Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[shunyadragon]

Jesus Christ actually existed (and still exists!), as there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

The challenge of "no credible evidence to the contrary" is not credible.

By far most academic scholars, including Bart. support the existence Joshua (Jesus) existed and certain aspects of his life are reasonably documented, but beyond that the Biblical Jesus is a matter of "faith" believing in one of the accuracy of the gospels without provenance.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The facts usually get interpreted along religious lines. IMO it comes down to finding a consistent interpretation for what you know to be true.

No doubt that's true, but it nevertheless remains the case that a fact cannot be controverted on purely theological grounds. A fact can only be controverted on factual grounds.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I gave your post a "Winner" frubal simply because it was such a fabulous and unvarnished description of rank confirmation bias. Once again, good job!

Is this all that you do here? Or do you ever provide substantive contributions to topics? Its a wonder you haven't been banned, given your absolutely garbage-fire posting quality. No offense, or anything...

 

[Brian2]

I think we all know about the controversial writings of The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus and The Annals of Tacitus for example. Some say the parts about Jesus in their writings were forgeries and others think they were authentic. But these men were not even born at the time of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus that happened in 30-33AD. They were born after his death.

The only reason I might believe that Jesus existed 'possibly' is through the Pilate stone finding by archaeologists in 1961 which was dated between AD 26-37. And this is the correct time frame for the events described in the Gospels. But this is not evidence for Jesus but for Pontius Pilate.

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum...Pontius Pilate...prefect of Judea...has dedicated [this]...


Confirming this biblical figure's existence was crucial insofar that he played an important role in the execution of Jesus. This makes me think it's more plausible now that Pontius Pilate probably knew of a man named Jesus at the time and maybe even had a man named Jesus executed. But this is me just imagining such a scenario now. I can't ask Pilate what really happened then because he's been dead for about 2,000 years.

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

You might have swallowed the skeptic idea that those who wrote the gospels did not have direct experience of Jesus, basically that the gospels were made up, wholly or in part, but part of the evidence for Jesus is the writings of Paul not long after Jesus was crucified. He would have known from his own experience and/or from his Jewish friends, whether Jesus existed or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is this all that you do here?

Pretty much ...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Pretty much ...

Well, at least you're honest: good to know I can feel free to disregard moving forward, that you don't typically have any points to make nor any desire to contribute substantively to a given conversation. Allows me to spend my time/energy in more productive ways.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The challenge of "no credible evidence to the contrary" is not credible.

By far most academic scholars, including Bart. support the existence Joshua (Jesus) existed and certain aspects of his life are reasonably documented, but beyond that the Biblical Jesus is a matter of "faith" believing in one of the accuracy of the gospels without provenance.

In general people are very confused about what constitutes evidence. I think part of the problem is that popular usage has conflated "evidence" with "proof". But it doesn't take all that much to constitute evidence, at least weak evidence. There is weak evidence for all sorts of propositions, including propositions that are true. SO there is almost always some evidence to the contrary (regardless of the proposition in question). The question is, as always, the strength of that evidence, weighed against the evidence for the converse.

And when it comes to the historical Jesus, the evidence against a historical Jesus is absolutely steamrolled by the overwhelming body of evidence for the historical Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, at least you're honest: good to know I can feel free to disregard moving forward, that you don't typically have any points to make nor any desire to contribute substantively to a given conversation. Allows me to spend my time/energy in more productive ways.

And you won't feel the need to drop names like Penrose, although, to be perfectly honest, I was rather impressed. I tried reading The Nature of Space and Time many years ago and never managed to get through it.

 

[Ebionite]

No doubt that's true, but it nevertheless remains the case that a fact cannot be controverted on purely theological grounds. A fact can only be controverted on factual grounds.

Facts can be converted to implications by the application of reason. Theology is the application of reason to the domain of man's interaction with the divine.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And you won't feel the need to drop names like Penrose, although, to be perfectly honest, I was rather impressed. I tried reading The Nature of Space and Time many years ago and never managed to get through it.

