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]

My friend, "possibilities, and probabilities" get you nowhere closer to the truth, which is why I usually only deal with the facts, and evidence.

Your so-called facts and evidence amount to little more than the letters you keep referring to from which you try to insert your own inferences and conclusions that don't actually amount to facts and evidence. Presenting unverified scenarios and possibilities is not evidence. It's all just smoke and mirrors.

[unknown soldier]

We're told that Paul had heard things others were saying about Christ by his opposition to and 'persecution' of their church, as I've pointed out numerous times.

Assuming that Paul was persecuting those who believed in Christ as the Messiah because Paul didn't like their theology, then he must have heard about Christ and the gospel from people, and therefore Paul knew of Christ long before his supposed revelation of the gospel.

You now seem to have conceded this at the end of your subsequent post to RWJ; "if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul surely did know about him long before Paul's supposed "revelation.""

I'm sorry if I confused you, but I didn't mean to say that Paul didn't hear about Christ before Paul's claimed revelation. If we can trust the New Testament, then Paul did hear of Christ prior to his "revelation." My actual position on this issue is that Paul said , "I did not receive it (the gospel) from a human source," and when he said that, he was denying that he heard of Christ prior to that time. Contrary to what you and Jack claim, there's no way that Paul could have divorced the idea of the gospel from Christ. So when he said the gospel was magically revealed to him, he was saying that Christ was magically revealed to him. When he said so, he was either lying or reporting a hallucination that he thought was a real communication from God.

.. since Paul says that in scripture the gospel was revealed to Abraham - obviously without the story of Jesus - it's clear that your already far-fetched assumption is directly contradicted by Paul's own explicit words.

Your logic here is flawed. You are reading into the text the words "without the story of Jesus." Paul never said that nor did he even imply it. All he said was that the gospel was delivered to Abraham. Delivering a story to an individual tells us nothing about the elements of that story.

I don't know, are you continuing to claim that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation?

That's essentially what he said in Galatians 1:12. I've already explained in detail why I interpret that passage the way I do.

You haven't provided a single scrap of evidence to suggest that Paul's claims are unreliable...

Paul wasn't getting his story straight. In 1 Timothy 1:13 he confesses to persecuting the church which implies he knew full well about the gospel, and later he claims he received the gospel in a revelation! It's the hallmark of a liar to be unable to tell his story straight. In addition, he's full of baloney about persecuting anybody because the Romans would not have allowed him to.

I think I should point out what is perhaps the major flaw in your argumentation. Nowhere in your arguments is there any room at all for a dishonest or delusional Paul. Paul easily could have been either one or both. He was an obvious religious propagandist, and as any person educated in the history and psychology of religion knows, religious leaders like Paul are very often dishonest or delusional. Your refusal to recognize this very real possibility is the main stumbling block in your seeing the strength of my arguments. You are arguing just like a Christian apologist: you, like they, cannot or will not accept the possibility that any of the sacred Biblical figures like Paul could be lying.

So I think I'm going to rest my case. I don't see any point in continuing to correct again and again the logical and factual errors that you and Jack keep making. If you wonder why so many people aren't sure that Jesus existed or doubt that he existed, then consider that unlike you, many people have no need to believe Paul. Without a credible Paul, arguments like yours fall apart. So at best what you claim about a historical Christ can only soothe the doubts of those who want desperately to believe in him. Any person who can and will think critically, on the other hand, will not be so gullible. They will realize that if Paul was dishonest or delusional, and he probably was one or the other, then his word carries little weight regarding the historical Jesus or anything else.

[Realworldjack]

Well, I would suggest that it would be way more than "minimal evidence", seeing as how you have failed to supply any evidence whatsoever that Christianity would be false. However, the fact of the matter would be, I have absolutely admitted to the fact that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe to be fact, and I am fine with this.

When extraordinary claims are made, it is not up to the one not accepting them to demonstrate that they are false. Have you provided any evidence that all the other religions out there are false? In any case, your admission that you can't demonstrate that Christianity is true is all that is necessary.

When extraordinary claims are made, it is not up to the one not accepting them to demonstrate that they are false.

You are correct! In other words, it is only when one goes on to insist these claims would be false, that they would own the burden to demonstrate their case. If however they do in fact insist the claims to be false, they then own the burden to demonstrate this to be the case.

Have you provided any evidence that all the other religions out there are false?

