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]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #79]

I would like to use this post to reply to something you said in this post, along with something which you say in previous post. In post #77 you say,

all anybody needs to do is read my statement "...all of Paul's 'gospel' was established via personal revelation..." and Galatians 1:11-12 along with your denial, and the identity of the person lying should be quite clear.

Yes. In that exchange Mithrae became upset when I pointed out that Paul was lying if Mithrae was right. In other words, if Paul did find out about Jesus from people as Mithrae claims, then Paul was lying when he said he didn't find out about Jesus from people but only revelation. So either Mithrae is wrong, or Paul is lying. Faced with this dilemma, Mithrae decided to accuse me of lying. I responded in kind by backing up what I said about Paul's knowledge of Jesus by quoting Galatians 1:11-12 which proves me right about Paul.

...let's look at the passage you supplied, which was Galatians 1:11-12,

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel, (not Jesus) that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it, (the gospel, not Jesus) from a human source, nor was I taught it (the gospel, not Jesus), but I received it (the gospel, not Jesus) through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sure. Let's look at you making the requisite changes to the text to "prove" your allegation. That's a textbook case of crank eisegesis if I have ever seen it. It's also obviously wrong because the gospel is the story of Jesus as any ten-year-old Sunday-school kid knows.

The point is, Paul was claiming that his knowledge of the "gospel" came to him by revelation, not his knowledge of Jesus.

Do you honestly think this? You seriously don't know that the gospel is the story of Jesus?

I'd like to see writings that can be dated to the early first century authored by people who did not know each (other.)

Is this to suggest that the writings we have in the NT were authored by those who, "knew each other"?

I should have said that we need writings from people who did not know each other and who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. That way they could not have colluded to have made up Jesus. Although it's safe to say that many of the writers of the New Testament did not know each other, they surely knew other Christians who could have passed on their religious beliefs to those writers. In other words, what they wrote very possibly reflects shared religious beliefs rather than knowledge of a historical Jesus.

The gospel is "not Jesus"? I never cease to be amazed at what apologists will say to try to save their beliefs.

[Mithrae]

...let's look at the passage you supplied, which was Galatians 1:11-12,

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel, (not Jesus) that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it, (the gospel, not Jesus) from a human source, nor was I taught it (the gospel, not Jesus), but I received it (the gospel, not Jesus) through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sure. Let's look at you making the requisite changes to the text to "prove" your allegation. That's a textbook case of crank eisegesis if I have ever seen it. It's also obviously wrong because the gospel is the story of Jesus as any ten-year-old Sunday-school kid knows.

While usually persuasive, in this case an appeal to the authority of ten-year-old Sunday-school kids may not be a winning point:

• In Christianity, the gospel, or the Good News, is the news of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15). . . .
  
  
  Gospel (/ˈɡɒspəl/) is the Old English translation of Greek εὐαγγέλιον, meaning "good news".[6] This may be seen from analysis of euangélion (εὖ eû "good" + ἄγγελος ángelos "messenger" + -ιον -ion diminutive suffix). The Greek term was Latinized as evangelium in the Vulgate, and translated into Latin as bona annuntiatio.
  
  In Old English, it was translated as gōdspel (gōd "good" + spel "news"). The Old English term was retained as gospel in Middle English Bible translations and hence remains in use also in Modern English.
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gospel

With this in mind, the first chapter of Galatians reads as follows:

Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to different good news—not that there is other good news, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the good news of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you good news contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a slave of Christ.

For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

Following the example of a recent thread, how about a pop quiz on knowledge of Galatians 1:

What most important thing did "the Lord Jesus Christ" do?
- - (Bonus Q) Distinct even from 'pillars' of the church like Peter and John, who was James known as the brother of?
What is the "good news of Christ"?
In Paul's "revelation of Jesus Christ," when God "was pleased to reveal his Son to me," what was the particular purpose in view?
What might we speculate Paul discussed with Peter and James in his first post-conversion trip to Jerusalem?
Did Paul proclaim a faith different from the one he had once learned to abhor and tried to destroy? If not, what is the best way to explain the similarities?

Is there anywhere that Paul ever writes (as Unknown Soldier affirmed) that "he received all his knowledge [of Jesus] from revelation"?

[unknown soldier]

In Christianity, the gospel, or the Good News, is the news of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15). . . .

Who do you think is going to usher in that kingdom? Think hard, Mith; According to Christian mythology, who is the king of that kingdom?

Gospel (/ˈɡɒspəl/) is the Old English translation of Greek εὐαγγέλιον, meaning "good news"...

Good news about whom? Who is at the focal point of that "good news"?

With this in mind, the first chapter of Galatians reads as follows...

