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]

The fact is, we simply can't prove Jesus existed, or didn't. We can only swear us up and down one way or the other.

I gotta say that you [...] are being very extreme. By that I mean your views are far far away from the scholarly consensus and the available evidence for Jesus's existence.

In what way is stating the truth "extreme"?

Repeated strawman points/arguments. Expecting absolute certainty for historical claims. Not considering the standards and methods of the majority of scholars in the field. Several members here have explained this to you multiple times.

I recommend that you guys watch the following video to see how bad this guy makes skeptics (he's also an atheist) look:

^snipped vid for...

I'm not wasting my time wading through a video in search of what you might find pertinent to the issue at hand.

How bout you wade through and report back how he refutes my statement of fact.

Well had you watched the video (only 7 minutes long), you would've noticed that a skeptic is taking on the historical Jesus view. He's going up against another non-believer that also happens to be an expert in the field.

But what I wanted you to notice about the skeptic is that not once did he acknowledge any of the evidence for Jesus. It was just constant doubt and questioning. He even seemed desperate going by the tone of his voice and based on his defensiveness while Dr. Ehrman was going through the evidence.

A skeptic who is only looking to debunk a view will likely never accept it as true. These skeptics tend to apply their standards selectively.

[JoeyKnothead]

The fact is, we simply can't prove Jesus existed, or didn't. We can only swear us up and down one way or the other.

I gotta say that you [...] are being very extreme. By that I mean your views are far far away from the scholarly consensus and the available evidence for Jesus's existence.

In what way is stating the truth "extreme"?

Repeated strawman points/arguments. Expecting absolute certainty for historical claims. Not considering the standards and methods of the majority of scholars in the field. Several members here have explained this to you multiple times.

As long as folks appeal to authority, and as long as the mods don't stop me from it, I'll continue to make that statement of fact as often as I see fit.

Can't we also fuss about your repeated attempts to argue from authority? I ain't been. I've just been posting me that one statement of truth.

If all the scholars believed water didn't exist, would the planet just become it a great big giant ball of desert? That's the problem here...

We're debating double standards, and some folks are fussing about how it is some of us don't just believe what even the scholars can't show to be truth.

I recommend that you guys watch the following video to see how bad this guy makes skeptics (he's also an atheist) look:

^snipped vid for...
I'm not wasting my time wading through a video in search of what you might find pertinent to the issue at hand.
How bout you wade through and report back how he refutes my statement of fact.

Well had you watched the video (only 7 minutes long), you would've noticed that a skeptic is taking on the historical Jesus view. He's going up against another non-believer that also happens to be an expert in the field.

That's not seven minutes I'm gonna spend ahoping I can find what argument/s within you find so compelling.

It's your link, quote it and defend it.

But what I wanted you to notice about the skeptic is that not once did he acknowledge any of the evidence for Jesus. It was just constant doubt and questioning.

That's kinda how sceptics get the name.

What'd you have him do, just blindly accept claims presented without confirmable evidence?

He even seemed desperate going by the tone of his voice and based on his defensiveness while Dr. Ehrman was going through the evidence.

"Seemed" is not, and don't this beat all, a statement of fact.

A skeptic who is only looking to debunk a view will likely never accept it as true. These skeptics tend to apply their standards selectively.

If only to me, scepticism is less about the debunking, and more the coming to the conclusion the claimant can't show they speak em the truth.

What truth do you find, other'n it the seeming kind, so compelling in your referenced video?

[historia]

One side argues that Jesus maybe didn’t exist. The other side argues that Jesus absolutely did exist.

No, this is a straw man argument. No one here is making a claim to absolute certainty on either side of this debate, and it is disingenuous to frame the discussion in that way.

The only proper question that should be under consideration here is which hypothesis best explains the available data.

[T]hose who believe Jesus existed need merely cite the consensus of experts. Now the burden of proof shifts to those who wish to challenge the consensus of experts.

Isn't any argument from authority at best a weak argument or at worst a completely fallacious argument?

No, the consensus of experts is a compelling argument in favor of a position, as experts are far more likely to be correct than non-experts. Any other questions?

[AgnosticBoy]

But what I wanted you to notice about the skeptic is that not once did he acknowledge any of the evidence for Jesus. It was just constant doubt and questioning.

That's kinda how sceptics get the name.

What'd you have him do, just blindly accept claims presented without confirmable evidence?

I'd expect the skeptic to listen or at least pretend that he's considering the evidence. I mean, come on. We all have our perceptions, but we can usually tell when someone is not being open-minded or just wanting to debunk (as in not interested in accepting that the proposition could be true), etc. Just in case you haven't figured it out, there's a reason that many agnostics try to distance themselves from atheists and the hyper-skeptics.

I hope you'll reconsider watching and give your honest opinion.

[AgnosticBoy]

[T]hose who believe Jesus existed need merely cite the consensus of experts. Now the burden of proof shifts to those who wish to challenge the consensus of experts.

No, the consensus of experts is a compelling argument in favor of a position, as experts are far more likely to be correct than non-experts. Any other questions?

As long as he's not a reincarnation of Jagella, then I can give him a pass on some things Either way, you have set the record straight! Citing experts is not always fallacy.

[JoeyKnothead]

But what I wanted you to notice about the skeptic is that not once did he acknowledge any of the evidence for Jesus. It was just constant doubt and questioning.

That's kinda how sceptics get the name.

What'd you have him do, just blindly accept claims presented without confirmable evidence?

I'd expect the skeptic to listen or at least pretend that he's considering the evidence. I mean, come on.
I hope you'll reconsider watching and give your honest opinion.

As I expect a claimant to provide some means to confirm their claims. Why the need to emphasize 'honest', but to imply I wouldn't be?

