preachers who existed in the first century, you need look no further than that greatest historical docudrama ever told, Monty Python's the Life of Brian:

OK, Tam, I give you Jesus a man who lived and died like we all do. Are you satisfied?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my satisfaction, but as far as I understand, this is what the historical method points toward as well.

If by "historical method" you mean believing what the early Christians wrote, then yes, there was a man named Jesus who was the Christ. Of course, that historical method also reveals that his mother was impregnated without a penis and that he went sailing off into the sky.

Christ lived and died. Men live and die.

Not only that, but crucified men were left out to rot in a common grave and be eaten by dogs. Maybe that's why Christ never shows up.

Christ also ate and drank food and drink. Men eat and drink food and drink. Christ would have slept. Men sleep. Christ spoke. Men speak. Christ had (has) emotions. Men have emotions.

Paul Bunyan did all that too.

None of this contradicts the miracles, or the resurrection, of Christ.

It doesn't support them either. The last time I checked, dead men stay dead.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #39]

Christians don't seem to understand that when they harp about a historical Jesus, they are harping for a Jesus they really don't want. Apologists know that it sounds good to assure the faithful that "Jesus" existed, though; they're just careful not to let the faithful know which Jesus presumably existed.

I do not think the above is correct. When scholars argue for the historical [Jesus], I believe they are only dealing with those things that can be asserted via the historical method. Such as did the man exist. The historical method does not speak - one way or the other - to the miracles (the resurrection, walking on water, Christ being the Son of God, etc).

At the risk of splitting hairs, supernatural reports like the 'star of Bethlehem' or the darkness at Jesus' death can be assessed as extremely improbable even without adopting methodological naturalism (which many historians would argue is an integral part of the discipline): Arguments from silence can be notoriously weak at times, of course, but in cases like these of events which essentially everyone in the region should have seen and considered remarkable, the absence of any such remarks from surviving authors (and even from other gospel authors!) strongly suggests they didn't occur. The presence of plausible alternative explanations (ie, 'Matthew' had a habit of simply making up things like earthquakes, mass resurrections and so on that no-one else noticed; and a solar eclipse in the region in November of 29CE a few months before Jesus' death was first considered to have prophetic significance, as in Acts 2:20, and eventually became conflated in the retelling with Jesus' death itself) pretty much closes the case on them. The nativity/virgin birth stories as a whole likewise have strong reasons for supposing that they are fictitious.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #38]

I avoid if I can appeals to authority, and I recommend you do the same.

Surely I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, right? Are you not the one who said just the other day,

Carrier is a competent historian. Since I cannot verify the history of the church myself, then I must rely on his expertise.

How in the world can one fix their fingers to type both of these statements?

Yes, I avoid appeals to authority if I can exactly like I said. Only in cases when I cannot verify history myself do I seek the expertise of historians like Carrier.

Where's the contradiction you seek so hopefully?

I've noticed that some of the apologists on this board, you and Tam included, try to trap me in my words. It's not the first time a person has been treated that way. See Mark 12:12-14. Christ evidently did not foresee that his followers would become the "Pharisees" of today.

Listen! I have used this exact quote of yours in posts to others, demonstrating that it is not simply Christians who take the word of others. At any rate, you would be correct to say, "it is best not to appeal to authority" because it does nothing whatsoever to help any argument. So then, just don't do it, especially if you are going to give this advice to others.

[Realworldjack]

In other words, I am not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact.

That's good, because it is not a fact.

You see, now it is you who is making a claim, and you now own the burden to demonstrate this claim. The problem is, you can in no way demonstrate your claim to be a fact. Sort of strange coming form one who loves to preach to us about the "burden of proof"? In other words, there are those who love to point out when others own the burden, but somehow the rules to not apply the same in their own case.

You said that you are not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact and I agree with you. What's the problem? Establish it as a fact if you can, otherwise there is no reason to believe it happened other than you need it to be true.

Since you seem so eager to agree that the resurrection would not be a fact, let us see just how eager you will be to agree to something else which would not be a fact? It would not be a fact, that the reports of the resurrection would be false. If the reports cannot be established to be false, then I see no reason to believe the reports to be false.

However, in the "real world" there are things which have not been demonstrated to be facts, but there would be very solid facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these things which have not been demonstrated to be facts. So then, either you believe the reports of the resurrection are false, which is something which would not be a fact or, you are claiming to have no belief one way or the other concerning the resurrection? I'm thinking, that if you were honest, you believe the resurrection to be false, which would mean you believe something which would not be a fact. But of course, you could claim to hold no belief at all, but this would not change the fact that there are facts, evidence, and reasons in support of the claims.

In reality, it seems to me, you are the one who needs to desperately believe the resurrection is false, because I can assure you I would much rather not believe Christianity is true. Who in the world would want to believe it? The only way I can see anyone wanting to believe Christianity to be true, would be one who does not truly understand it.

[Mithrae]

Let me help you there. A really good argument for a historical Jesus is to recognize that the Romans who occupied Israel in the first century crucified many young Jewish rebels. A large number of these rebels preached an impending apocalypse, and a lot of them could have been named, "Jesus," a popular Jewish name at that time. One of these "Jesuses" caught on and became the figurehead of Christianity.

See that, Mith? That wasn't hard at all. I came up with a concise and logically valid argument for Jesus based firmly on historical evidence. Why has this argument not caught on? I think the answer is that it does not rely on the Bible.

Not only is that pure speculation and guesswork, but it raises far more questions and problems than it solves, requiring yet more guesswork to 'answer' and make any kind of coherent picture. Guesswork has its place, but calling it a "really good argument based firmly on historical evidence" just suggests a very tenuous grasp of what evidence actually is. Why have you tried to persuade yourself that it's a really good argument? Presumably because, for reasons best known to yourself, you want to avoid at any cost everything the people actually involved in that movement wrote.

"The Bible" is not a source for historical information on Jesus but Paul, Mark, Q/Matthew/Luke and John are (along with Josephus, Tacitus and the Talmud of course); whether you don't understand that distinction or have chosen to ignore it for polemical reasons, it's a fairly obvious limitation in critical thinking on the subject. For example your speculation that the Christian movement was founded or inspired by a "rebel" is not only unsupported by any of these early sources but quite strongly contradicted by many of them. Conversely most of those sources including Josephus directly or indirectly suggest that religious teaching offensive to the social elites was a distinguishing feature of that movement; so much so that given the merest chance a few decades later, James the brother of Jesus and some others were illegally killed without a governor's sanction by Ananus the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, leading to his removal as high priest (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1).