OK, what about it? Is Galatians 1 supposed to say that the gospel doesn't have anything to do with Jesus?

Following the example of a recent thread, how about a pop quiz on knowledge of Galatians 1...

No way, Mith. You dodged my test, so I will dodge yours. "Payback's a female dog."

I see that we're seeing a new low in Christian apologetics here, something I wasn't sure was possible. We are being told that when Paul spoke of the gospel, he wasn't referring to Jesus. Apologists are so desperate that they deny their own beliefs to save those beliefs.

Hmmm--but on second thought, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

[Mithrae]

I see that we're seeing a new low in Christian apologetics here, something I wasn't sure was possible. We are being told that when Paul spoke of the gospel, he wasn't referring to Jesus. Apologists are so desperate that they deny their own beliefs to save those beliefs.

I've told you many times I'm not a Christian, but accommodating such basic facts was never your strong suit.

"We are being told that when Paul spoke of the gospel, he wasn't referring to Jesus"
As you're very well aware, that is a gross mischaracterization of something which we can all see is really quite a straightforward point. Keep on digging that hole my friend

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #0]

In other words, if Paul did find out about Jesus from people

The thing is, it was the "gospel" Paul claimed not to have received from others, not Jesus. What you are attempting is not going to work out for you. Because, you see, Paul could have known exactly who Jesus was, without knowing a thing in the world about the gospel he claimed to have received through revelation. In other words, Paul could have been persecuting the Church, just as he said he was, because he knew exactly who Jesus was, along with the fact that he had been crucified, and with this being the case, he could have well known the followers of Jesus were continuing to proclaim that Jesus, (who Paul would have known to exist) had rose from the dead, which would be why he would have been attempting to put a stop to it, and none of this would have a thing in the world to do with Paul understanding, or even having any sort of knowledge of what the gospel would be. Okay, but then, the gospel is revealed to Paul, and tied to this Jesus, Paul knew to exist, which then convinces Paul, that this Jesus he knew to exist, would be the Messiah. What I have just demonstrated is the fact that Paul could have very well known that Jesus did in fact exist as a real historical figure, without having any knowledge whatsoever about any sort of gospel. And you really want to talk about being "amazed" at just exactly what folks will say in order to hold on to what they would rather believe? This reminds me of that NFL segment called, "Comon man"!

I responded in kind by backing up what I said about Paul's knowledge of Jesus by quoting Galatians 1:11-12 which proves me right about Paul.

Well no! As we have just demonstrated, in this passage it was not "Paul's knowledge of Jesus", but rather, Paul's knowledge of the gospel, and Paul would not in any way have to have knowledge of any sort of gospel, in order to have knowledge that Jesus was a real historical figure.

It's also obviously wrong because the gospel is the story of Jesus as any ten-year-old Sunday-school kid knows.

It would be you who is "obviously wrong" because one can tell the story of Jesus, as a real historical figure, and never mention the word "gospel". The point is, before the conversion of Paul, he may have been able to tell you certain facts concerning the life of Jesus, but could have been completely unaware of any sort of "gospel".

Do you honestly think this? You seriously don't know that the gospel is the story of Jesus?

While I do not believe that what you are saying is completely accurate, let's go with it anyway to demonstrate my point. If I were to agree with you that "the gospel is the story of Jesus", this does not in any way necessitate that one would have to be aware of the "gospel" in order to understand that Jesus was a real historical figure. Again, Paul could have been completely aware that there was indeed a real historical Jesus, who was crucified, dead, and buried, along with the fact that there were those who were proclaiming that he was raised from the dead, and could have been completely unaware of any sort of gospel which may have been tied to this Jesus. The two are not the same.

This question is, "do you honestly think this"? In other words, do you "honestly think" one would have to know what the gospel was, in order to understand there was a historical Jesus? That math don't add, my friend. One may not be able to understand the gospel without knowing who Jesus was, but one certainly would not have to know anything about the gospel in order know that Jesus was a real historical figure.

I should have said that we need writings from people who did not know each other and who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus.

The question still remains, are you suggesting the writings we have would be from those who would have known each other?

That way they could not have colluded to have made up Jesus.

Exactly who was it who "colluded" together, and how do we know this to be the case?

Although it's safe to say that many of the writers of the New Testament did not know each other

Exactly what do you mean by, "many?" There were only nine different authors. So then, if you are saying there were those NT authors who did not know each other, this does not leave "many" at all who would have known each other. Next, if we can know nothing of these authors, "other than maybe Paul", how in the world can we determine whether they knew each other?

they surely knew other Christians who could have passed on their religious beliefs to those writers.

You are correct to say, "they could have", but if we concede we can know little about the authors, this would seem to mean, "they could have" been exactly who they have been said to be.

