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.

[brunumb]

However, you may be correct to say there would be "no facts or evidence" which does not compare to Christianity because Christianity is without a doubt built upon historical facts, and evidence, one of which would be the empty tomb the Apostles continued to point to.

Your so-called facts and evidence amount to nothing more than hearsay and unsupported claims.

[Goose]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

What Mithrae is attempting to do, I think, (and rightly I might add if he is) is first try to establish what that burden of proof is in your view by asking who you think existed and why.

Now you say you are consistent, but let's put that to the test. With the exception of the fragmented and somewhat ambiguous Pilate Stone much of the evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate comes to us from the same kind of documentary evidence, indeed even some of the same sources, as for Jesus (i.e. the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus). Or sources that are different but seem to cancel one another out in terms of historical weight by both being contemporary (i.e. Philo vs. Paul). So the evidence for the existence of Pilate is nearly the same as that for Jesus. So you must be likewise unconvinced that Pilate existed as well.

The Pilate stone is a damaged block (82 cm x 65 cm) of carved limestone with a partially intact inscription attributed to, and mentioning, Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26 to 36... The artifact is particularly significant because it is an archaeological find of an authentic 1st-century Roman inscription mentioning the name "[Pont]ius Pilatus".

This proves nothing, but to compare the evidence from Pilate to Jesus is not apt unless you can show that the Pilate Stone is religious promotional material.

Proves nothing? If the Pilate Stone is not proof of Pilate's existence then what on earth is? Are you not convinced Pilate existed either?

To check for consistency... is the Pilate Stone just as credible as claims from the Quran?

The Pilate Stone coupled with the written sources attesting to his existence is a convergence of evidence. If you are asking if I believe Mohammed was a real person, I do.

Consider that your are trying to justify Pilate existence to the flight that Muhammed took on a winged horse in the Quran. Does the Pilate Stone justify Pilate like the Quran does Muhammed's flight?

I don't follow you here.

[Goose]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

What Mithrae is attempting to do, I think, (and rightly I might add if he is) is first try to establish what that burden of proof is in your view by asking who you think existed and why.

Now you say you are consistent, but let's put that to the test. With the exception of the fragmented and somewhat ambiguous Pilate Stone much of the evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate comes to us from the same kind of documentary evidence, indeed even some of the same sources, as for Jesus (i.e. the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus). Or sources that are different but seem to cancel one another out in terms of historical weight by both being contemporary (i.e. Philo vs. Paul). So the evidence for the existence of Pilate is nearly the same as that for Jesus. So you must be likewise unconvinced that Pilate existed as well.

Sheesh, Goose; I was hoping to discuss the historicity of Jesus on this thread, but here I find myself on trial desperately defending my consistency regarding evidence. There's nothing like attacking the logic of the skeptics if you have no good evidence for your position.

Rather there's nothing like attacking the logic of a skeptic when the logic implies absurdities.

It might just save the day allowing Christians everywhere to breathe a sigh of relief knowing that that dastardly unknown soldier has been discredited.

It's not about discrediting you. It's about discrediting your reasoning. Bad reasoning should be discredited so others are less likely to be infected with it.

But I'll bite the bait! I haven't looked closely at the historical evidence for Plate, but if it's as weak as the evidence for Jesus, then I'm not sure Pilate existed either.

Well the evidence for Pilate is pretty much just as weak as it is for Jesus, therefore you are not sure Pilate existed.

Now that we've had fun playing our little game, can we get back to the issue of the historicity of Jesus? Please post why we should be convinced Jesus existed.

What's the point when you aren't even convinced Pilate existed? He's one of the most well attested figures of the era and region with a convergence of evidence between archaeological and written sources. Every major historian who wrote extensively about that region and era mention him (Tacitus and Josephus). With a contemporary (Philo) who had visited Jerusalem also attesting to his existence. If that evidence is insufficient to convince you Pilate existed then I won't be able to convince you Jesus existed. In fact, I don't think I could convince you anyone from ancient history existed if you aren't convince Pilate existed. I will simply have to cut you adrift to float on the sea of irrational hyper scepticism. Bon voyage.

