Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[tfvespasianus]

Keep in mind that a book is not the only way to get information about someone and I say this because I've listened to plenty of Richard Carrier's debates and read his blog. He has debated on Christ myth view for years and perhaps his book is just a symposium of his debates put in writing. So his views about Jesus being a COMPLETE myth are nothing new. I plan on buying his book in the near future.

Putting aside an uncited statement to an unnamed debate or a given interpretation of an unnamed blog post, on page 606 of On the Historicity of Jesus Dr. Carrier posits that his assessment of the evidence places the probability of the historicity Jesus at no greater 33%. He does this through a Bayesian analysis of the available evidence and invites anyone to reassess these probabilities to work them out themselves. So, no, this treatment is not a reiteration of debate talking points, but rather a rigorous assessment of biblical and extra-biblical evidence.

As for ‘nose-count’ epistemology (i.e. an appeal to consensus), I am somewhat fine with that when we lack the time/expertise to assess the truth of a given position. For example, I have very little experience in the field of medicine so I tend to accept the consensus view as I have never conducted a clinical trial or taken any post-graduate instruction in a germane field or even had a lay-person’s acquaintance with the relevant literature. However, when we are talking about matters of history, unless we concede that we don’t know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion (e.g. my example of medicine) than we ought not to appeal to authority/consensus as it’s superfluous.

Take care,
TFV

[OpenYourEyes]

Keep in mind that a book is not the only way to get information about someone and I say this because I've listened to plenty of Richard Carrier's debates and read his blog. He has debated on Christ myth view for years and perhaps his book is just a symposium of his debates put in writing. So his views about Jesus being a COMPLETE myth are nothing new. I plan on buying his book in the near future.

Putting aside an uncited statement to an unnamed debate or a given interpretation of an unnamed blog post, on page 606 of On the Historicity of Jesus Dr. Carrier posits that his assessment of the evidence places the probability of the historicity Jesus at no greater 33%. He does this through a Bayesian analysis of the available evidence and invites anyone to reassess these probabilities to work them out themselves. So, no, this treatment is not a reiteration of debate talking points, but rather a rigorous assessment of biblical and extra-biblical evidence.

As for ‘nose-count’ epistemology (i.e. an appeal to consensus), I am somewhat fine with that when we lack the time/expertise to assess the truth of a given position. For example, I have very little experience in the field of medicine so I tend to accept the consensus view as I have never conducted a clinical trial or taken any post-graduate instruction in a germane field or even had a lay-person’s acquaintance with the relevant literature. However, when we are talking about matters of history, unless we concede that we don’t know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion (e.g. my example of medicine) than we ought not to appeal to authority/consensus as it’s superfluous.

Take care,
TFV

So the only evidence you have to offer are calculations? Can you fill me in on the actual details (ie historical arguments and data, etc.) that he uses. He goes into these details in his debates and I assume his book covers them in more detail. So give me what he considers to be the facts, and I'm only asking this assuming that YOU agree with him. SO lets get to it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

I chose the option "likely" from your poll. I chose that option because all we have to assess the situation is the field of history, and the most it can offer are probable answers. Here are my reasons:

- We have multiple and independent sources that make reference to Jesus and his brother James.
- We have multiple sources that state that there were many messiah-type figures in the 1st Century. This does not prove Jesus but it does show that it was not out-of-the-ordinary for their to be messiah-type figures in the 1st century. Jesus fits in that picture perfectly.
- The majority of scholars (as claimed by other scholars in the field) accept Jesus's existence. I know that going by the majority does not ensure validity but that to me is better to go by than a one or two credentialed contemporary scholars who think otherwise, especially if those minority are on the extreme side of the spectrum (ie Jesus is COMPLETELY made up as opposed to existing with some legendary accretions).

Here's some additional info. about my 2nd point from another thread:
Acts 5:36-37

36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.

From Josephus, The Jewish War
Book II, chapter 13, paragraph 4

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty

It's beyond me why hyperskeptics like Richard Carrier would not at least consider that Jesus was a literal being with some added legends. This is especially convincing given the there were plenty of other 'literal' Messiah-type figures in Jesus's time. All talked about in the context of being literal people. I'm sure I can find other examples of this occurring today, like with the popular gurus in India.

I chose the option "likely" as well. But that opinion comes with certain caveats. The Jesus that performed miracles, that returned to life and flew away, and who is in reality three god's in one, that guy never existed. That Jesus is a myth that was constructed over the centuries by Christians.

There may well have been a wandering teacher named Yeshua that was an actual historical figure, however.

[tfvespasianus]

So the only evidence you have to offer are calculations? Can you fill me in on the actual details (ie historical arguments and data, etc.) that he uses. He goes into these details in his debates and I assume his book covers them in more detail. So give me what he considers to be the facts, and I'm only asking this assuming that YOU agree with him. SO lets get to it.

I offered Carrier’s assessment of the probability as a correction to your characterization of his view as ‘Jesus being a COMPLETE myth’. So, that’s what was behind that statement. I have no real interest in summarizing and defending Carrier’s complete thesis, but I do somewhat care that his views are being characterized accurately (we all should wish that people’s views are accurately characterized). As for my views on Carrier, ultimately I am unsure of a Bayesian approach, but I am intrigued by the methodology as it is at least an attempt to add rigor to the question. As for many of his individual opinions – they vary. For example, I think his treatment of Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are fairly good as he is a something of a specialist in that sub-discipline. However, his treatment of Paul and his knowledge of first century Jewish messianism are lacking in my opinion as he doesn’t evince a strong grasp of the material (i.e. it is outside his specialty).