In other words, what they wrote very possibly reflects shared religious beliefs rather than knowledge of a historical Jesus.

Again, you are correct to say, "very possibly" but this would also mean that it is "very possible" the authors were exactly who they have been said to be.

The gospel is "not Jesus"? I never cease to be amazed at what apologists will say to try to save their beliefs.

What I have demonstrated does nothing whatsoever to "save my beliefs". Rather, it simply demonstrates clearly that one can have knowledge that Jesus would have been a real historical figure, and know nothing of any sort of gospel. Your burden now is to demonstrate how it would be impossible for one to know Jesus would have been a real historical figure, without having knowledge of the gospel, and that will be an impossible burden for you to carry, because what I have said would not be impossible in the least.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #83]

Who do you think is going to usher in that kingdom? Think hard, Mith; According to Christian mythology, who is the king of that kingdom?

The question is, would one have to know about this kingdom, or who would be the king of this kingdom, in order to know that Jesus would have been a real historical figure? The answer is, no.

Good news about whom? Who is at the focal point of that "good news"?

And again, one would not have to know a thing about this "good news" in order to know Jesus would have been a real historical figure. In other words, folks at that time could have very well said, "sure, I know this Jesus you are talking about, but I have no idea about any sort of good news which would be tied to him".

We are being told that when Paul spoke of the gospel, he wasn't referring to Jesus.

If Paul would have already known who Jesus was, then when he claimed to have received his knowledge of the "gospel" through revelation, he was not admitting to have no knowledge of Jesus being a real historical figure, before that time, which is what you are attempting to say. Now, do you really want to talk about anyone else being, "desperate"? Because, I can assure you that it certainly seems to be "desperation" for one to want to insist that when Paul talked about receiving the gospel through revelation, this somehow demonstrates Paul had no knowledge of Jesus at the time.

[Mithrae]

It would be you who is "obviously wrong" because one can tell the story of Jesus, as a real historical figure, and never mention the word "gospel". The point is, before the conversion of Paul, he may have been able to tell you certain facts concerning the life of Jesus, but could have been completely unaware of any sort of "gospel".

More to the point, even Jesus' own friends and family never observed or witnessed 'the gospel.' Immediately before warning the Galatians against a 'different gospel,' Paul summarizes the core of his own gospel about "the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age." You could witness everything from Jesus' baptism to his burial and you would never observe any redemption from sin or freedom from an evil age: The gospel is theology, not observable physical history (albeit depending on physical history in the death of a descendent of Abraham "born of a woman under the law" as Paul writes in Gal. 4:4).

Later in this letter to the Galatians Paul even states that scripture declared the gospel to Abraham:

• Galatians 3:6 Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed. . . .
  
  13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Does 'unknown soldier' think that the story of Jesus is written in Genesis? I think he knows that he is arguing an absurd position, which is why he resorts to such feeble caricatures.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #83]

Who do you think is going to usher in that kingdom? Think hard, Mith; According to Christian mythology, who is the king of that kingdom?

The question is, would one have to know about this kingdom, or who would be the king of this kingdom, in order to know that Jesus would have been a real historical figure? The answer is, no.

That's correct, but Paul presumably knew about Christian beliefs including the mythical kingdom of heaven all along. Presumably that's why we are told he persecuted Christians; he didn't like their beliefs. He then knew about Jesus too all along. Since he explicitly states that he knew none of this "gospel" except via revelation, then nothing he knew about Jesus and the gospel came from people, and that would include James, the guy Christians say was the sibling of Jesus.

And again, one would not have to know a thing about this "good news" in order to know Jesus would have been a real historical figure. In other words, folks at that time could have very well said, "sure, I know this Jesus you are talking about, but I have no idea about any sort of good news which would be tied to him".

Sure, but nowhere does Paul say he learned about Jesus that way. He never said that "so and so told me about Jesus, but I didn't know anything about Jesus then." In fact he denies it. So what you're saying here is at best speculation.

...I can assure you that it certainly seems to be "desperation" for one to want to insist that when Paul talked about receiving the gospel through revelation, this somehow demonstrates Paul had no knowledge of Jesus at the time.

Actually, if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul almost certainly knew about Jesus and Jesus' theology from either direct experience with him or from other people. Paul's "revelation story" would then be his fabrication. If Jesus wasn't historical, then Paul's revelation story would be still a fabrication or a hallucination of some kind.

So which one is it? Do you rely on deceitful Paul or crazy Paul as evidence for a historical Jesus?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #89]

I think he knows that he is arguing an absurd position, which is why he resorts to such feeble caricatures.

I completely agree! Let us recall, this thread began with the question,

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect?