[Realworldjack]

Have you in any way demonstrated that all these "Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Hindu gods" are indeed "fictional"? Or, is this simply your opinion? In other words, you hold the opinion these gods must be false, and therefore in your mind this somehow translates into all gods, and religions must have somehow been created in some sort of way, which goes on in your mind to somehow demonstrate Christianity must be fiction as well?

You're missing the point. The belief in all those religions and their gods was accepted by people simply being told it was all true. Unless you want to claim that there were facts and evidence that these people evaluated that led them to the conclusion that what they believed was true. Your position is that people do not simply accept what they are told as true when it comes to their religious beliefs. I put it to you that they do. Most are inculcated with their beliefs and most never scrutinise them closely or critically. The same applied to when the religion was just emerging. How often have I heard the question asked "What would change your mind about the truth of Christianity?" and the reply was "Nothing". All faith, not evidence.

Your position is that people do not simply accept what they are told as true when it comes to their religious beliefs.

This is a completely false statement! The fact of the matter is, I am convinced most Christians cannot explain what it is they believe, nor why they believe as they do, exactly because they have simply accepted what they have been taught without question. The problem between you, and I comes with this statement you make,

Most are inculcated with their beliefs and most never scrutinise them closely or critically.

The only problem I have with this statement would be when you use the word, "inculcated" as if all Christian parents simply attempt to force their children to believe something uncritically. Therefore, a statement I can agree with would be, "most Christians were brought up in Christian homes where they were taught Christian beliefs, and most never scrutinize what they were taught closely, or critically, but rather simply accept what they were taught without question".

So, who is to blame here? We can blame the parents if it can be demonstrated the parents attempted to force their children to believe what they were taught uncritically. However, if the parents were simply attempting to teach their children what they were convinced would be the truth, and the children simply accepted what they were taught without question, all the way into adulthood, I find it hard to understand how we can blame the parents for teaching their children what they would be convinced of.

As an example, I was raised in a Christian home, where my dad was a pastor of a Church for over 30 years. When I became of age, I clearly understood I was not convinced Christianity was true, and therefore I no longer attended Church for decades. Now, was I upset, and mad at the fact my parents attempted to teach me what they were convinced was the truth? Well no. I simply understood I was not convinced, and therefore I could see no reason to continue to participate in something that I was not convinced of myself.

This is why I find it hard to sympathize with those who seem to want to place the blame on others, for what they believed themselves, unless they can somehow demonstrate they were forced to believe, against their will.

The same applied to when the religion was just emerging.

This is simply an opinion stated as if it would be a fact. If not, then kindly demonstrate this to be a fact.

How often have I heard the question asked "What would change your mind about the truth of Christianity?" and the reply was "Nothing". All faith, not evidence.

Yeah? I would really like to know exactly how often you have heard such a thing, because even if the Christian simply believed upon faith, (AND MANY DO) I find it hard to imagine very many of them admitting to such a thing. Unless of course they do go on to reject Christianity, because we know for sure there are many former Christians who admit they believed simply upon the word of others, and they seem to think that since they believed simply upon the word of others, that this somehow demonstrates there would be no facts, and evidence in support. They also seem to be under the impression that their life story, and rejection of Christianity is somehow a powerful testimony against the truth of Christianity. However, all it demonstrates to me is one who can be easily convinced without much thinking involved, and they go on to demonstrate they continue to simply take the word of others. Therefore, the only thing which has really changed is the mind, while the thinking remains to be the same as they have simply changed from taking the word of Christians, to taking the word of those who would be opposed, kinda like when they supply us with links, as if simply because they can supply us with a point of view opposed, this somehow demonstrates their case.

