Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Enai de a lukal]

^ This, mainly because historicity has been addressed many, many times both here and in the old Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

So you're clogging up the thread with low-quality posts that contribute literally nothing to the topic, because you want to attack another poster and register your negative emotional reaction (absent any substantive disagreement). Wow, that's great, thanks for that. What a great contributor.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To make it just a bit more complicated, there could have been multiple people on whom the legend is based. Jesus wasn't a rare name at the time (though it hasn't had to be a Jesus). Apocalyptic preacher also weren't unusual.
Anyway, it is hard to separate the truth from the fiction, and there are more questionable statements than factual ones. The list of most likely true facts is very short and the intersecting set with the list of religiously relevant "facts" is empty.

Sure and that's a good point. I was trying to keep it simple. But the point we're both making is that its more complicated than "miracle man X either existed or miracle man X did not". There range of options out there is far larger.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that whole notion of Carrier’s is confusing the use of common tropes in writing with their being (or not) some factual basis behind the impetus to write.

When I mentioned early mythicists I was referring to the absence of that position in 1st and 2nd century C.E. polemics. FWIW, I'm not much of a Carrier fan.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you're clogging up the thread with low-quality posts that contribute literally nothing to the topic ...

OK ...

 

[Heyo]

Jesus of Nazareth has had quite the impact, for someone whose existence is supposedly in doubt .

As had Socrates, who may or may not have been an invention of Plato.

 

[jimb]

Jesus Christ actually existed (and still exists!), as there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Jesus Christ actually existed (and still exists!), as there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

So much mess in such a short statement. Yes, Jesus of Nazareth very probably existed as a historical figure. There is some credible evidence to the contrary, but the positive evidence is nothing short of overwhelming (maybe you were confusing "evidence" with "proof"?).

As for whether he still exists, well only as a literary figure or figment of ones imagination. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, where he almost certainly was left to rot on the cross and eventually thrown into a mass grave to decay and has been very, very dead these past 2000+ years.

 

[ChristineM]

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

There is no evidence for the biblical Jesus

The Talmud and other hebrew talk about Yeshu ben Pantera (Jesus son of Pantera). Pantera was a Roman soldier, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera.

See my RF thread for My view on Jesus.

For the rest of my understanding of Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth very probably existed as a historical figure.

I suspect "of Nazareth" to be fictive -- a strained effort at prophecy fulfillment by the author of gMt

There is some credible evidence to the contrary, but

Out of curiosity, what might that be?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I suspect "of Nazareth" to be fictive -- a strained effort at prophecy fulfillment by the author of gMt

Maybe, but they did recently discover the remains of a small village in the correct location which has been advertised as archeologists finding Nazareth. But Nazareth or anywhere else, Jesus of rural Roman Judea almost certainly was a real historical figure. He lived, he preached, he died, and his followers founded a religion upon his name/teachings that ended up taking over half the world.

Out of curiosity, what might that be?

Evidence is a low bar, so evidence just would something- all else being equal-that decreases the probability of the proposition/hypothesis in question. So most mythicist arguments- the absence of Jesus in non-Gospel historical sources for instance, aside from that problematic Josephus passage, purported similarities between Christianity and various other Persian, pagan, etc religions- all constitute weak evidence against the hypothesis... they just get steamrolled in the final analyses by the overwhelming body of positive evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As had Socrates, who may or may not have been an invention of Plato.

Well neither Socrates nor Jesus nor The Buddha ever wrote anything down themselves, so they have that in common

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well neither Socrates nor Jesus nor The Buddha ever wrote anything down themselves, so they have that in common

That is true. I'd say a real possibility of these figures being invented or embellished by monastics is certainly still on the table.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well neither Socrates nor Jesus nor The Buddha ever wrote anything down themselves, so they have that in common

No but they have contemporaneous attestation. THe death of Socrates was sort of a big deal at the time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Maybe, but they did recently discover the remains of a small village in the correct location which has been advertised as archeologists finding Nazareth.

