Did Jesus really exist?

Originally posted by redbadger
NO

YES

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just to be clear, this thread was not about proving whether God exists or not.

[b]We all have the same evidences and universe and yet we see it differently. We can't visual (ok maybe with special microscope) see an atom or the flow of electrons yet we see the evidence of their existing.
So, do we all have a different idea about what an atom is? H ...[text shortened]... you though that you will be unable to support the argument as has happened so many times before.[/b]

Well the OP was did Jesus really exist..... So I strayed a bit... I guess all of the faith discussion is what I was thinking about. Honestly it takes faith to get up in the morning get into a car have faith that the car will start and drive on roads with traffic lights and faith that they will be functioning properly and cross bridges having faith that the bridges will not collapse because they were built correctly..... Faith many times based on evidence it doesn't have to be blind. I have faith that Abraham Lincoln existed and Jesus also.....

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Well the OP was did Jesus really exist..... So I strayed a bit... I guess all of the faith discussion is what I was thinking about. Honestly it takes faith to get up in the morning get into a car have faith that the car will start and drive on roads with traffic lights and faith that they will be functioning properly and cross bridges having faith that the ...[text shortened]... doesn't have to be blind. I have faith that Abraham Lincoln existed and Jesus also.....

Manny

Let's see.

Abraham Lincoln, lived in recent history, had a huge impact on a nation of millions while still alive, there are tons of stuff written about him while he was still alive, by both people who supported him, and people who'd rather he wasn't around, never performed any miracles, and didn't claim to be the son of a god.

Jesus Christ, all but forgotten by everyone but the true believers when the first gospels was written, no secondary sources about him during or immediately after he lived, what we know of him today was most likely not written by eye-witnesses, no conclusive physical evidence that he ever existed (shroud of turin was dated to around the time it first appeared in history), claimed to have performed incredible miracles (that no contemporary thought to write about), and claimed to be the son of a god.

You're telling us that having faith in the existence of one of these men, is exactly the same as having faith in the existence of the other? Seriously?

Originally posted by C Hess
Let's see.

Abraham Lincoln, lived in recent history, had a huge impact on a nation of millions while still alive, there are tons of stuff written about him while he was still alive, by both people who supported him, and people who'd rather he wasn't around, never performed any miracles, and didn't claim to be the son of a god.

Jesus Christ, all but forg ...[text shortened]... one of these men, is exactly the same as having faith in the existence of the other? Seriously?

The dating of the Shroud of Turin was shown to be in error. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The dating of the Shroud of Turin was shown to be in error. 😏

And the evidence to support that claim?

Originally posted by C Hess
And the evidence to support that claim?

New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ

Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 4:25 p.m. EDT March 30, 2013

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

The Carbon 14 dating mistake on the Shroud of Turin

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

Originally posted by RJHinds
New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ

Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 4:25 p.m. EDT March 30, 2013

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

The Carbon 14 dating mistake on the Shroud of Turin

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

Well, you've given me pause. Thank you. 🙂

Originally posted by menace71
Well the OP was did Jesus really exist.....

Yes, that was the thread title. However the OP is about Richard Carriers talk. Have you watched it? Did you read the OP, or are you merely responding to the thread title?

Faith many times based on evidence it doesn't have to be blind.
Yet in your previous post you stated that even with evidence we interpret the evidence differently. Can you justify that claim in the light of the fact that you keep contradicting it?

Originally posted by C Hess
Abraham Lincoln, ...... there are tons of stuff written about him while he was still alive,

Actually, we even have stuff written by him, including the originals, and we have photographs of him (including the originals in some cases).

...was most likely not written by eye-witnesses,
It was definitely not written by eye-witnesses. Not one single writer ever met Jesus in person before the Crucifixion.

Originally posted by menace71
Faith many times based on evidence it doesn't have to be blind. I have faith that Abraham Lincoln existed and Jesus also.....

The subject of this thread is whether or not your faith that Jesus existed is based on the historical evidence, or based on your religious beliefs or other reasons.
Richard Carrier makes a very strong case that the historical evidence alone does not support the existence of a historical Jesus.
Are you willing to watch his talk and discuss whether or not he got anything wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I find that an extremely week argument. Essentially you are saying 'but nobody questioned this before, therefore we can dismiss anyone who questions it!'.

Not really. I am pointing out the evidence is that early arguments seemed to have been whether or not Jesus too good to be material.

Its significant if not 100% Proof of the historicity of Jesus.

What I suspect some fans of Carrier will try to do is jury rig the discussion so that the New Testament writers are excluded from evidence for any historicity of Jesus.

Actually Carrier does quite the opposite. He shows that the New Testament writers are almost exclusively the only evidence for any historicity of Jesus, and then he proceeds to show that they are highly unreliable.

What you are perhaps looking for is an ancient Atheist who writes about a Jesus and all the things He is said to have done. But why would an Atheist like yourself be interested in it that much?

Of course the documents were written by those who had the interest. And I think Carrier and you want to discount those writers in favor of writers who would NOT be interested in writing about Jesus - the more skeptical the better.

Well, some non-Christian references to Jesus of course do exist.
But not only the New Testament documents indicate a historical figure but the plethora of writings of early church officials suggest the same.

