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.

[HarlanGeorge]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #51]
Book recommendations? Factual accounts or information pertaining to or discrediting the existance of Jesus.

[Difflugia]

Since you've provided examples of the ends of the spectrum and Jesus being somewhere in the middle of that spectrum in your view, what is the evidence that establishes the existence of Julius Caesar as almost certain?

It's kind of like the evidence for Jesus, except much, much higher quality:

• Extant writings reputedly and plausibly to be by Julius Caesar himself (The Gallic Wars).
• The letters of Cicero. Cicero apparently knew Julius Caesar, wrote to him during Caesar's lifetime, wrote of arguing legal cases before him, and wrote to the men that assassinated him.
  • You earlier tried to equate the testimony of Cicero to that of Paul. To be clear and re-establish the value of Paul's writings (I mentioned this just a few posts ago), I think that at least some of what we call the Pauline letters were actually written by Paul and that the people he spoke of meeting in the flesh (James, John, Cephas) actually existed. That's not evidence that any of the later, legendary material about them has any value, but I'm willing to trust that Paul was lucid enough to describe meeting real people in non-magical ways before their deaths. Maybe he wasn't, but I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
• We have extensive, non-magical, non-theological, non-polemic accounts by historians that we otherwise trust (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch). The accounts are apparently independent of each other (or if they are dependent, they at least didn't repeat each other verbatim). We even trust the writings of Pliny and Suetonius to be documentary evidence of both the existence of Christians and some of their beliefs in the first century AD.
• We have examples of coins with his image issued both during his lifetime and later commemoratives, including by his immediate successor, Augustus.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #51]
Book recommendations? Factual accounts or information pertaining to or discrediting the existance of Jesus.

NOTE: I have not read the following, but these are often cited. I suggest some further research before buying.

On the possibility of NOT existing:

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
Richard Carrier


On the likeliness of existing:

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument For Jesus Of Nazareth
Bart Ehrman


Both of the above are non Christian authors so have no 'dog in the fight' as far as defending their faith.

[HarlanGeorge]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #54]

Thank you. I am a graduate student of Religious Studies at Athens State University. As an Atheist, I have different motivations than my professors and fellow students. One day I hope to teach others at the collegiate level because I believe my position on faith will provide a unique perspective. Again, much appreciated the suggestions. Perhaps I will download a sample before purchasing your first recommendation. If I have the opportunity I will provide a book review and link to this thread. Regards

[Paul of Tarsus]

This is my first post and a novel on this topic only motivated by the desire to learn.

Welcome! On this board you should learn not to believe everything you read.

Are there still questions about the actual exitance of Jesus? Is it not generally understood, excluding the Bible and Josephus, that you can obtain other sources of proof? Tacitus a Roman Historian speaks to the execution of Jesus. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus also mentions Jesus. The greater question, why is there so little information about him in the NT? The gap between birth and crucifixion other than a mention at the age of twelve seems inexcusable for a character of this importance. Does it not? Nearly three decades of unaccountability seem out of character for the center of the Christian Church as we know it. Granted Jesus most likely could not read or write, but he did not inspire anything? Something?

Of course there are many unanswered questions about Jesus, but in that regard he's hardly different from many other historical figures. I don't know of any "proof" for Jesus, but history is based on evidence which is always provisional. The New Testament is our main source for Jesus, but it is also a source of those unanswered questions you mentioned. I don't know, though, if big gaps in what it says about the life of Jesus is all that unusual in the writings of that time. It would be nice if we did have some writings from Jesus, but we also lack writings from Socrates. Few people question the historicity of Socrates, so why be any different with Jesus?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #56]
As far as I'm concerned, every historical figure has some holes in the evidence for them. It's probably the case that no historical figure has the same amount the evidence as another historical person. For this reason, I don't buy the argument that Jesus should have the same amount of evidence as Julius Caesar (or vice-versa) in order to be accepted as historical. I mean is there more evidence for Julius Caesar than there is for king Sargon of Akkad? Are historians and skeptics really going to weigh that evidence and reject the one with lesser evidence? Of course not! Both are accepted as historical!

Generally-speaking, I wouldn't doubt anyone's existence unless or until every bit of evidence for their existence can be reasonably doubted.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #56]
As far as I'm concerned, every historical figure has some holes in the evidence for them. It's probably the case that no historical figure has the same amount the evidence as another historical person. For this reason, I don't buy the argument that Jesus should have the same amount of evidence as Julius Caesar (or vice-versa) in order to be accepted as historical. I mean is there more evidence for Julius Caesar than there is for king Sargon of Akkad? Are historians and skeptics really going to weigh that evidence and reject the one with lesser evidence? Of course not! Both are accepted as historical!