The author of the OP goes on to say, in the OP,

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.

The OP ends with this sentence,

In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

The question is, what is the burden? If the burden is to prove Jesus did in fact exist, beyond any doubt, then I would suggest that such a burden would be insurmountable, for any historical figure. However, I am convinced we can know Jesus did in fact exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is exactly why those opposed are forced into these, "feeble caricatures".

If however, the burden is to demonstrate there would be, "good reasons to think he existed" then we have certainly meet this burden beyond any doubt. In other words, there is no doubt that we have given very good reasons to believe Jesus would have been a real historical figure, and thus far, I have failed to see any reason to doubt this evidence.

In reality, it is intellectual suicide for one to take the position that there would be no good reasons in support of an historical Jesus. But hey! I would suggest that anyone who commits suicide, finds themselves in desperate situations in which they see no other way out. It would be far better for one to simply stick with attempting to refute the Christian claims, as opposed to attempting to defend the ridiculous notion that there would be no good reasons to believe that Jesus did in fact exist.

The way in which I see it is, there are many here on this site who freely admit to being convinced Christians at one time, who go on to admit they were convinced simply upon the word of others. This certainly seems to demonstrate, these folks could not have possibly defended what they were convinced of, when they were Christians. These folks wake up one day, NOT to the realization that Christianity is false, (although this is what they will say) because they can in no way demonstrate the Christian claims to be false. Rather, they wake up to the fact, that they allowed themselves to be convinced something would be true, without thinking for themselves, as if this somehow demonstrates that what they were convinced of would be false.

Therefore, these folks are now just as convinced that Christianity is false, as they were when they were convinced it was true. The problem is, they can no more demonstrate that what they now believe concerning Christianity is true, than they could demonstrate Christianity was true, when they were convinced Christians. So then, you have these folks spending day, after day, week, after week, on a web site attempting to refute the Christian claims they were once so convinced of, and when they come to the realization their arguments are failing, some of them will become desperate enough to commit intellectual suicide.

The whole point here is, there are those of us who understand that we cannot demonstrate, or prove the position we hold, but can rather only share what it is we believe, along with the facts, and evidence in support of what we believe, while there seem to be others who are convinced they are right, but cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case. I can imagine this would be a frustrating position to be in.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #90]

He then knew about Jesus too all along.

You are here admitting that Paul would have, "knew about Jesus all along" which is the whole argument. In other words, when Paul claims to have received the gospel through revelation, he was in no way suggesting he would have had no idea about a real historical figure, named Jesus. The point is, you are using the claim from Paul to have received the gospel through revelation as a "proof text" in order to demonstrate Paul would not have known anything at all about a historical Jesus before that time, and this text demonstrates no such thing. Not even in the least.

Since he explicitly states that he knew none of this "gospel" except via revelation, then nothing he knew about Jesus and the gospel came from people, and that would include James, the guy Christians say was the sibling of Jesus.

NO! It what be, nothing he knew about the gospel would have come from, "people". This does not demonstrate that Paul was claiming not to have heard about Jesus the historical figure, from "people". Again, let's be clear, when Paul claims that have received the gospel through revelation, this in no way demonstrates that Paul would have had no knowledge of an historical Jesus.

Next, it does not matter how Paul may have known about an historical Jesus. In other words, this knowledge does not have to come from, "people".

Sure, but nowhere does Paul say he learned about Jesus that way. He never said that "so and so told me about Jesus, but I didn't know anything about Jesus then.

Paul also never claims to have received his knowledge of Jesus the historical figure through revelation.

In fact he denies it.

And where would that be? I can assure you, and have already demonstrated it would not be in the Galatian passage.

So what you're saying here is at best speculation.

Sure! It is a "speculation" on my part, that Paul was persecuting the Church, because he knew about a real historical Jesus. However, I will also point out that it would simply be "speculation" to assume Paul may not have known about a real historical Jesus. I really do not see how this is helping your argument? Because you see, I am not attempting to argue that Paul would have had knowledge of a real historical Jesus. Rather, I am simply demonstrating the passage you are attempting to use, does not in any way demonstrate he would not have had such knowledge.

Actually, if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul almost certainly knew about Jesus and Jesus' theology from either direct experience with him or from other people.

Exactly!

Paul's "revelation story" would then be his fabrication.

Well no! Paul never claimed to have received his knowledge of an historical Jesus through revelation. Next, even if Paul may have heard certain Christian theology, does not in any way necessitate the gospel would have been included.

So which one is it? Do you rely on deceitful Paul or crazy Paul as evidence for a historical Jesus?

You have not come close in the least of demonstrating that Paul would have had to be either of these things. Accept maybe in your own mind.