Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Augustus]

I have an other problem with Ehrman, he is a biblical scholar, not a historian. Richard Carrier is. So, when it comes to the historical Jesus, Carrier has a head start by his professional authority. That doesn't mean that he is automatically right, just that his epistemology is probably different and more applicable to the question, and one should listen to his arguments - which have to stand for themselves in the end.
Personally, I stand right between the two, not historical, not mystical, but legendary.

Secular Biblical scholarship is history and those that do it are historians.

Ehrman and Carrier both look at texts and try to interpret them in a historical context.

 

[Heyo]

Doing something as a profession doesn't imply that authority exists in relation to that discipline. An interpretation of the historical facts about the life and teachings of Yeshua should consider the religious context, especially context relating to validation of accounts of the manifestation of some kind of divine being.

When you demand religious context in history, do you also see historical context in theology? Because that would instantly destroy all ancient religions, as none of those stand the light.

A neutral point of view about the existence or nature of divine beings is pretty much essential if you want to avoid confirmation bias when looking at this.

It seems that there can't be a neutral point of view about the existence or nature of divine beings. The most rational point of view is to ask for evidence, but that upsets the believers, because there is none, and they won't accept that as being unbiased.

 

[Heyo]

Secular Biblical scholarship is history and those that do it are historians.

Ehrman and Carrier both look at texts and try to interpret them in a historical context.

Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Bible (the Old Testament and New Testament).[1][2] For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from ancient history, historical criticism, philology, theology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion.[1]

Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do.

- Biblical studies - Wikipedia

Biblical studies can be housed under history, but usually isn't.

 

[Ebionite]

When you demand religious context in history, do you also see historical context in theology?

Of course, they are both aspects of the changing nature of mankind.

Because that would instantly destroy all ancient religions, as none of those stand the light.

That's a big claim, how would you support that?

It seems that there can't be a neutral point of view about the existence or nature of divine beings.

I mean as a starting point. From that competing hypotheses are developed to explain the facts.

The most rational point of view is to ask for evidence, but that upsets the believers, because there is none, and they won't accept that as being unbiased.

Does that preclude investigation? Denying that evidence exists is the antithesis of inquiry.

 

[Heyo]

Of course, they are both aspects of the changing nature of mankind.

That's a big claim, how would you support that?

Religions are based on myths. History debunks the myths and the religion is without a basis.

I mean as a starting point. From that competing hypotheses are developed to explain the facts.

Does that preclude investigation? Denying that evidence exists is the antithesis of inquiry.

It is the result of inquiry.

 

[Ebionite]

Religions are based on myths. History debunks the myths and the religion is without a basis.

You have no idea.

 

[Augustus]

- Biblical studies - Wikipedia

Biblical studies can be housed under history, but usually isn't.

Which university department it is grouped into doesn't change the methods and skills used though.

"For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from ancient history, historical criticism, philology, theology, textual criticism, literary criticism, historical backgrounds, mythology, and comparative religion.[1]"

A historian might work in the International Relations department or the Anthropology department, but it wouldn't mean historians working in the history department have a 'head start' in terms of scholarly credentials.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Facts can be converted to implications by the application of reason. Theology is the application of reason to the domain of man's interaction with the divine.

What sophomoric drivel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are saying these disciples, as well as others, spend three years with Jesus and just “thought” they saw Him do miracles like; feeding thousands of men, women and children with a few fish and loaves of bread, turn water to wine, heal lepers, the lame, the blind, and more, bring dead people back to life, then they thought they watched Him die by crucifixion, rise from the grave, and imagined they spent time talking, eating and interacting with Him afterwards.

What makes you think that the disciples saw any of these things?

Sure people can die and suffer for deeply held beliefs, but I highly doubt anyone would do so for fake beliefs, lies, and things that they know did not happen.

Again: what makes you think they did? The stories may be overblown.

That aside: people who die for their beliefs often don't think they're going to die for their beliefs. They think that things will be okay until, all of a sudden, things are not okay.

If the secret police/Roman legionaries/whoever are sneaky enough, you'll have no idea that they're coming until they're breaking down your door. You may very well think that your underground church is your best ticket to a long and relatively happy life right up until you're arrested, when suddenly recanting won't change your fate.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have an other problem with Ehrman, he is a biblical scholar, not a historian. Richard Carrier is. So, when it comes to the historical Jesus, Carrier has a head start by his professional authority. That doesn't mean that he is automatically right, just that his epistemology is probably different and more applicable to the question, and one should listen to his arguments - which have to stand for themselves in the end.
Personally, I stand right between the two, not historical, not mystical, but legendary.

