Niatero
*banned*
I think that Paul didn't actually see Jesus, in a vision or hallucination or otherwise. He only heard him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?
- Thread starter Comradio251
- Start date
I think that Paul didn't actually see Jesus, in a vision or hallucination or otherwise. He only heard him.
Niatero
*banned*
Maybe not necessarily neutral, but open.
Niatero
*banned*
Can you list the items of evidence outside of the Bible that are considered as evidence by most historians, or tell me how to find a list? Not all the explanations and arguments, just a list of labels for the evidence. For example, Josephus books 18 and 20; Tacitus book 15; Pliny to Emperor Trajan. Or tell me if you know of any besides what is covered in the Wikipedia article "Sources for the historicity of Jesus."
(later) From what I've seen, the only thing that most historians agree on is that someone with a name that is translated as "Jesus" was crucified in or in or near Jerusalem near the end of the second temple period, and identifying that person with the Jesus of Christianity. The arguments for that look fallacious to me. Not that I don't think it's true, but that the arguments based on writings outside of the Bible look fallacious to me, and I don't think that the reason for historians agreeing on that has anything to do with the validity and relevance of the evidence. I think it's just so that they can make up any story they want to about Jesus and still say that he is the Jesus of Christianity, which serves the interests of story sellers on all sides of all divides. That's also why they have agreed on special rules for writing stories about Jesus, which are mostly blatant and notorious logical fallacies, that they don't apply to any other study of history, and which they use and misuse selectively, to make up any story they want to and call it "history," in their common interest of selling stories saying what one faction or another wants to hear.
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, I mean divine beings having a physical form similar to that of men and women.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Bollocks. Faith is about belief, not ignorance.
Niatero
*banned*
I'm wondering if anyone here has ever critically examined historical methods, and more specifically, the ones that have been customised for writing about Jesus; or seen what historians themselves say about the limitations and applications of historical methods. I mean, historians writing honestly and responsibly, not selling books and talks saying what one faction or another wants to hear.
(later) That is not a rhetorical question. I’m really asking.
(later) That is not a rhetorical question. I’m really asking.
Last edited:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
History of religion can include beliefs of people but supernatural events themselves are not considered history.
Ehrman in a debate with Craig:
What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.
I wish we could establish miracles, but we can’t. It’s no one’s fault. It’s simply that the canons of historical research do not allow for the possibility of establishing as probable the least probable of all occurrences. For that reason, Bill’s four pieces of evidence are completely irrelevant. There cannot be historical probability for an event that defies probability, even if the event did happen. The resurrection has to be taken on faith, not on the basis of proof.
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith
William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman
Heyo
Veteran Member
For a historian, Jesus is entirely uninteresting. The guy didn't write anything, didn't invent anything, had no political power, isn't mentioned in any contemporaneous document. The best evidence for any Christ having existed are Christians. But for their existence, it is not important if the Christ character is invented or based on a real person. And Christianity didn't become interesting before Theodosius made it the Roman state religion in 380 AD.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Yes, for example (2 links):
Historical criticism - Wikipedia
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity.
The main reason why i suggest Bart Erhman...he is an atheist who believes in the historical Jesus!
Last edited:
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
tell me, do you believe Socrates was a real person or a fabricated character from the mind of playwrite Plato?
I ask this because if you are to remain consistent, Socrates is a fictional character and none of anything attributed to him is of any philosophical relevance or significance!
If memory serves me correct, I believe only 3 individuals claim to have been eyewitnesses to Socrates...and two of them studied under Plato at his school! So realistically, Plato is the eyewitness.
Christ has dozens of eyewitnesses within the Bible itself and at least one eyewitness account outside of the bible.
Augustus
…
This makes no real sense.
One of the best ways to make a name for yourself is to puncture a consensus with a new and better interpretation of the evidence.
It very much serves the interest of historians to go against the grain on a popular issue, especially when there is a large audience of people who strongly want the traditional view to be wrong.
What “special rules” do historians apply to the historical Jesus that they don’t apply to other areas of history?
Seems like you are just making things up.
Niatero
*banned*
Yes, for example (2 links):
Historical criticism - Wikipedia
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Thank you. I didn’t find anything in either of those articles about extracting or reconstructing historical info from legends.
Last edited:
Niatero
*banned*
In order to sell books and talks about Jesus, authors and speakers on all sides need to have some way of saying that the Jesus in their stories is the Jesus of Christianity. The way that they do that without restricting their freedom to make up any story they want to is by saying that he’s the one who was crucified in or near Jerusalem near the end of the second temple period. They all benefit from all their books. Besides the opposition between them stirring up interest in their stories, people who like what a story seller is saying buy the story for that reason, and people opposed to it buy it to pick it apart.
Last edited:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
"Critical scholars have developed a number of criteria to evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of an attested event or saying represented in the gospels. These criteria are the criterion of dissimilarity; the criterion of embarrassment; the criterion of multiple attestation; the criterion of cultural and historical congruency; the criterion of "Aramaisms". They are applied to the sayings and events as described in the Gospels, in order to evaluate their historical reliability."