I read The Emperor's New Mind some years back...then read it a few years later...

I still don't get getting to Platonism in any form...

And I'm still not sure I understand why quantum micro-tubules are where consciousness occurs...

 

[PearlSeeker]

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

Hystorical info extracted/reconstructed from legends.

 

[Jainarayan]

Paul never literally met him either as far as I remember.

He didn't. It was only in a vision/hallucination. I believe that is what Paul used to justify usurping the primacy of Peter and spreading his version of Christianity; actually Paulism, which is what it remains today.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

He's a top-notch scholar and public communicator. How Jesus Became God was particularly good. His book on the historical Jesus is also useful if you enjoy destroying mythicists.

This has no contexf. No one has a clue what this even refers too.

So given the above...ll respond by adding the context so people know what this is about...

I am not saying Bart Erhman doesn't matter...thats a ridiculous inference. I was saying, you can start with any of his books as he is an atheist who has spent practically his entire academic career supporting/writing about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

The caveat for Christians is that Bart doesn't believe Christ was divine or rose from the dead.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And you won't feel the need to drop names like Penrose, although, to be perfectly honest, I was rather impressed. I tried reading The Nature of Space and Time many years ago and never managed to get through it.

I will properly reference ideas, including those of Penrose. His latest work in cosmology is very exciting, I'm fairly comfortable betting that this won't be the last time I talk about it om these boards.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Facts can be converted to implications by the application of reason. Theology is the application of reason to the domain of man's interaction with the divine.

I'm not sure that they can. Not without other facts. Reason itself, with no factual inputs, is fairly inert, we cannot reason out how the world is we have it look at it and see

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This has no contexf. No one has a clue what this even refers too.

So given the above...ll respond by adding the context so people know what this is about...

I am not saying Bart Erhman doesn't matter...thats a ridiculous inference. I was saying, you can start with any of his books as he is an atheist who has spent practically his entire academic career supporting/writing about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

The caveat for Christians is that Bart doesn't believe Christ was divine or rose from the dead.

i'm guessing the context was the context you took it from- someone mentioning reading Ehrman

 

[Ebionite]

I'm not sure that they can. Not without other facts. Reason itself, with no factual inputs, is fairly inert, we cannot reason out how the world is we have it look at it and see

Yes, you have to have some facts to work with before you can start making inferences.

 

[Trailblazer]

He didn't. It was only in a vision/hallucination. I believe that is what Paul used to justify usurping the primacy of Peter and spreading his version of Christianity; actually Paulism, which is what it remains today.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

 

[Heyo]

I am not saying Bart Erhman doesn't matter...thats a ridiculous inference. I was saying, you can start with any of his books as he is an atheist who has spent practically his entire academic career supporting/writing about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

The caveat for Christians is that Bart doesn't believe Christ was divine or rose from the dead.

I have an other problem with Ehrman, he is a biblical scholar, not a historian. Richard Carrier is. So, when it comes to the historical Jesus, Carrier has a head start by his professional authority. That doesn't mean that he is automatically right, just that his epistemology is probably different and more applicable to the question, and one should listen to his arguments - which have to stand for themselves in the end.
Personally, I stand right between the two, not historical, not mystical, but legendary.

 

[Ebionite]

I have an other problem with Ehrman, he is a biblical scholar, not a historian. Richard Carrier is. So, when it comes to the historical Jesus, Carrier has a head start by his professional authority. That doesn't mean that he is automatically right, just that his epistemology is probably different and more applicable to the question, and one should listen to his arguments - which have to stand for themselves in the end.
Personally, I stand right between the two, not historical, not mystical, but legendary.

Doing something as a profession doesn't imply that authority exists in relation to that discipline. An interpretation of the historical facts about the life and teachings of Yeshua should consider the religious context, especially context relating to validation of accounts of the manifestation of some kind of divine being.
A neutral point of view about the existence or nature of divine beings is pretty much essential if you want to avoid confirmation bias when looking at this.