Saying "We don't want to count those as reliable because they had a vested interest" only goes so far. We would expect those who had an interest to have done most of the writing about Jesus.

sonship:
I can see that I am not going to get through this this late tonight.
I will wait till you have got through it because I believe some of your points are answered by Carrier.

tw:
I think you need to keep in mind some of Carriers main points about which books were written by whom and when and why. If you wish to provide counter evidence from a book Carrier dismisses as late fiction, then you need to deal with his dismissal first before quoting it as evidence.

Do you for example disagree with him about which books were written by Paul?

I think we can take books which just about everybody AGREES were written by Paul and make a good case for the historicity of Jesus.

If I recall Carrier should have no doubt about Galatians as Pauline. There Paul mentions many evidences that a historian could point to as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

1.) His strong condemnation that any one, even an angel, should not preach another "Gospel of Christ" then what he and his co-workers were preaching (1:6-9)

It would be implausible to suggest this "Gospel of Christ" Paul speaks of is something other than the message which includes the life, death, and resurrection of a historical Jesus.

2.) He writes of some perverting the gospel. There had to be a strong tradition about facts to teach about Jesus for there to be "perversion" of those concepts. A strong controversy doesn't arise out of thin air over nothing.

Perverting the gospel indicates facts about Jesus were in dispute. At least facts about what Jesus taught were in sharp dispute. So how can we so easily say the Jesus didn't exist to have taught something hot contentions were being held over?

3.) Paul speaks of his past reputation, of which his readers are familiar, of his persecution of the Christian church (1:13,14). And this he did because he was dedicated to "the tradition of my fathers" or "Jesus-less" Judaism.

"For you have heard of my manner of life formerly in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God excessively and ravaged it." (v.13)

Apparently they did know about this. Someone named Jesus came up being so intensely a perceived danger to these "traditions" that it cause a scholar to be a cult fighter of some kind. The "deprogrammers" and cult fighters of the 80s in the US argues that there was something to "rescue" adherents from.

And this evidence is that someone had taught things SO challenging to traditional Judaism at that time to give rise to fanatical opposition. I think it argues for the historicity of a Jesus all things considered.

3.) When Paul does somehow undergo a drastic change of mind, eventually he goes up to double check with "those who were apostles before me" (1:17)

The audience of his letter, ( multiple churches in the whole area of Asia Minor ) must know what he is talking about. That is evidence for Peter (Cephas), John, and James which he mentions by name in Jerusalem (v.17).

He also means "James, the brother of the Lord" (v.19) . It is strange that he would mention the brother of a completely fictitious person. I think it is strange that he would mention the relative of a totally "celestial" person.

He has the boldness to tell his audience that he is not lying - "Now concerning the things which I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying." (v.20)

Historically, the indication seems that the matters were in dispute as to whether Paul was really qualified to be an apostle so traveling around founding and teaching Christian congregations. He has to say "I am not lying" most likely because rumors were circulating that he was not "the real deal" like the afore mentioned apostles from Jerusalem.

Add it all up and the historicity of Jesus is more likely than not.

4.) He speaks of going up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus which agrees with Luke's history in Acts as to them being traveling partners. The center of Jerusalem, where all these things about Jesus came to a climax, is a repeated subject in the book. Some social/religious upheaval was going on in Jerusalem. Fifty days after the execution of Jesus cowardly disciples were radically changed by something and spread their message from Jerusalem.

The facts preached about Jesus are the best explanation of that upheavel.

5.) He says James, Cephas (Peter), and John were pillars in the church which was at Jerusalem (v.9)

Now this is of particular interest to me because the first one mentioned is the brother of Jesus James. We might think Peter should have been mentioned first. But it is very typical and customary that people would consider the flesh brother of someone great to be the better authority on what that person was all about.

This James is not the disciple James among the 12. This James is the brother of Jesus who was first an unbeliever but changed his mind. Apparently, in the minds of many this brother of Jesus must be the main one they all thought to look to for instructions in the new teaching.

The evidence argues FOR the historicity of a brother of James - Jesus. So I think Richard Carrier, though well more educated in the field of history than I, will lead you down a skeptic's rabbit hole attempting to persuade you that Jesus of the New Testament never lived.

Originally posted by sonship

I find that an extremely week argument. Essentially you are saying 'but nobody questioned this before, therefore we can dismiss anyone who questions it!'.

Not really. I am pointing out the evidence that early arguments seemed to have been was Jesus too good to be material.

Its significant if not 100% Proof of the historicity of Jesu ...[text shortened]... I, will lead you down a skeptic's rabbit hole attempting to persuade you that Jesus never lived.

There should be a limit to the length of posts. Seriously. When it comes to post length, shorter is always better. Trust me on this.

Having said that, you wouldn't want to compromise on content, I suppose, so just ke

Originally posted by C Hess
There should be a limit to the length of posts. Seriously. When it comes to post length, shorter is always better. Trust me on this.

Having said that, you wouldn't want to compromise on content, I suppose, so just ke

The problem of verbosity is very difficult for me to overcome. I agree with you.

But usually if you leave OUT things, someone will respond - "But you OVERLOOKED this or that matter."

Some of my length is a preemptive move against this.
But I do write too long.

Originally posted by sonship
The problem of verbosity is very difficult for me to overcome. I agree with you.

But usually if you leave OUT things, someone will respond - "But you OVERLOOKED this or that matter."

Some of my length is a preemptive move against this.
But I do write too long.

The whole point of a forum thread is to have a discussion back and forth. That means you write something and wait for the response, and if the response is what you feared it might be, you deal with it then, in a separate post. Trust me, no one reads a lecture post like that, so you'll have to rewrite it anyw