I really cannot get over the fact that there are those who seem to be under the impression that all other religions must be demonstrated to be false, in order for one to demonstrate that there would be real historical facts, reasons, and evidence in support of the Christian claims. I did not invent these facts, evidence, and reasons, rather it is simply a fact that we have them. So then, for one to insist Christianity would be false, one must give an explanation for these facts, evidence, and reasons we have in support of the claims, and it will not be as simple as, "they are all lies".

In any case, your admission that you can't demonstrate that Christianity is true is all that is necessary.

Oh really? Well, I guess it means nothing at all, that you admit that you cannot demonstrate Christianity to be false? GOOD GRIEF!

[Realworldjack]

My friend, "possibilities, and probabilities" get you nowhere closer to the truth, which is why I usually only deal with the facts, and evidence.

Your so-called facts and evidence amount to little more than the letters you keep referring to from which you try to insert your own inferences and conclusions that don't actually amount to facts and evidence. Presenting unverified scenarios and possibilities is not evidence. It's all just smoke and mirrors.

Your so-called facts and evidence amount to little more than the letters you keep referring to from which you try to insert your own inferences and conclusions that don't actually amount to facts and evidence.

My friend it is a fact we have these letters. So then, what would be your explanation for the reason we have these letters? Because, you see, these letters are indeed facts, and evidence, and it is not enough for you to simply insist they would not be facts, and evidence. Rather, you need to demonstrate this to be the case, which you have failed to do.

Presenting unverified scenarios and possibilities is not evidence. It's all just smoke and mirrors.

You are the one who continues to refer to the "probabilities, and possibilities". I simply deal with the fact we have this evidence. And again, it is perfectly legitimate for me to point out the possibilities, when one is insisting that it would be impossible for Paul to have known about a real historical Jesus, before his revelation of the gospel. So then, what facts, and evidence do you have, which would demonstrate the letters we have to be false? Or, is this simply a possibility? Do you really want to talk about, "smoke and mirrors"?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #104]

Sorry, but all you have are claims and assertions masquerading as facts and evidence.

[Mithrae]

We're told that Paul had heard things others were saying about Christ by his opposition to and 'persecution' of their church, as I've pointed out numerous times.

Assuming that Paul was persecuting those who believed in Christ as the Messiah because Paul didn't like their theology, then he must have heard about Christ and the gospel from people, and therefore Paul knew of Christ long before his supposed revelation of the gospel.

You now seem to have conceded this at the end of your subsequent post to RWJ; "if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul surely did know about him long before Paul's supposed "revelation.""

I'm sorry if I confused you, but I didn't mean to say that Paul didn't hear about Christ before Paul's claimed revelation. If we can trust the New Testament, then Paul did hear of Christ prior to his "revelation." My actual position on this issue is that Paul said , "I did not receive it (the gospel) from a human source," and when he said that, he was denying that he heard of Christ prior to that time. Contrary to what you and Jack claim, there's no way that Paul could have divorced the idea of the gospel from Christ. So when he said the gospel was magically revealed to him, he was saying that Christ was magically revealed to him. When he said so, he was either lying or reporting a hallucination that he thought was a real communication from God.

.. since Paul says that in scripture the gospel was revealed to Abraham - obviously without the story of Jesus - it's clear that your already far-fetched assumption is directly contradicted by Paul's own explicit words.

Your logic here is flawed. You are reading into the text the words "without the story of Jesus." Paul never said that nor did he even imply it. All he said was that the gospel was delivered to Abraham. Delivering a story to an individual tells us nothing about the elements of that story.

Paul says that scripture delivered the gospel to Abraham. So by all means, feel free to show us where scripture delivers the story of Jesus to him. As I noted, an inability to distinguish between theology and history would likely be a major hindrance to understanding this topic, and this comment by Paul illustrates that perfectly. Unless and until you can show where scripture delivers the story of Jesus to Abraham, you're just blindly choosing to deny the fact that Paul explicitly distinguished between his core gospel theology of blessing/justifation through faith rather than ritual works (the major theme of this whole letter), and the reported details of Jesus' life which fulfilled that millennia-old divine plan.

I don't know, are you continuing to claim that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation?

That's essentially what he said in Galatians 1:12. I've already explained in detail why I interpret that passage the way I do.

No, you've just kept blindly asserting that 'good news' = 'story of Jesus' despite the letter explicitly showing otherwise, and that the absolute quantifier 'all' is in there (or now, that it's "essentially" there, whatever that's supposed to mean) even though this directly contradicts the reality.

You haven't provided a single scrap of evidence to suggest that Paul's claims are unreliable...

