How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Post Reply New Topic

The textbook you mentioned is on naturalism and has almost nothing to do with the historical Jesus. Ehrman is a naturalist but the question is a historical one. This is where you lose credibility AG, you are attempting to build the credibility of someone who the academic world does not consider relevant. Kurt Wise is a Harvard PhD; who writes books and has a similar publishing record but he is not credible when he talks about young earth creationism which is basically special pleading on your part. Most scholars put people like Carrier in the same boat; Crossen actually compares him to a holocaust denier.

Ehrman puts up zero credible evidence/material to back up his position. Simply arguing the point. He admits that there is zero material from the time, and yet says there is a lot of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, and again fails to point us in the right direction.

Like I said, there is no primary source that irrefutably shows that Jesus existed. All material that does so is written some time after his death, including the Gospels, and none of this can be used as evidence in a historical perspective.

Biblical scholars can point to the Bible and Gospels, but thats not appropriate historical investigation.

Therefore the opposite is true, it is appropriate to question the existence of Jesus Historically

How strong is the evidence that Jesus existed?

The evidence is much weaker than that of Pontius Pilate. The evidence of an actual Pontius Pilate is of only two timely fragments, the timely evidence of an actual Jesus, ZERO.

Tadzio

He mostly does not need to, the claim that Jesus does not exist is actually the one that needs to be substantiated since it is the one that sits well outside the academic mainstream. The case is so often made and easily found the Ehrman feels no threat from the person he is talking to. If however you want a quick popular intro to the evidence then check out Glen Peoples here:

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... ed-part-1/
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... ed-part-2/
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... ed-part-3/

So is the evidence that Jesus existed as good as the evidence that the Holocaust happened?

Actually, you have NO IDEA which book I am talking about. I am talking about an Early Christianity class at the University of Buffalo, not a philosophy class. One of his book is being used as a textbook for that class.

I didn't "try to build credibility". I simply pushed away outright dismissal. Additionally, my source actually spoke with respect towards Richard Carrier. James McGrath is an academic. He is not a fan of mythicism and has repeatedly written against it. He thinks Richard Carrier is a person with an actual academic project.

Even further, as I've already stated "if Biblical Studies is not a hard science like geology is, then it is difficult to put someone as entirely without credibility as easily as with the hard sciences". As such, the comparison is rather difficult between the two. I've already admitted that I regard mythicism as a fringe view. Talking about how I am "engaging in special pleading" when I am simply not condemning mythicism as much as young earth creationism is questionable. Most formulations of mythicism are dead, but as a historical matter our level of evidence is less than geology, less than the Holocaust, less than a large number of other historical events. I'll agree with you that mythicist stories are significantly less plausible, even if myth generation is part of the New Testament, but I simply do not think the evidence is strong enough to regard this as outside the realm of possibility. Certainly I regard mythicism as more plausible than Christianity.

No. Just that there is evidence he existed and trying to explain that away usually commits one to horrible absurdities. The reason for this is because one has to explain away the belief of Jesus as a historical person, and the context of believers who appear to believe in a historical Jesus. Obviously, a lack of living witnesses means that the case is weaker. Obviously, a rather small number of texts to rely upon, and some concerns of forgery and corruption of texts weakens the case as well. However, it is correct that mythicism is considered grandly implausible by most Biblical scholars/historians. The issue is that at the same time, it is also likely true that the quest for the Historical Jesus is also a crapshoot, because the evidence is so weak. We're trying to mine a few texts, most of which are written with agendas, for clues on a living person. In fact, you can somewhat see this crapshoot given how many scholars read various bizarre positions into Jesus, whether it is an existentialist Jesus or whatever else have you.

I am with Robert M. Price on this. There is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus ever existed and all attempts by apologists to resurrect him (especially through torturing the Bible) are absurd and crankish.

Well, the problem is the following:
Holding that a man named "Jesus" existed as some false prophet 2000 years ago doesn't carry a very large burden of proof. The Gospels saying that such a man existed does meet this burden of proof. Unless we have some argument that the writings on Jesus really never intended to refer to a historical person, or that the patterns governing what they wrote and how the people wrote them suggests they were all talking about a myth instead of a real person, we do have to side with a real person existing.

can any text that has been pummeled with agendas and bad judgement through 2000 ears really be seen as reliable?

For establishing that a particular person existed? Possibly.
For establishing the one true faith and a slew of miracles? Probably not.

He who claims the existence of X bears the burden of showing that X exists or existed.

This Y'shuah of whom the Christians speak was one of hundreds of Y'shuahs. The claim of resurrection is absurd prima facia. Truly dead flesh and blood humans are dead period. After a short time their brains are sufficiently rotted out to make sustaining of life impossible.

ruveyn

The claim is that the Jesus of whom the Christians speak merely existed. Not that he resurrected, and Ehrman doesn't support the resurrection.

I think there is more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than for a man called Jesus.

Jesus = the Sun. The sun dies for 3 days at the winter solstice (22nd, 23rd, 24th Dec) then is ressurected (rises further north) on 25th Dec. At the winter solstice the Sun resides in the constellation called "the Southern Cross". The 3 stars of Orions belt (or the 3 Kings) align with the bright star Sirius (the star in the East) and point to the sunrise position on the 25th Dec.

The story of Jesus is entirely astrological.

Your number one theorist had never had an academic posting in his life.