Ehrman is a historian of early Christianity. Carrier is a classicist whose primary educational background is science and naturalism in the Roman Empire. In terms of credentials, Ehrman has relevant credentials, Carrier does not. When Carrier writes about the historical Jesus, he is writing as a layman. That doesn't make him wrong, but in terms of "professional authority", you have things precisely backwards.

And factual disputes aren't resolved on the basis of measuring academic credentials. Carrier is a lightweight when it comes to early Christianity and the historical Jesus; when writing on these topics he's no better off than you or I... but that doesn't make him wrong. What makes him wrong on this particular issue are the facts. The evidence is what resolves disputes, not academic credentials. And the evidence against a historical Jesus is weak and largely based on blatant misrepresentations/misunderstandings (sort of part for the course when coming from an amateur), whereas the evidence for a historical Jesus is straightforward and overwhelming.

But make no mistake, there was no one who performed miracles or rose from the dead. That's not the proposition in question- we're not asking whether there was a miracle-working, dead-raising son of God. The question is whether there was an ordinary Jewish man named Jesus who was crucified and subsequently turned into a religious figure. And there very probably was, in light of the overwhelming body of historical evidence. Our relative opinions of Ehrman and Carrier honestly shouldn't even enter into it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes, you have to have some facts to work with before you can start making inferences.

That's true, but it nevertheless remains the case that the only way to controvert or refute a fact is via evidence (i.e. factual information). Theology cannot refute facts. Theology is an a priori exercise, it has no standing to dispute any fact: if a fact and an item of theology disagree, the latter must always give way.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Doing something as a profession doesn't imply that authority exists in relation to that discipline. An interpretation of the historical facts about the life and teachings of Yeshua should consider the religious context, especially context relating to validation of accounts of the manifestation of some kind of divine being.
A neutral point of view about the existence or nature of divine beings is pretty much essential if you want to avoid confirmation bias when looking at this.

There is Jesus of history and there is Jesus of faith. History knows there is also Jesus of faith but all supernatural elements are outside of its research field and methodology.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Religions are based on myths. History debunks the myths and the religion is without a basis.

I agree but history can't debunk faith because faith doesn't care if it's based on myth or history.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree but history can't debunk faith because faith doesn't care if it's based on myth or history.

That's how it should work (and good for you or anyone else who operates this way), but a lot of people make the mistake of basing their faith on specific facts of history, science, etc... which is dangerous, because our understanding of history, science, etc can change

 

[Heyo]

I agree but history can't debunk faith because faith doesn't care if it's based on myth or history.

Yes, faith ignores history. That was my point when @Ebionite demanded that historians should regard the religious aspect.
I think they should not, and for the same reason believers disregard the historical aspect. They are non-overlapping magisteria.

 

[Ebionite]

That's true, but it nevertheless remains the case that the only way to controvert or refute a fact is via evidence (i.e. factual information

Logical inference is a form of evidence. In US law some implications which are based on facts are called ultimate facts. It doesn't matter if the process can be described as theology so long as the reasoning is valid.

 

[Ebionite]

There is Jesus of history and there is Jesus of faith. History knows there is also Jesus of faith but all supernatural elements are outside of its research field and methodology.

History can include events which are meaningful in a religious context. It isn't the job of historians to provide a final interpretation of events.

 

[Niatero]

In general people are very confused about what constitutes evidence. I think part of the problem is that popular usage has conflated "evidence" with "proof". But it doesn't take all that much to constitute evidence, at least weak evidence. There is weak evidence for all sorts of propositions, including propositions that are true. SO there is almost always some evidence to the contrary (regardless of the proposition in question). The question is, as always, the strength of that evidence, weighed against the evidence for the converse.

And when it comes to the historical Jesus, the evidence against a historical Jesus is absolutely steamrolled by the overwhelming body of evidence for the historical Jesus.

Which one?

(later) Apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah, prophet of social change, wisdom Sage, Galilean Rabbi, marginal Jew, Teacher of Righteousness, or some other?

 

[Niatero]

Facts can be converted to implications by the application of reason. Theology is the application of reason to the domain of man's interaction with the divine.

By "interaction with the divine," do you mean the scriptures and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Niatero]

Hystorical info extracted/reconstructed from legends.

Is there somewhere online that I can read about how that is done?