Did Jesus really exist?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is ridiculous to claim Jesus did not exist as an historical character after about 2000 years of evidence that he did exist. This has been argued to death and there is no point in going into it again here, because anyone can find much material on his own that proves Jesus did exist.

All I am going to point out today is the Shroud of Turin with the Suda ...[text shortened]... e Kid to prove they existed. Does anyone doubt that Pontius Pilate, Cleopatra, or Nero existed?

There's quite good evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate. Being an important person in Rome at the time there are reliable records of his existence. His modern equivalent would be an ambassador or going back to the 19th Century, if he were British, a Governor General, so there are records of his existence. He managed to get on the wrong side of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known to history by his nickname Caligula, which was quite an easy thing to do and committed suicide in Gaul [1]. The point with him, Cleopatra, and Nero is that there is clear evidence of their existence and no good reason why they should have been invented.

In the case of Pilate there is the Pilate stone [2] as physical evidence of his existence. With Jesus it is less clear. Really there are only texts written by Christians and a few ambiguous and probably doctored references by non-Christian writers in the first century A.D.. There is no convincing physical evidence. The Turin Shroud was radio-carbon dated to the time it appeared in history and that is around the 14th Century - as a piece of evidence for the historicity of Christ it is entirely unconvincing.

The only thing that makes me think that Jesus was an historical character is that in the Gospels he referred to himself as the "Son of Man", this is a clever piece of mockery of the Principiate, specifically the Emperor Augustus who styled himself Imperātor Caesar Dīvī Fīlius Augustus [3] (Divi Filius = Son of God). This would be an odd thing to do for Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, to make up given that he was hoping to persuade the Romans to accept his religion.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

The fact that Christianity exist at all could be used as an argument to the fact of a historical Jesus living approximately 2k years ago


Manny

Originally posted by twhitehead
This came up in another thread and I thought it was worthy of its own thread. Googlefudge pointed us to Richard Carrier's work on the historicity of Jesus. This youtube video is by Richard Charier and basically gives his argument that Jesus probably didn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

Prior to watching it, I was of the opinion th ...[text shortened]... hat it is likely Jesus didn't exist.

Can anyone here find fault with Richard Carriers claims?

Not me.

I sit around denying that men like Charles Darwin and Karl Marx ever existed.

I simply refuse to believe it cause it makes me happy.. 😵

Originally posted by josephw
He got it all wrong. Jesus is alive forevermore. And that's a fact.

It's a no brainer!

If you are going to respond to posts, have the decency to read them. If you are going to say people 'got it all wrong' have the decency to what their videos instead of basing your response on the title.
Your responses show you don't know what is being asked and you are just responding out of dislike of the title.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The only thing that makes me think that Jesus was an historical character is that in the Gospels he referred to himself as the "Son of Man", this is a clever piece of mockery of the Principiate, specifically the Emperor Augustus who styled himself Imperātor Caesar Dīvī Fīlius Augustus [3] (Divi Filius = Son of God). This would be an odd thing to do for ...[text shortened]... the Gentiles, to make up given that he was hoping to persuade the Romans to accept his religion.

First you say it is in the Gospels, then you talk of Paul (who did not write the gospels). Which is it?

Originally posted by menace71
The fact that Christianity exist at all could be used as an argument to the fact of a historical Jesus living approximately 2k years ago


Manny

I agree. It is not a particularly good argument, but it is an argument.

Islam is based on the Quran which was dictated by the Angel Gabriel. Do you feel that the existence of Islam about 1.4k years later can be used as an argument to the fact of a historical Angel Gabriel?

From the responses to the thread so far, it appears some posters have not understood what I am asking.
I am not asking whether Jesus existed. I am not claiming Jesus didn't exist. I am asking about the historicity of Jesus. In other words I am asking whether the historical documents available point towards Jesus existing ie given only the historical record what is the likelihood that he existed.

What you believe personally about Jesus being real is irrelevant. Even if Jesus did exist historically, the question is not 'did he exist?', (despite my thread title), the question is 'do the historical documents indicate that he most likely existed?'

Further, I am asking whether or not Richard Carrier has made any major errors in his argument that the historical record does not support the past existence of Jesus. And if so, what are those errors.

Given the above, don't even bother responding to the thread if you aren't prepared to watch the youtube video first.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This came up in another thread and I thought it was worthy of its own thread. Googlefudge pointed us to Richard Carrier's work on the historicity of Jesus. This youtube video is by Richard Charier and basically gives his argument that Jesus probably didn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

Prior to watching it, I was of the opinion th ...[text shortened]... hat it is likely Jesus didn't exist.

