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.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #64]

I couldn't find where you answered the questions in your post. I assume that you know the answers as well as knowing that they wouldn't discredit your position.

Answers, please!.

[JoeyKnothead]

If only for me, if someone wanted to prove (my term) Jesus existed, that stands outside of anyone ever existing.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

For starters, historians don't set out to "prove" what happened in the past. Rather, they evaluate which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in light of our background knowledge.

Replace 'prove' with a similar term or notion, and my point still stands - the non/existence of person A has little bearing on the non/existence of person B.

And that last part, the background knowledge, necessarily requires historians to generally assess the evidence that exists for historical figures from a given time period before they can evaluate the evidence for any one person.

That's their problem, not mine. When a claimant cant show they speak truth, I ain't gonna sit me in a corner for em.

So we swear up and down Caesar never existed. We swear it he's fictional as them three gruff billy goats.

How's that get us to Jesus existed?

It wouldn't directly, of course. But it would tell us that you have an unreasonable standard for assessing the existence of any historical figure from the ancient world, which means there's no point in engaging you in a discussion.

My standard is to expect a claimant to show they speak truth.

What, specifically, do you find so unreasonable about that?

If, on the other hand, you're willing to conclude that some people from the ancient world existed, then we necessarily have to engage in the process I outlined above.

As before, I expect the claimant to show they speak truth.

My beliefs regarding someone's existence ain't proof they did, or didn't.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Goose in post #71]

Interesting arguments from both sides. OK, I am now convinced. Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist. What next?

[historia]

the non/existence of person A has little bearing on the non/existence of person B.

That's certainly true with regard to the specific evidence for each person. But nobody here is claiming that the evidence for person A somehow establishes the existence of person B.

Rather, Goose is making a point about methodology. We can't apply one standard to person A and a different standard to person B. We can't uncritically accept the evidence for person A, for example, while being hyper-skeptical of the evidence for person B. That's special pleading.

I suspect you'd agree with that point, actually, so perhaps you've just misunderstood Goose's overarching argument.

My standard is to expect a claimant to show they speak truth.

What, specifically, do you find so unreasonable about that?

It's a non-sequitur.

[JoeyKnothead]

the non/existence of person A has little bearing on the non/existence of person B.

That's certainly true with regard to the specific evidence for each person. But nobody here is claiming that the evidence for person A somehow establishes the existence of person B.

Rather, Goose is making a point about methodology. We can't apply one standard to person A and a different standard to person B. We can't uncritically accept the evidence for person A, for example, while being hyper-skeptical of the evidence for person B. That's special pleading.

I suspect you'd agree with that point, actually, so perhaps you've just misunderstood Goose's overarching argument.

My position is that regardless of the evidence for person A, the vidence for person B should be held to its own account.

My standard is to expect a claimant to show they speak truth.
What, specifically, do you find so unreasonable about that?

It's a non-sequitur.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur.

When folks make claims regarding the existence of someone, I expect em, in debate, to show they speak truth.

[historia]

My position is that regardless of the evidence for person A, the vidence for person B should be held to its own account.

Do you believe that we should use the same standards and methods when assessing the evidence for both person A and person B?

My standard is to expect a claimant to show they speak truth.
What, specifically, do you find so unreasonable about that?

It's a non-sequitur.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur.

True. It's the fact that your assertion has no bearing on the point I'm making that makes it a non-sequitur.

[Difflugia]

Initially I wasn't going to bother responding to your post because you’ve offered virtually no counter argumentation.

You haven't presented a position to "counter." If you want to present some sort of position, I'll discuss it with you.

To try to narrow the discussion a bit, though, maybe tell us first if you're arguing that the evidence for Jesus is as good as that for Caesar and should be trusted or that the evidence for Caesar is as bad as the evidence for Jesus and shouldn't be.

I’m not arguing either.

Of course not.

All I have to do is show the evidence for Caesar’s existence isn’t so much better that it prevents me from inferring Jesus’ existence at least falls in the probable range (>.5) of the spectrum which won't be difficult at all given you've asserted Julius Caesar’s existence was "almost certain" based on evidence you've already conceded is "kind of like the evidence for Jesus."

I look forward to it.

Look back. It was done here

"Asserted" and "shown" are not the same thing.