Now, do you really want to talk about those who do not scrutinize, and think critically? Because, most times when folks have supplied me with these links, and I go on to read these links, it causes me to wonder if the one who supplied the link actually read the link themselves? You know, kinda like the link you supplied us with, in which I did not have to read very far in order to determine this author was actually supplying evidence in to support an early date of authorship for the Biblical content, all the while arguing for a "later date". So then, it would seem that it is not just Christians who do not scrutinize, and think critically?

But the thing is, I have already agreed most Christians do not think, and most cannot really explain what it is they believe, nor why they believe as they do. What I am attempting to understand from you is, how you think this would be some kind of evidence against Christianity? It is kind of like if I were to teach my kid that the Sun was stationary, and my kid were to begin to ask questions, and I were to simply tell my child to "shut up and simply believe what I am telling you". So then, if the child simply goes on to believe the Sun is stationary, but cannot explain why he believes this to be the case, other than this is what he has been told, does this cause what he believes to be any less true?

The point is, simply because there are many folks who are easily convinced, does not demonstrate that everything they are convinced of would be false. Again, it is not that this is a weak argument against Christianity, but rather it is no argument at all. I will also explain to you that it is not an argument at all against Christianity for one to admit they were once convinced Christianity was true, but did not think when making such a decision.

[unknown soldier]

The body of literature/letters produced by Paul and his admirers is good evidence for his existence, yes, but an even stronger type of evidence is the religious/social movements produced by Jesus and those he inspired.

I think you're begging the question here. If you wish to argue that Jesus existed, then it's a logical mistake to say that what he did is evidence for him. Here's the outline of your argument:

Jesus started religious and social movements.
Therefore, he must have existed.

Your argument is circular.

Also, the early Christian church need not have been founded by Jesus; Paul and his buddies were quite adequate to have started Christianity with no real Christ. So it does not logically follow that the early Christian sect was necessarily started by Jesus.

As we all know well enough, documents can be pseudonymously produced or filled with fictitious content without too much hassle...

Very good! That's exactly why the evidence for Jesus is ambiguous and for me at least, unconvincing. The gospels might well be such "documents that were pseudonymously produced or filled with fictitious content" produced by the early Christians "without too much hassle."

...and that is much easier to accomplish than producing the effects of sustained, intensive preaching and practicing of a social or religious 'good news.'

Why could Paul have not done both? He wrote and preached, so there was no need for Jesus to have preached.

For an interesting point of comparison consider the historiography of Alexander the Great.

I haven't looked at the historical evidence for Alexander too closely, but one key difference between him and Jesus is that the story of Alexander is a story of a military leader while the story of Jesus is that of a wonder worker from the sky. We have good evidence for generals, but wonder workers from the sky are not so well substantiated! You'll need much better evidence for the Christian version of Jesus than for Alexander.

No-one is obligated to pick up some arbitrary burden you try to lay on them.

You posted earlier that mythicism has been discredited. I just want you to back up what you say.

If your idea of how this thread should go is "Convince me that Jesus existed; go on, do it, I bet you can't!" then it's really not going to hold much interest for me or I imagine many others.

Well, don't let a troll like me stop you. If you need receptive readers, then by all means post you refutation of mythicism for their benefit if not mine.

But that attitude in itself discredits mythicism or whatever position it is you hold as being nothing more than arbitrary scepticism (and that's using the worthy term scepticism in a rather loose sense!).

So my attitude discredits mythicism? Richard Carrier and Robert Price will be very upset with me if they find out what I did to their theories.

I have no interest in telling you for the umpteenth time the various lines of evidence suggesting a strong probability that Jesus existed; an interesting dialogue require two participants, and if you're unwilling or unable to outline the kind of broad historical framework from which you intend to approach the discussion it seems likely that all I would have to look forward to is a regular refrain of "Nuh-uh, not good enough."

The evidence for Jesus I'd like to see is evidence that cannot support a mythical figure. Why, for example, must the stories about Jesus be historical information while stories of Hercules are mere fiction?