Paul wasn't getting his story straight. In 1 Timothy 1:13 he confesses to persecuting the church which implies he knew full well about the gospel, and later he claims he received the gospel in a revelation! It's the hallmark of a liar to be unable to tell his story straight. In addition, he's full of baloney about persecuting anybody because the Romans would not have allowed him to.

Maybe you should try to get your story straight then: Earlier you leaped on the 'other gospels' fact to bolster your Paul-was-a-charlatan speculation, but now you've found it more convenient to go back to absolutist assertions about "the gospel" in order to deny the fact that Paul explicitly says his gospel was revealed to him. It's as if Newton said that he started pondering his theory of gravity when a banana fell on his head, so you start saying it's a claim that he'd never heard of gravity before that moment, and when someone points out elsewhere Newton's acknowledgement of Galileo's experiments, why, that just shows that he was totally lying about the banana! When there's an apparent discrepancy between how you're reading one sentence of a passage (v12) and what's said in the next (v13), a wise approach would be to consider that you're reading it wrong... which has already been extensively explained and demonstrated from Paul's own words. Instead, you're trying to convince yourself and others that it's just proof of what a dirty liar Paul was

Your claims about the Romans having detailed interest in and absolute control over Jewish factional disputes still haven't been substantiated after half a dozen posts either. As Josephus tells us regarding the death of Jesus' brother James, they weren't even always able to ensure compliance with their actual laws reserving the right of capital punishment to their own governors, never mind trying to micromanage every whipping or imprisonment local leaders deemed necessary in all their provinces. As long as there wasn't widespread unrest and taxes still got paid, Jewish factions squabbling with each other was actually a hell of a lot better for Rome than them being united in common cause!

I think I should point out what is perhaps the major flaw in your argumentation. Nowhere in your arguments is there any room at all for a dishonest or delusional Paul. Paul easily could have been either one or both. He was an obvious religious propagandist, and as any person educated in the history and psychology of religion knows, religious leaders like Paul are very often dishonest or delusional. Your refusal to recognize this very real possibility is the main stumbling block in your seeing the strength of my arguments. You are arguing just like a Christian apologist: you, like they, cannot or will not accept the possibility that any of the sacred Biblical figures like Paul could be lying.

As I explicitly said in my post, I take Paul's claims with a grain of salt. If you read my initial reply to Difflugia you'll see that pretty clearly. But that doesn't mean I'm going to indulge your baseless assumptions that everything he said is a total lie. There's actually no solid reason as far as I'm aware for concluding that anything he said was dishonest or historically inaccurate, though as I noted above some folk might be suspected of creating their own little realities at times; did Paul really see Jesus, or in a crisis of faith did his unconscious create a hallucination to help resolve his cognitive dissonance? Does 'unknown soldier' really believe that Paul said all his knowledge of Jesus came through that revelation?

So I think I'm going to rest my case.

We'll see When Difflugia first mentioned the revelation of Paul's gospel, it occurred to me that this was one of the few mythicist claims which I'd never discussed in any kind of detail before. I was kind of hoping that Difflugia would return to the thread at some point to make a more nuanced and persuasive case than has been presented so far. But either way I appreciate your efforts and the discussion has definitely helped me organize my own thoughts a little better.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #104]

Sorry, but all you have are claims and assertions masquerading as facts and evidence.

No! I am sorry, because you have not demonstrated this to be the case, in any way whatsoever. Moreover, there would have to be a lot involved in order for the letters we have to simply be, "claims and assertions masquerading as facts and evidence". Since you are one who likes to bring up these other religions, as if these other religions would have anything at all to do with Christianity, allow me to use this as an example. I do not know a whole lot about Islam, but I do believe that all that would have to be involved, in order for Islam to be false, would be for Mohamad to be lying concerning the revelations he received, or he was simply deceived in some sort of way. But you see, it is not that simple at all with Christianity, because there would have to be a whole lot more involved in order for these claims to be false. In fact, it would be so involved, we do not have the time, or the space to work through all that would have to be involved in order for these claims to be false. I would be glad to go through as much as we can if you like, but I have the feeling you are completely satisfied continuing to believe that it is all so simple, and that there would be simple answers. You know, like the many here on this site who were at one time convinced Christianity was true, and they go on to admit that it did not take a whole lot to convince them, because they are satisfied with easy answers. Now that they have changed their mind, they continue to demonstrate they are completely satisfied, with easy answers. It is what I call, "easy in, easy out".