Can anyone here find fault with Richard Carriers claims?

He seems to make a strong case. I would very much like to see an intelligent refutation, alas it seems unlikely anyone here is going to be able to manage that.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This isn't emotion. This is the spirituality forum on RHP and you've been contributing for long enough to understand the environment. You haven't provided a single argument. Even RJHinds has managed to produce a better argument than you have.

You've got to be kidding DT! Are you sure you're paying attention? Forget the argument, try employing reason.

Look at the OP again and then read twhitehead's post just above.

I understand the the environment well enough to know when I see an argument or not. This isn't an argument. This is irrationality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you are going to respond to posts, have the decency to read them. If you are going to say people 'got it all wrong' have the decency to what their videos instead of basing your response on the title.
Your responses show you don't know what is being asked and you are just responding out of dislike of the title.

Are you going to have the decency to post coherent and consistent statements? You've contradicted yourself already before the end of the second page. I'm not sure you even understand what it is you're trying to prove.

The reliability of the historical existence of people, places and things, who someone was, or what they said or did, is always going to be open to question because like everything man lays his hand to crumbles and turns to dust eventually. One can generate reams of documents and records and arguments for and against whatever and never be certain about anything. Especially when it concerns secular human history. The real truth is never told.

No so the Biblical record. The Bible is 100% reliable because its author isn't human. God's Word stands unrefuted. Stake your life on it!

Jesus lived and died and rose from the dead just exactly as is says in the Bible.

Your respons to that shows how much you dislike the truth.

Originally posted by josephw
Are you going to have the decency to post coherent and consistent statements? You've contradicted yourself already before the end of the second page. I'm not sure you even understand what it is you're trying to prove.

In what way have I contradicted myself?

What exactly are you not clear about? I am not 'trying to prove' anything, which might be where your confusion comes in. I am asking whether anyone has relevant comments on the video in the OP and whether or not anyone can find fault in Richard Carriers argument. Have you watched the video yet? If not, then that would at least in part explain why you are not understanding my questions.

The reliability of the historical existence of people, places and things, who someone was, or what they said or did, is always going to be open to question because like everything man lays his hand to crumbles and turns to dust eventually. One can generate reams of documents and records and arguments for and against whatever and never be certain about anything. Especially when it concerns secular human history. The real truth is never told.
I fully agree and have not stated otherwise.

No so the Biblical record. The Bible is 100% reliable because its author isn't human. God's Word stands unrefuted. Stake your life on it!
I will not be staking my life on it. But that is not the subject under discussion. I would be willing to discuss it if you start a thread on the topic, but I think you will have to be a bit more descriptive in what you are trying to say. Taken at face value your statements above are quite clearly false.

Jesus lived and died and rose from the dead just exactly as is says in the Bible. Your respons to that shows how much you dislike the truth.
Not so in the slightest. But since its my word against yours, there is really nothing more we can achieve by discussing that further. You will just continue to insist you have mind reading capabilities, and I will continue to insist that you have read my mind wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way have I contradicted myself?

What exactly are you not clear about? I am not 'trying to prove' anything, which might be where your confusion comes in. I am asking whether anyone has relevant comments on the video in the OP and whether or not anyone can find fault in Richard Carriers argument. Have you watched the video yet? If not, then that ...[text shortened]... have mind reading capabilities, and I will continue to insist that you have read my mind wrong.

"But since its my word against yours,.."

This is your gravest error twhitehead. It's your word against God's!

Originally posted by josephw
This is your gravest error twhitehead. It's your word against God's!

Now you think you are God? Or are you just incapable of understanding what I write?
I know the thread title upset you really badly, but please try and calm down and try to read a persons post before you respond.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There's quite good evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate. Being an important person in Rome at the time there are reliable records of his existence. His modern equivalent would be an ambassador or going back to the 19th Century, if he were British, a Governor General, so there are records of his existence. He managed to get on the wrong side of ...[text shortened]... Pilate
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

That is my point. We might claim millions of people never existed because there is less evidence, but some are only concerned with trying to prove Christ did not exist, even with all the evidence that he did. 😏

Originally posted by josephw

This is your gravest error twhitehead. It's your word against God's![/b]

Until God appears and says the same stuff as you it's your word against twhitehead's.