The Case for the Historical Christ

[Paul of Tarsus]

Can we make a case that Jesus really lived? Whatever else you might think of him, the answer to this question is not hard to come up with.

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived. So in the same way you can be sure that evolution has occurred because the consensus of evolutionary biologists think evolution happened, you can be sure Christ lived based on what his experts think about his historicity.

Now, one of the reasons New Testament authorities are so sure Christ existed is because Christ's followers wrote of his crucifixion. The disciples were very embarrassed about the crucifixion, and therefore we can be sure they didn't make up the story. Why would they create a Messiah who died such a shameful death? The only sensible answer is that they had to tell the whole truth about Jesus even if it went against the belief that the Messiah would conquer all.

We also have many people who attested to Jesus. In addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; we also have Paul and John of Patmos who wrote of Jesus. If Bible writers aren't convincing enough, then we have Josephus and Tacitus who wrote of Jesus, both of whom were not Christians. Yes, one person might write of a mythological figure, but when we have so many writing of Jesus, then we are assured he must have lived.

Finally, we have Paul's writing of Jesus' brother James whom Paul knew. As even some atheist Bible authorities have said, Jesus must have existed because he had a brother.

So it looks like we can safely conclude that Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on. Unlike Jesus authorities who have requisite degrees in Biblical studies and teach New Testament at respected universities, Jesus mythicists are made up primarily of internet atheists and bloggers who can use the internet to say what they want without regard to credibility. They've been said to be in the same league as Holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

[Tcg]

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived.

Kicking off your argument with an argumentum ad populum is not a great start, not a surprising one though.


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived.

Kicking off your argument with an argumentum ad populum is not a great start, not a surprising one though.


Tcg

I'm not yet prepared to defend or object to the claim that there was a historical Jesus. However, I'm also not sure if the OP contains an argumentum ad populum because it refers to a consensus of expert historians which includes secular academics and other professionals. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, referencing the consensus of experts in relevant academic and professional fields is not an argumentum ad populum because it excludes the opinions of people who are not demonstrably informed. Of course, I could be mistaken and welcome your insight.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]
The existence of James (Jesus's brother), who is attested for in multiple sources, does it for me. And he was killed for spreading his brother's faith if I'm recalling Josephus correctly. If someone proclaims that even James was a myth, then we may as well make the same charge towards Paul and the other apostles. Where does that leave us when it comes to the cause of Christianity?

[Tcg]

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived.

Kicking off your argument with an argumentum ad populum is not a great start, not a surprising one though.


Tcg

I'm not yet prepared to defend or object to the claim that there was a historical Jesus. However, I'm also not sure if the OP contains an argumentum ad populum because it refers to a consensus of expert historians which includes secular academics and other professionals. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, referencing the consensus of experts in relevant academic and professional fields is not an argumentum ad populum because it excludes the opinions of people who not demonstrably informed. Of course, I could be mistaken and welcome your insight.

I suppose it comes down to what the OP means by "New Testament authorities." I'm not sure that this would include only "expert historians." This seems to me to be a much broader group which could include folks whose education doesn't include any actual historical analysis at all. I'd also want to know what led them to their conclusions. If they accept that Jesus wasn't mythological simply because most of those who taught them accept him as an historical figure, then I'm not sure their opinion is based on anything but a more broadly accepted argumentum ad populum.

I too am not ready to defend or reject the claim of an historical Jesus. Personally, I can't see how it matters much one way or the other.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived.

Kicking off your argument with an argumentum ad populum is not a great start...

Do you accept what the majority of medical researchers have to say about smoking? If not, then light up!

...not a surprising one though.

Ouch. You sure know how to hurt a guy.

[Paul of Tarsus]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]
The existence of James (Jesus's brother), who is attested for in multiple sources, does it for me. And he was killed for spreading his brother's faith if I'm recalling Josephus correctly.

Yes. If Jesus had a brother, then Jesus existed, and Paul lets us know that Jesus had a brother. Mythical figures don't have brothers.

If someone proclaims that even James was a myth, then we may as well make the same charge towards Paul and the other apostles.

Since we have the same evidence for all those figures, it would be special pleading to leave out James, Jesus' brother.

Where does that leave us when it comes to the cause of Christianity?

I'm not sure if Christianity could survive without the established historicity of its main players. After all, Christianity rests on a historical foundation.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I'm not yet prepared to defend or object to the claim that there was a historical Jesus. However, I'm also not sure if the OP contains an argumentum ad populum because it refers to a consensus of expert historians which includes secular academics and other professionals. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, referencing the consensus of experts in relevant academic and professional fields is not an argumentum ad populum because it excludes the opinions of people who not demonstrably informed. Of course, I could be mistaken and welcome your insight.

The Biblical authorities I referred to in the OP are individuals with the requisite education and skills in early-Christian history who can offer or cite evidence that might clearly and unambiguously support the historicity of Christ. They should be able to argue why that evidence is evidence that Jesus existed using valid logic (no special pleading, no begging the question, etc.).

[bluegreenearth]

I'm not sure if Christianity could survive without the established historicity of its main players. After all, Christianity rests on a historical foundation.

As I announced in an earlier post to another member, I'm not currently prepared to agree or disagree with the claim that there was a historical Jesus. However, was your comment above meant to imply that any divine or divinely inspired characters at the foundation of an ancient religious tradition which is widely accepted by followers in modern times most likely based on historical figures?

If the historicity of Jesus were ever demonstrated by a consensus of experts to be unreliable, how would that affect your confidence in the belief? Would you remain equally confident, slightly less confident, or not at all confident in the belief?

[bluegreenearth]

The Biblical authorities I referred to in the OP are individuals with the requisite education and skills in early-Christian history who can offer or cite evidence that might clearly and unambiguously support the historicity of Christ. They should be able to argue why that evidence is evidence that Jesus existed using valid logic (no special pleading, no begging the question, etc.).

Would it be more accurate to describe the situation as the consensus of experts being able to argue that "a Jesus" existed? Otherwise, could phrasing it as "Jesus existed" be potentially misleading?