I will take this attempt at shifting the burden as a tacit admission you can’t show or don’t want to show your methodology and evidence for establishing the claim that Cicero wrote the letters in question.

My "attempt" is a tacit admission that I've had these kinds of debates with you before and have seen that vagueness on your part is rarely innocent or accidental. Asking you to state your debate position up front could only be "shifting the burden" if part of my burden were to guess your position in the first place.

You don't get to sneak claims from dubious sources into the ones from sources we're accepting as good ones without support.

Well why not? You’ve appealed to sources that I’ve shown don’t seem to be much better.

You've asserted that, but haven't set a standard for what "seems to be much better," let alone "shown" that you've met such a standard.

I'm claiming these sources don't seem to be much better quality than sources we have for Jesus. You tell me if they should be trusted and tell me why. They are the sources you appealed to.

They are and I'm willing to defend them against a reasonably specific claim. I wrote this post for someone else, but right now it applies to your post. If you're arguing that they shouldn't be trusted, and will state that as a claim (actually establishing a goalpost, as it were), then I'll argue that or any other reasonably specific claim with you. Otherwise, you're just claiming that the support for my argument doesn't meet some arbitrary, but unstated standard.

Unless the vagueness and lack of specificity is important to your debate position, I don't understand why you're treating the request for a clearly stated position as some sort of trick.

You can try to counter argue, as you did with Nicolaus of Damascus, that the author is reporting the beliefs of other people as though that trivial distinction is somehow meaningful as well.

I look forward to your argument that it isn't.

It’s not meaningful because it’s trivial. If something is trivial, then it’s by definition not meaningful. I gave you the arguments as to why it’s a trivial distinction. You ignored them.

"Jesus walked on water" is a supernatural claim. "Christians believe that Jesus walked on water" is not. That's not a trivial distinction. If your argument relies on the latter being a supernatural claim, it's fallacious.

[JoeyKnothead]

My position is that regardless of the evidence for person A, the vidence for person B should be held to its own account.

Do you believe that we should use the same standards and methods when assessing the evidence for both person A and person B?

I don't presuppose to know what evidence a claimant might have for their claims.

My standard is to expect a claimant to show they speak truth.
What, specifically, do you find so unreasonable about that?

It's a non-sequitur.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur.

True. It's the fact that your assertion has no bearing on the point I'm making that makes it a non-sequitur.

What's all non-sequitury about expecting a claimant to show they speak truth?

[historia]

It wouldn't directly, of course. But it would tell us that you have an unreasonable standard for assessing the existence of any historical figure from the ancient world, which means there's no point in engaging you in a discussion.

My standard is to expect a claimant to show they speak truth.
What, specifically, do you find so unreasonable about that?

It's a non-sequitur.

Your inability to understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur.

True. It's the fact that your assertion has no bearing on the point I'm making that makes it a non-sequitur.

What's all non-sequitury about expecting a claimant to show they speak truth?

My original comment, to which you replied, was not about the standard one uses to assess what others are claiming about Julius Cesar, but rather the standard one uses to directly assess the historical evidence of Julius Cesar for yourself.

Regardless of what anyone else might be claiming, if you examine the primary historical sources and decide Julius Cesar didn't exist, then you have an unreasonable methodology for assessing historical evidence, and thus an unreasonable standard for assessing the existence of historical figures.

My position is that regardless of the evidence for person A, the vidence for person B should be held to its own account.

Do you believe that we should use the same standards and methods when assessing the evidence for both person A and person B?

I don't presuppose to know what evidence a claimant might have for their claims.

I'm not asking you about what evidence a claimant might have. I'm asking you about methodology.

If you were the first person on the planet to come across historical evidence for person A and historical evidence for person B, do you think you should use the same standard and methods when assessing both sets of evidence?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Goose in post #71]

Interesting arguments from both sides. OK, I am now convinced. Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist. What next?

Are you being sarcastic?

If I were to take your statement literally, then I would lump your view into the same camp as conspiracy theorists and others with ill-informed views. When people choose to hold on to views that go against the overwhelming majority of experts in the field, and then they apply their own personal standards (expecting history to function like science or leading to absolute certainty?) as opposed to those used in the field, then I have little choice but to conclude that their views are ill-informed.