However, if you are not one of those who are satisfied with easy answers, then just send out the challenge to me, and you, and I will go through as much as we can, in order to determine what all would have to be involved, in order for the claims in the NT to be false. But again, I understand there are those who do not like to put a whole lot of thought into what they believe, and would rather simply throw out a few sentences here and there, and call it some sort of debate?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #97]

Wrong again. Galatians 1:8 (NRSV):

My friend, we are not going to get off the topic of your initial assertion which has been demonstrated to be false, in order to chase after another assertion which is obviously false. Paul is simply saying, "the gospel was revealed to him", which does not in any way demonstrate that he would have had no prior knowledge of Jesus before this time. He then goes on to command the Galatians that they should not entertain any other gospel other than the one which he had preach to them, which does not in any way demonstrate that Paul would have made this gospel up, in order to compete with these other gospels. You are making assertions which you cannot in any way demonstrate.

If we can trust whomever wrote Galatians (presumably Paul), then Paul was preaching against other gospels made up by other people--exactly like I said.

Even if what you are saying is true here, it does not demonstrate that Paul would have made up a gospel himself in order to compete with these other gospels. In fact, Paul is saying the exact opposite. In other words, the Galatians are to only entertain the gospel which Paul had preached, exactly because he is insisting that it would not be something he made up. The point is, you are simply asserting Paul would have made up the gospel. You are in no way demonstrating this to be the case.

I already documented (with Mithrae's help) how Paul was trying to stuff the Christian gospel into Judaism claiming that it had been "delivered to Abraham." (See Galatians 3:6.)

Which has nothing to do with demonstrating Paul would have had no prior knowledge of Jesus, before the gospel was revealed to him. In fact, let us go back just a few verses here in Galatians chapter 3, starting in verse 1,

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

When Paul says "publicly", it seems pretty clear he is speaking of a real historical Jesus, who would have been known "publicly".

And here again we have pure speculation, without a shred of facts, and evidence in support, on top of the fact it would have nothing to do with the argument being made. In addition to your own words pointing out how you are wrong here

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! Because you see, I have been admitting from the beginning that I was only giving the possibilities, in order to demonstrate how wrong you would be, to claim that it would be impossible for Paul to have known about a real historical Jesus, before the gospel was revealed to him. This is obvious when we look at the different words you, and I use. In other words, I have used words such as "could have", demonstrating the possibilities, while you use words such as "would have", as if what you were saying would be a demonstrated fact, when you have demonstrated no such thing.

I also have already pointed out how stupid it is to think that Paul knew about Jesus but knew nothing about the gospel!

If I were you, I believe I would shy away from referring to what others say as being "stupid", because the only thing you have "pointed out" is how you believe this to be "stupid". You have not in any way demonstrated it to be "stupid", while I have demonstrated that it would be very possible for Paul to have known of a real historical Jesus before the revelation of the gospel.

I'm well aware that you created a "gospel of not Jesus" to save a historical Jesus.

Again, this is SO, SO, COMICAL, because I am not even attempting to argue for an historical Jesus. This is not my burden. I have simply demonstrated there would be very good reasons to believe in a real historical Jesus, on top of the fact that Paul could have very well known about Jesus as a real historical figure, before he knew about any sort of gospel. As I have already pointed out, Paul could have very well known about the life of Jesus, along with the fact that Jesus would have been crucified, and dead, which would be why he would have been so opposed to folks who continued to talk about Jesus as if he were alive, and when the gospel was revealed to him, he could have come to realize this gospel would include the Jesus he already knew to exist. What I have just said is very possible, which demonstrates that you would be incorrect to say this would be impossible. In fact, what I have just presented, is exactly what the facts, and evidence we have suggest.

Now, do you really want to talk about, "stupid"? How could one come up with the idea that Paul would have had to be talking about not having any sort of knowledge of a real Jesus, when he simply says, the gospel was revealed to him? The only reason I can think of, would be an agenda.

Actually, if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul surely did know about him long before Paul's supposed "revelation."

Which would in no way be contradictory.

Paul later made up his revelation story trying to one-up his competition.

And again we have a statement made as if it were a fact, which has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

You don't seem to understand this possibility because you cannot accept a Paul who was wrong.

I could certainly accept it, if it were demonstrated that Paul was indeed wrong. However, you have failed to demonstrate much of anything at all, other than you will make statements as if they were fact, which you have failed to demonstrate.

The bottom line here is, with your help, we have demonstrated there would be very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus did in fact exist, and you have given us no reason whatsoever to doubt these facts, evidence, and reasons.