Generally-speaking, I wouldn't doubt anyone's existence unless or until every bit of evidence for their existence can be reasonably doubted.

I think the main difference between wondering if Caesar existed or Jesus existed is that there are those that try to convince others that believing in Jesus is a matter of life and death for your eternal soul. If we had people trying to tell us believing in stories of Caesar had the same import, you can be darn sure we would be scrutinizing the data about Caesar more closely.

For me, it seems glaring that Christians will claim how important Jesus is, yet with so little written record of him clearly those of his time didn't see it that way. At least those not within the religious sects themselves.

It's also quite telling that even the Christian writings (gospels especially) show signs of copying and revision in order to update/modify what the previous stories presented. This means we likely really have even less sources for Jesus than one might think. 3 documents that originate from 1 doesn't equal 4 independent sources.

When one's eternal soul is apparently on the line, it behooves one to really dig into the details. When that digging leads to what appears to be LESS sources rather than more, my 'fishy' detector goes off. I may of course be completely wrong, but the more digging I do, the more and more the entire house of cards falls down.

Now, all of that doesn't mean I claim Jesus didn't exist. However, I'm pretty convinced the Jesus AS WRITTEN in the Bible is highly mythologized. My current opinion is somewhere between a complete fabrication and an actual preacher that was later 'updated' to fit within a new religion.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think the main difference between wondering if Caesar existed or Jesus existed is that there are those that try to convince others that believing in Jesus is a matter of life and death for your eternal soul. If we had people trying to tell us believing in stories of Caesar had the same import, you can be darn sure we would be scrutinizing the data about Caesar more closely.

For me, it seems glaring that Christians will claim how important Jesus is, yet with so little written record of him clearly those of his time didn't see it that way. At least those not within the religious sects themselves.

It's also quite telling that even the Christian writings (gospels especially) show signs of copying and revision in order to update/modify what the previous stories presented. This means we likely really have even less sources for Jesus than one might think. 3 documents that originate from 1 doesn't equal 4 independent sources.

When one's eternal soul is apparently on the line, it behooves one to really dig into the details. When that digging leads to what appears to be LESS sources rather than more, my 'fishy' detector goes off. I may of course be completely wrong, but the more digging I do, the more and more the entire house of cards falls down.

Now, all of that doesn't mean I claim Jesus didn't exist. However, I'm pretty convinced the Jesus AS WRITTEN in the Bible is highly mythologized. My current opinion is somewhere between a complete fabrication and an actual preacher that was later 'updated' to fit within a new religion.

And in a fit of don't that beat all, it's the doubters who get called 'mythicists'. Which, best I can tell, is projection of a form just shy of the GOP.

I gotta say, God and Jesus both seem awful weak, that they need to be accepted on faith.

Heck, If I was Jesus, or God, I'd be astrutting downtown after church, ashowing off in front of all the single girls, and some of the married n's too.

[otseng]

Your repeated invoking of his name whenever the issue of an historical Jesus gets brought up has not only convinced me Caesar existed, but that he's also your favorite uncle.

Moderator Comment

I get your humor, but sometimes it can be interpreted as getting personal. Best to avoid making such statements when it could be taken as a personal snide remark.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Paul of Tarsus]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #56]
As far as I'm concerned, every historical figure has some holes in the evidence for them. It's probably the case that no historical figure has the same amount the evidence as another historical person. For this reason, I don't buy the argument that Jesus should have the same amount of evidence as Julius Caesar (or vice-versa) in order to be accepted as historical. I mean is there more evidence for Julius Caesar than there is for king Sargon of Akkad? Are historians and skeptics really going to weigh that evidence and reject the one with lesser evidence? Of course not! Both are accepted as historical!

To say Christ is only historical if the evidence for him is as good as the evidence for Julius Caesar is like saying that Joe Montana is only a good quarterback if he won as many Super-bowls as Tom Brady.

Generally-speaking, I wouldn't doubt anyone's existence unless or until every bit of evidence for their existence can be reasonably doubted.

Mythicism is an uphill battle for the simple reason that it's very difficult to disprove a person's existence. History does not normally tell us who didn't exist but who did exist.