It's your reference - that you're so reticent to quote the particulars of what you find so compelling within, I can only conclude I'd be wasting my time trying to find what argument/s you consider pertinent to this discussion.

We all have our perceptions, but we can usually tell when someone is not being open-minded or just wanting to debunk (as in not interested in accepting that the proposition could be true), etc.

How is an attempt to get the claimant to provide evidence for their claims, that we might discover the truth, a "debunking"?

I'll tell ya how, when the claimant is absolutely incapable of showing they speak truth.

My honest opinion? You're scared to quote the claims in that bit that you think supports your case, because you know the truth won't be it found in any of em.

Just in case you haven't figured it out, there's a reason that many agnostics try to distance themselves from atheists and the hyper-skeptics.

Distance does not the truth make.

I propose that 'hyper' is a bit of an attempt to poison the well here. Folks who're sceptical seek the truth, it's just when the claimant fails to show they speak it, folks the likes of you wanna put a fuss.

Make claims in debate?

Prove you speak truth or forever risk folks being em sceptical of any claim you ever make!

[AgnosticBoy]

I hope you'll reconsider watching and give your honest opinion.

Why the need to emphasize 'honest', but to imply I wouldn't be?

Actually, no. I offered my opinion on the video and you rejected it on the grounds that it was opinion. I only brought up the "honest" part because I thought an honest opinion would carry more weight than an ordinary opinion.

I apologize for upsetting the gods of absolute certainty.

...Opinions are not worthy... opinions are not worthy (I've repeated this 10x in hopes of gaining your forgiveness).

[historia]

Academic debate and forensic (legal) debate are completely different.

First of all, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with the overarching point here. Public debates are a terrible way to assess ideas, and we should take very little from them.

If you have a chance, read through some of the debate transcripts. This opponent, as well as the others almost to a person, try very hard to accurately represent Craig's position and arguments. Craig, on the other hand, almost always misrepresents his opponents' positions and tactically so. They're playing different games.

For the sake of argument, if nothing else, let's assume this is true. That premise does not, in itself, get us to the conclusion that Craig misrepresented Carrier's position in their debate.

In fact, I think we have good reason to think the opposite:

First, I just re-watched the debate, and it doesn't appear to me that Craig misrepresented Carrier's position.

And, second, it doesn't appear that Carrier thinks Craig misrepresented his position. Carrier is notoriously hyper-critical in analyzing his opponents. But, as far as I can tell, in both the debate itself and in his post-debate analysis on his blog, Carrier does not charge Craig with misrepresenting his arguments.

Craig was clearly the superior debater here, as he almost always is, but I think he also won this particular debate on substance.

Richard Carrier is an academic.

Not really. He holds no academic positions, has published comparatively few academic papers, and appears to spend most of his time blogging, engaging in debates, and conducting atheist advocacy. A public debate seems more his style than an academic one.

[Ataraxia]

Josephus. Take for instance, Antiquities book 20 reference to James being the brother of Jesus. You can read that here.

Thanks, it is one of the better arguments of this whole issue. I was surprised that it didn't draw much attention in this thread so far.

[John Bauer]

I consider Dr. Craig as an honorable, Christian scholar. I cannot even imagine him deliberately misrepresenting his opponent, or his opponent's argument.

He may have a silver tongue when it comes to debating, but his arguments are heavily laced with unsupported assertions and untruths. There are numerous sites you can visit to see them thoroughly debunked. You could start here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularwo ... -debunked/

https://www.answers-in-reason.com/scien ... -debunked/

If debunking is what these authors were targeting, they both missed so badly within the first paragraph that I find it difficult to believe they were even aiming.

John Richards

The first article is John Richards, "William Lane Craig Debunked," Secular World (blog), Patheos, June 12, 2020. Richards was responding to a list of eight reasons William Lane Craig shared for thinking God exists. The first reason was, "God is the best explanation why anything at all exists."

Richards responded to this by saying, "That's just an assertion. The truth is we have no answer to that question. In fact, the ‘why question’ is not just a question—it is an opinion that there must be a purpose or meaning. I could ask, ‘Why do you think that?’"

(1) In the first place, Craig's statement by itself was indeed just an assertion. The problem for Richards, of course, is that the statement was not by itself; Craig also provided a very brief argument (approx. 300 words), and Richards did not deal with any of it. (2) "The truth is," Richards said, "we have no answer to that question." And with that he simply begged the question against Craig. (3) Richards goes on to say that the question ("Why does anything at all exist?" ) is a complex one, for it carries within it the assumption that "there must be a purpose or meaning." True. However, Craig addressed that—and Richards simply ignored what he said.

Alan the Atheist

The second article is Alan the Atheist, "William Lane Craig: 5 Arguments for God - Debunked, Part 1 of 5," Answers in Reason (blog), February 2, 2016. Alan was responding to an article by Craig titled, "The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God" (2010). Craig begins by saying, "It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has [sic] anything to say about arguments for God's existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society."

Alan responded to this by saying that Craig had immediately presented an untruth: "Atheists for centuries have been attacking the arguments for God," he said, referring vaguely to "critical thinkers" who had "demolished" the arguments of Aquinas for eight centuries.

It seems that Alan could not be bothered to pay attention to what Craig actually said, although he was confident that he was "debunking" it. Not sure how that works, but there we are. From the title of Craig's article to its very first sentence, Craig made it quite clear that he was talking about "the so-called New Atheists" which typically includes Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris—although, in this article, he pretty much refers only to Dawkins (notwithstanding a single mention of Dennett in the concluding remarks of the second argument). So he wasn't talking about atheists generally throughout history; he was talking about four specific atheists in just this century. Alan did not show even the slightest awareness of this.

And this is what Brunumb considers to be an example of Craig's arguments being "thoroughly debunked"?

Heh. Okay then.