"Archeological findings from Nazareth refute claims by mythicists that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century and also give credibility to brief passages in the Gospels on Jesus' time in Nazareth, his father's trade, and connection to places in Judea."
"Some of the places mentioned in the gospels have been verified by archaeological evidence, such as the Pool of Bethesda,[137] the Pool of Siloam, and the Temple Mount platform extension by King Herod."
"A geological study based on sediments near the Dead Sea indicate that an earthquake occurred around 31 AD ± 5 years, which plausibly coincides with the earthquake reported by Matthew 27 near the time of the crucifixion of Christ."
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
Heyo
Veteran Member
I don't believe. And I don't know if Socrates existed. But I know that the relevance of things attributed to him, doesn't suffer if he was an invention by Plato. Ideas speak for themselves. The Socratic method is just as relevant when you call it the Platonic method.
The same goes for Jesus in the eyes of a historian. Everything that is historically relevant about Christianity happened long after the (alleged) death of Jesus, and wouldn't change whether he was an invention or not.
And that would be?
Esteban X
Active Member
Who?
Niatero
*banned*
I have an idea about this that’s new to me. Maybe not to some other people, but to me. I agree now with saying that Jesus did not exist, but what I mean by that is that the Jesus who is at the heart and center of modern Christianity, and in the creeds of all the mainstream churches, never existed. The point for me is not that nobody named Jesus was crucified in or near Jerusalem near the end of the second temple period. I think that there was such a person, possibly more than one. The point is not that the authors of the gospels didn’t know of any such person or weren’t thinking of him when they told their stories. I think that they did know of such a person and they were thinking of him. The point is not even to say that if there was such a person, he never said or did anything that he says and does in the gospels. I think that the gospels mostly contain lessons that he actually taught.
The point for me is that there was never any such person as the Jesus of modern Christianity who died to take the punishment or pay the price for our sins, and/or who brings eternal life to all people who agree with some statement of beliefs and only those people. Not only that he never existed as a real person, but that he has never existed even in the scriptures of Christianity.* In my view that Jesus has only ever existed in the Bibles in peoples heads.
Whether people intend it or know it or not, when they promote some historical Jesus in opposition to those doctrines of Christianity, they are actually validating what I think is the real point of denying his existence.
* (later) Maybe not even in the writing of the fathers in the first three centuries. Certainly not as a member of a trinity of distinct person with one essence.
The point for me is that there was never any such person as the Jesus of modern Christianity who died to take the punishment or pay the price for our sins, and/or who brings eternal life to all people who agree with some statement of beliefs and only those people. Not only that he never existed as a real person, but that he has never existed even in the scriptures of Christianity.* In my view that Jesus has only ever existed in the Bibles in peoples heads.
Whether people intend it or know it or not, when they promote some historical Jesus in opposition to those doctrines of Christianity, they are actually validating what I think is the real point of denying his existence.
* (later) Maybe not even in the writing of the fathers in the first three centuries. Certainly not as a member of a trinity of distinct person with one essence.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
You can tell stories about how he didn’t exist and how it came to be thought that he did just as easily.
Lots of people want to hear about that, especially those who are hostile to Christianity.
The Jesus mythicism industry is always in demand.
What “special rules” do you think historians apply to the historical Jesus that they don’t apply to other areas of history though?
joelr
Well-Known Member
A lot of this is probably true. Mark did use the Elisha story updated for Jesus. I don't know if we have any evidence of Jesus as a man. There is evidence he was a pre-existent celestial being. The first mention was Paul where he was already in spirit form but Philo mentioned a similar ac-angel who fits the description and is called The Branch.
The idea is that Matthew added the guard so people wouldn't say the body was stolen, to lean on the resurrection thing.
That was the point of sons/daughters of God, to go through some passion and get salvation for followers.
"Romulus, like Jesus, was a mythical person historicized who was claimed to be a pre-existent celestial being who became incarnate, died, and returned to life to rule on high. Scholars are coming to agree now that this indeed influenced the development of Christianity. Time to get on board."
"“Paul’s letters show the belief,” Hurtado writes, that Jesus “had been ‘pre-existent’ and was the agent through whom all things were created (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [and Philippians 2:5-11]),” and indeed this means “the idea was already known and uncontroversial in early Christian circles within the first few years after Jesus’ crucifixion.” And these scholars all document the existence of angelic or other celestial creatures who already existed in Jewish theology that Jesus was believed to have been. This is no longer controversial. Take note."
Chrissy Hansen on the Pre-Existent Jesus • Richard Carrier Blogs
It’s the growing consensus in Jesus studies now that the first Christians believed Jesus was the incarnation of a pre-existent celestial being. Even Bart Ehrman has gotten aboard this trend (see Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God); and even Larry Hurtado, who was irrationally against...
www.richardcarrier.info