Fictive tales are studded with facts. Again quoting Wikipedia:

In Matthew 2:23, the return to Nazareth is said to be a fulfilment of the prophetic word, "He shall be called a Nazarene". It is not clear which Old Testament verse Matthew might have had in mind; many commentators suggest it is Isaiah 11:1, where it says "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit" (NIV): the Hebrew word for "branch" is nezer.[9][10] [source]​

Evidence is a low bar, so evidence just would something- all else being equal-that decreases the probability of the proposition/hypothesis in question. So most mythicist arguments- the absence of Jesus in non-Gospel historical sources for instance, aside from that problematic Josephus passage, purported similarities between Christianity and various other Persian, pagan, etc religions- all constitute weak evidence against the hypothesis...

Perhaps, although:

1. I'm not entirely sure which Josephus passage you find problematic,
2. I tend to think that the so-called similarities are fabricated or exaggerated, and, even were that the case,
3. such 'similarities' would cast doubt on the question of divinity, not historicity.

 

[Ebionite]

Nah, not so much. It was more a matter of backfilling in prophecy after the fact, like the trainwreck that is the genealogies of Joseph (or grossly re-interpreting OT passages like the infamous passage in Isaiah about Israel).

It wasn't backfilling - Molnar's solution did not mention Balaam's vision. Also the sign of the star of Bethlehem connects to the third Abrahamic religion via the flag of the Ottoman empire, since that flag can symbolise the lunar occultation of a star.

The point that most people don't get about Isaiah 53 is that it is about the righteous servant and that title was never associated with Israel. The righteous servant of Psalm 35 connects to the gospel of John via the idea of fulfilment, and the immediate context of John is about the testimony of Yeshua.

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I think we all know about the controversial writings of The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus and The Annals of Tacitus for example. Some say the parts about Jesus in their writings were forgeries and others think they were authentic. But these men were not even born at the time of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus that happened in 30-33AD. They were born after his death.

The only reason I might believe that Jesus existed 'possibly' is through the Pilate stone finding by archaeologists in 1961 which was dated between AD 26-37. And this is the correct time frame for the events described in the Gospels. But this is not evidence for Jesus but for Pontius Pilate.

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum...Pontius Pilate...prefect of Judea...has dedicated [this]...


Confirming this biblical figure's existence was crucial insofar that he played an important role in the execution of Jesus. This makes me think it's more plausible now that Pontius Pilate probably knew of a man named Jesus at the time and maybe even had a man named Jesus executed. But this is me just imagining such a scenario now. I can't ask Pilate what really happened then because he's been dead for about 2,000 years.

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

Might I suggest that you read what the well known atheist new testament scholar Bart Erhman has to say about Christs existence.

Bart says that his own research has proven, yes, Christ really existed.

Bart just denies the Jesus was God part of the historical narrative.

 

[Ebionite]

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, where he almost certainly was left to rot on the cross and eventually thrown into a mass grave to decay and has been very, very dead these past 2000+ years.

Refuting this involves looking at the theology of blood sacrifice, particularly how the practice was repudiated by the prophets. Yeshua repudiated it with the cleansing of the temple, and with references to Hosea 6:6.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Might I suggest that you read what the well known atheist new testament scholar Bart Erhman has to say about Christs existence.

Which of his books have you read?

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm so glad I don't have a horse in this race. It sounds stressful.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Which of his books have you read?

doesnt matter really

Or you could simply start out with his Youtube channel

Bart D. Ehrman

Welcome to Dr. Bart Ehrman's Youtube Channel, home of the "Misquoting Jesus" Podcast, which we release every week on Tuesday. Bart Ehrman is a world-renowned Bible scholar. He has written six New York Times best-selling books including "Misquoting Jesus," "How Jesus Became God," and "God's...

www.youtube.com

CAVEAT:

please know that Bart does not believe that Christ was anything more than a mere man. He does not believe in Christ as the son of God, the gospel, or salvation.