Take care,
TFV

[Elijah John]

I voted "Yes" that Jesus existed. An historical Jesus though I am not qualified to prove his existence as a figure of history.

I am convinced the myths surrounding Jesus are based on a very real, first century Jewish preacher named "Yahshua" (Jesus) who was executed by the Romans.

Seems likely to me to the point of certainty, and not an extraordinary claim.

The claim that the man Yahshua was "God" in the flesh however, is an extraordinary claim, and the extraordinary evidence to support such a claim is just not there. Not even in the Bible.

[OpenYourEyes]

So the only evidence you have to offer are calculations? Can you fill me in on the actual details (ie historical arguments and data, etc.) that he uses. He goes into these details in his debates and I assume his book covers them in more detail. So give me what he considers to be the facts, and I'm only asking this assuming that YOU agree with him. SO lets get to it.

I offered Carrier’s assessment of the probability as a correction to your characterization of his view as ‘Jesus being a COMPLETE myth’. So, that’s what was behind that statement. I have no real interest in summarizing and defending Carrier’s complete thesis, but I do somewhat care that his views are being characterized accurately (we all should wish that people’s views are accurately characterized). As for my views on Carrier, ultimately I am unsure of a Bayesian approach, but I am intrigued by the methodology as it is at least an attempt to add rigor to the question. As for many of his individual opinions – they vary. For example, I think his treatment of Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus are fairly good as he is a something of a specialist in that sub-discipline. However, his treatment of Paul and his knowledge of first century Jewish messianism are lacking in my opinion as he doesn’t evince a strong grasp of the material (i.e. it is outside his specialty).

Take care,
TFV

Ok. I appreciate your clarification and I already revised my statement. The fact still remains that his view involves Jesus being a complete myth. He is in the minority in terms of scholarly opinion according to well known scholars.

[Zzyzx]

.
This thread was opened in response to a Theist thinking that it was wrong to say that many or most debaters here accept that Jesus existed (without accepting tales of supernaturalism)

There is probably no need to overemphasize that point [that Jesus existed] since it is conceded by many or most.

Outside this forum, yes. Inside, a different question.

It is beginning to appear from the poll as though it is NOT necessary to "prove" over and over that Jesus existed -- or address arguments with the assumption that they deny his existence.

Is "Jesus existed" a prelude to jumping to supernatural claims? If so, that is a LONG leap with only unverified stories and speculation as underpinning.
_________________

[Kapyong]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all

It's beyond me why hyperskeptics like Richard Carrier would not at least consider that Jesus was a literal being with some added legends.

Wrong again OpenYourEyes

Dr Carrier DID DO EXACTLY THAT !

He wrote a 600-page scholarly peer-reviewed book in an academic press that SPECIFICALLY considered in detail whether Jesus was literal/historical or mythical.

But you haven't bothered to READ the book, and so you keep repeating this obviously false statement. Do you think that helps your argument ?

I just made a lengthy thread which showed how Paul refers to a spiritual being, and makes much of being a spiritual man who has spiritual contacts. Not one single response. The hyperbelievers simply REFUSE to even consider the Jesus Myth theory.

I showed numerous examples of falsehoods and errors in the hyperbeliever's arguments - he didn't even bother to consider them.

It's beyond me why hyperbelievers like OpenYourEyes will not at least consider that Jesus was a spiritual/mythical being with later historical accretions.

Anyway -
I figure by now that readers and lurkers have seen just how BAD the evidence is for the alleged historical Jesus.


Kapyong

[OpenYourEyes]

It's beyond me why hyperskeptics like Richard Carrier would not at least consider that Jesus was a literal being with some added legends.

Wrong again OpenYourEyes

Dr Carrier DID DO EXACTLY THAT !

He wrote a 600-page scholarly peer-reviewed book in an academic press that SPECIFICALLY considered in detail whether Jesus was literal/historical or mythical.

But you haven't bothered to READ the book, and so you keep repeating this obviously false statement. Do you think that helps your argument ?

My argument is that he is in the minority position to claim that Jesus was entirely made up. That point of mine is still very valid. I'm sure you can agree with me on this.

[Kapyong]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all

- We have multiple and independent sources that make reference to Jesus and his brother James.

Well, multiple really boils down to maybe 2 or 3, depending.
The Gospels are NOT independent.

And every one of those sources has SERIOUS strikes AGAINST being historical.
Everybody here should know that by now.

So, how about you finally start CONSIDERING those strikes against historicity ?

How about you consider and address the problems with the T.F. ?
In your own words please Here are my own words about the issues :

*) it interrupts the flow

*) it is impossibly Christian for a devout Jew to write

*) it is very short, Josephus tended to ramble on and on for figures like this - it's compatible with an empty last part of a page being filled in.

*) Origen read Josephus c.230 and said he did NOT call Jesus 'Christ' - showing it has changed since then.

*) Several early church fathers read Josephus and did NOT mention the T.F.

*) It first appears in Eusebius MSS, and spread from him

*) some early MSS WITHOUT the T.F. existed for many centuries after Eusebius

Will the hyperbelievers like OpenYourEyes actually CONSIDER these points ?
Or just ignore them, and keep right on preaching ?


Kapyong