How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Post Reply New Topic

True, but I'm not saying you should. My point is that you agree with Bart Ehrman that Jesus existed but for different reasons.

Ehrman, more often than not, goes with what the evidence tells him through the relevant ancient texts. Christians and mythicists tend go with what their presuppositions tell them about the evidence.

It's a big difference.

No its just a big generalization.

A good deal of my study on the subject was from reading NT Wright who uses a pretty standard historical method. My criticism of Ehrman begins when he starts using some of the more radical concepts of validation that exist within the Jesus Seminar; standards that have drawn criticism from mainstream historians of the period.

Again, you see what you want to selectively see. I'm not here to deny what you perceive. I'm here to request evidence for some of the very important claims you've been making that deserve some actual evidence for us to take seriously due to the significance of these claims.

If you want to believe those claims you make without evidence, fine. But don't then just act like they're facts when they're just based on your own selective observations.



Whether Jesus existed or not is of historical significance to many of us, amateurs and experts. It's for academic purposes but more than that, it's also for the purpose of being as accurate as one can get with the evidence we have current access to.

Why deny Jesus' historical existence if the evidence suggests he may have existed?

Unless one has an agenda or some set of beliefs/presuppositions that prohibit him from accepting the historical likelihood of Jesus' existence, then there's no good reason to believe he didn't exist and there's no reason to just say "so what if he existed?". If he existed, then we ought to find out if this is true. Otherwise, why care about the existence of any historical figure?



To be more accurate, your position is based on what you perceive from observing the sun, and probably with the Acharyan influence dominating your perception.

But it doesn't mean that ancient people shared the same perception of the sun that you have, which makes you believe Jesus was some sun god copied from prior myths with their own versions of sun gods.

Actually, Jesus wasn't a nobody to his disciples. He wasn't a nobody to Paul. He was a nobody to the rest of the world, even possibly to Jewish/Roman authorities who just saw him as one of many criminals and inciters of riots at the time, but he wasn't so insignificant that he got lost in time after death. No, he lived on through the oral traditions and writings of his disciples. And his sayings and deeds and what happened to him had a big influence on the beliefs of those who interacted with him at one point in life. This is exactly why arguing that Jesus was insignificant historically anyway is a bad argument.



The books of the Bible predate Constantine by around a couple of centuries. You're once again being misled by frauds who think they know better than the real experts.

The flood story in the Bible was copied/adapted from prior myth, yes.

The Jesus story, NO.

The James brother of Jesus argument is just one of many arguments for the historical existence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, admittedly, wasn't at his best in this interview, but given the surprise element from the interviewer, I'm not surprised why Bart Ehrman stuffed up. He didn't expect a debate. He expected an interview.

Still, historical Jesus makes more sense than mythicist Jesus that doesn't have any evidence (at the time of Jesus and decades after) supporting such a position.

NT Wright is a Christian as far as I know. Does he use standard historical methods to determine that Jesus was likely born in Bethlehem. Or does he just rely on faith for this one and for certain other topics related to Jesus and the Bible events?

I'm pretty certain that there was more than enough historical evidence for Muhammad's existence.
And the very existence of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with followers who would easily die - or unfortunately take the lives of others - is more than enough proof of the existence of all three men.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am not sure of his conclusion on that topic one way or anther. He focuses more on the general reliability of the Gospel accounts and the Resurrection.

I am not sure what evidence you are asking for but here goes:

(regarding solstice and the possibility of observing it as a single day)
Direct observation of the solstice by amateurs is difficult because the sun moves too slowly at either solstice to determine its specific day, let alone its instant. Knowledge of when the event occurs has only recently been facilitated to near its instant according to precise astronomical data tracking. It is not possible to detect the actual instant of the solstice (by definition, one can not observe that an object has stopped moving until one makes a second observation in time showing that it has not moved further from the preceding spot, or that it has moved in the opposite direction). Further, to be precise to a single day one must be able to observe a change in azimuth or elevation less than or equal to about 1/60 of the angular diameter of the sun. Observing that it occurred within a two day period is easier, requiring an observation precision of only about 1/16 of the angular diameter of the sun. Thus, many observations are of the day of the solstice rather than the instant. This is often done by watching the sunrise and sunset or vice versa or using an astronomically aligned instrument that allows a ray of light to cast on a certain point around that time.

(regarding the history of christmas day)
Sol Invictus ("the undefeated Sun") or, more fully, Deus Sol Invictus ("the undefeated sun god") was a religious title that allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian; and Mithras, a soldiers' god of Persian origin.[30] Emperor Elagabalus (218–222) introduced the festival of the birth of the Unconquered Sun (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) to be celebrated on December 25, and it reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian, who promoted it as an empire-wide holiday.[31] With the growing popularity of the Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth came to be given much of the recognition previously given to a sun god, thereby including Christ in the tradition.[32] This was later condemned by the early Catholic Church for associating Christ with pagan practices.

I take the reasoning route to the truth value of the story of jesus and estimate there are 3 possibilities:

1 - The story is true
2 - The story is made up from thin air and based on nothing but the writers imagination
3 - It is a retelling of an older story

1 is obviously out of the question. 2 is more credible but it would be hard to believe such an elaborate story could have just been made up from nothing. 3 - has the most credibility as stories are always retold from one generation to another and the solstice has been celebrated across the world for millenia and always involves some kind of sun god being reborn

If you can think of any other options then let me know.

We are not talking about the books from the bible which prove nothing either way. We are talking about the origins of christmas and the possibility it is linked to previous sun god celebrations at the solstice. In particular why do christians celebrate the 25th as jesus's birth.

Most likely, the early church had chosen to celebrate Jesus' birthday on December 25th, in order to draw pagan converts to whom the date had significance. I suspect that by that time, no one really remembered what date he had been born on, anyway. What was important was, new converts were doubtlessly brought to the faith by this means. But nowhere does it say in the Bible that Jesus had been born on that particular date.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You only need to look at Scientology to see how a little creative writing quickly gets out of hand.

So you have evidence? (For yes to the flood but no to the jesus story)

I know, but why do christians go potty on december 25th? why midnight mass? why do they talk of the ascension? who are the 3 kings? what was the bright star to the east? and why are they said to be following the location of the saviours birthplace?

I am trying to show MCalavera of the similarities between the jesus story and the solstice celestial observations but he is demanding evidence. Apart from telling him to come to Europe one midwinter and observe the skies, or buy some star chart software that will show him, I don't know what else to give him.