As Miles suggested, what can be asserted without evidence can also reasonably be dismissed without evidence, and so far as we have yet seen the 'burden of proof' or criteria of historicity which you are promoting have zero evidence and zero utility.

So to argue for a historical Jesus you need to know my approach to history?

[Realworldjack]

However, you may be correct to say there would be "no facts or evidence" which does not compare to Christianity because Christianity is without a doubt built upon historical facts, and evidence, one of which would be the empty tomb the Apostles continued to point to.

Your so-called facts and evidence amount to nothing more than hearsay and unsupported claims.

This is really comical! You continue to make statements such as this, but the facts simply do not align with what you say. Allow me to demonstrate. It is a fact, (not hearsay or unsupported claim) that we have in our possession numerous written testimonies of a resurrection. Now, you can insist that these testimonies are simply "hearsay, and unsupported claims", but does this in any way demonstrate the claims would be false? Nowhere close my friend! Nowhere close! In fact, acknowledging these testimonies would be "hearsay and unsupported claims" does not even tell us if there would be reasons to believe the claims, or not. So then, it is a fact we have these testimonies. Holding the position that these testimonies are "hearsay, and unsupported claims" does nothing whatsoever in determining whether these testimonies would be true, or false.

I am not sure what you are attempting to demonstrate, or if you are attempting to demonstrate anything at all by such statements? One thing is certain though, and that is, insisting the testimonies are simply "hearsay, and unsupported claims" demonstrates nothing!

[Willum]

There are literally thousands and thousands of people named “Joshua,” easily several of them could be illiterate charlatans claiming divine paternity... err maternity... err, divine DNA... err, whatever.

As to the Pilate stone, it was a document with a typo used as waste stone for a repair/stair-step.

Or... instead of these perfectly understandable, mundane explanations, there was a half-human half-divine person, whom no one scholar or tabloid writer made any noise about, even upon raising the dead, except for a few sources that obviously borrowed from each other, who did miracles impossible, even for omnipotent creatures, many for no reason at all, for the sake of being your friend.

[Miles]

Well, just try dismissing without proof the historicity of Jesus, and the apologists will be on you like white on rice. In my case as you know they are going after me. I think the logic goes something like this:

Unknown Soldier is special pleading.
Conclusion: Jesus existed!

Made me chuckle.

It seems reasonable to me that if Christ existed, then it really should not be necessary to attack the skeptics. If I knew Jesus was historical, then I would just present the evidence and let the truth attack the skeptics.

It shouldn't, but a lot of Christians have doubts about their faith and any reminder of those doubts can make them defensive.


.

[unknown soldier]

There are literally thousands and thousands of people named “Joshua,” easily several of them could be illiterate charlatans claiming divine paternity... err maternity... err, divine DNA... err, whatever.

William Lane Craig says he was so amazed with the claims made by Jesus. I'd be more amazed with something to back up those claims--and a lot of talk by his followers doesn't count.

As to the Pilate stone, it was a document with a typo used as waste stone for a repair/stair-step.

I don't recall ever doubting the existence of Pilate, and if he did exist, it's just not close enough to prove Jesus existed. Is Joseph Smith's historicity good enough to prove the existence of the angel, Moroni?

Or... instead of these perfectly understandable, mundane explanations, there was a half-human half-divine person, whom no one scholar or tabloid writer made any noise about, even upon raising the dead, except for a few sources that obviously borrowed from each other, who did miracles impossible, even for omnipotent creatures, many for no reason at all, for the sake of being your friend.

Oddly enough, even non-Christian Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman are "almost certain" that Jesus existed, and their certainty rests on the kind of stories you just posted.

[brunumb]

It is a fact, (not hearsay or unsupported claim) that we have in our possession numerous written testimonies of a resurrection. Now, you can insist that these testimonies are simply "hearsay, and unsupported claims", but does this in any way demonstrate the claims would be false?

More importantly, they don't demonstrate that the claims are true. That's your burden. It all hangs on that.