Do you think jesus christ existed

[TudorGothicSerpent]

I've never seen any convincing argument that Jesus didn't exist as a human being. Given the fact that a community sprang up around belief in his existence and his status as the Jewish messiah, and given that we have written records from a person who knew those who had traveled with him during his lifetime (Paul of Tarsus), I think that the claim that he didn't exist at all is a pretty extraordinary one that would need to have strong evidence to make it seem likely.

What we don't know is very much about Jesus' actual life or what he taught. He was probably an apocalyptic preacher (those were a dime a dozen at the time), there's strong evidence that he had an association of some sort with John the Baptist, there's a good chance that the beatitudes reflect his social teaching. He was almost certainly executed by crucifixion the Romans, since that tradition is as old as the earliest Christian writings, but it's more likely that he was killed for potentially spreading insurrectionist ideas than for "blasphemy". The province of Judea was seen as a hotbed of revolutionary activity by the Romans (mostly because it actually was), and so anyone who gathered that many followers to himself and who some people believed to be the Messiah would have gotten the wrong kind of attention from Roman authorities pretty quickly. He pretty much definitely didn't claim to be God, and there's a good chance that he never even personally claimed to be the Messiah, given that he is frequently presented as being secretive and usually indirect about it in the gospels. The likelihood that he predicted his own death several times is very low, and there's a good chance that he was not buried in a tomb at all, since crucifixion victims seldom were. His body was more likely thrown out and consumed by scavengers, a testament to Roman brutality toward potential revolutionaries in conquered societies, and his disciples probably suffered hallucinations that went on to form the core of the more elaborate resurrection appearances described by the Gospels.

I don't doubt that Jesus existed, but his real story is probably the tragic story of an itinerant preacher who was killed by an over-zealous and powerful occupying force, rather than of a Messianic figure.

[-z-]

The basic facts accepted by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars/theologians/historians that I can think of off the top of my head are:

Since when is "that I can think of off the top of my head" a viable source for anything except one's own dandruff or hair loss?

Aractus, I keep running into claims that an "overwhelming majority" of Biblical historians accept certain details about a historical Jesus, with no citation to support such claims. I understand that you no longer question certain details, but help me out. I'm curious to know if there is consensus amongst current historical scholars -- both Christian and non-Christian.

[là bạn điên]

I've never seen any convincing argument that Jesus didn't exist as a human being.

Onus isn't on us. I am unconvinced eitherway. It is really up to you to prove he existed

Given the fact that a community sprang up around belief in his existence and his status as the Jewish messiah,

Given the facts that the overwhelming vast majority of jews did NOT consider him a messiah, that's pretty irrelevant

and given that we have written records from a person who knew those who had traveled with him during his lifetime (Paul of Tarsus), I think that the claim that he didn't exist at all is a pretty extraordinary one that would need to have strong evidence to make it seem likely.

We have no evidence as to who Paul of Tarsus is either. There is a reasonable doubt to whether he really existed.

---

Since when is "that I can think of off the top of my head" a viable source for anything except one's own dandruff or hair loss?

Who said it was a viable source? I just said I could think of about 40 people for whom there is ample proof ie beyond reasonable doubt. I provided no proof.

[-z-]

Since when is "that I can think of off the top of my head" a viable source for anything except one's own dandruff or hair loss?

Who said it was a viable source? I just said I could think of about 40 people for whom there is ample proof ie beyond reasonable doubt. I provided no proof.

LBD, I was quoting Aractus with the top of the head comment, since he used it in his argument without backing it up. You, however, backed it up with a list of names. Well done.

[Bob Kelso]

No. I'm on board with the theory that Jesus was simply a conceptual device to make God more accessible and an evangelical guilt tool for easy conversions.

Perhaps there was a man from Nazereth with delusions of grandeur by the name of Jesus/Yeshua of some renown who gave his creators a baseline to work with. I find this unlikely though, for the lack of writings about him outside the gospels contemporary to his own supposed lifetime point to him never existing in the first place.

The character Jesus has some literary value, in my opinion, for some of his "teachings" of love and compassion.

At the end of my day it doesn't really matter, for if he did exist he was simply a dime a dozen loon with no magical divine powers whatsoever.

[The_Thinking_Theist]

I say yeah, the majority of historians and scientists say he did, and the Bible itself is a pretty reliable historical document (save for the miracle bits). I would even go as far as to say Jesus was crucified.

[Simon Moon]

The 'Christ' claim about him is not true.

So long as the 'Christ' claim has anything to do with the God claim it is an incoherent idea until someone nails down precisely what a god is.

That's what I was referring to.

The 'Christ' claim for the Jesus character includes all the supernatural events and deeds attributed to him, including the 'son of god' idiocy.

A historical Jesus lends absolutely zero evidence for any of these supernatural claims about him.

There are many historians that believe there was an actual person that King Arthur was based on. But I'm sure no one here, including all the Christians, would say that provides any evidence that he pulled a magic sword out of a rock or hung out with a wizard.

[houseofcantor]

I say yeah, the majority of historians and scientists say he did, and the Bible itself is a pretty reliable historical document (save for the miracle bits). I would even go as far as to say Jesus was crucified.

Science? Lemme check my recent PDFs...

Introduction to Tensor Calculus for General Relativity... that'll be no, not really.

[TudorGothicSerpent]

I've never seen any convincing argument that Jesus didn't exist as a human being.

Onus isn't on us. I am unconvinced eitherway. It is really up to you to prove he existed

Given the facts that the overwhelming vast majority of jews did NOT consider him a messiah, that's pretty irrelevant

The existence of an early Christian community within a few decades of the time when Jesus would have died isn't irrelevant to the question of whether he existed. It is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was the Jewish Messiah, but I'm not trying to argue that he was. I don't believe that there has ever been or will ever be a Messiah, because I believe that the entire concept was just a bit of hopeful mythology invented by a small civilization that kept getting kicked around by the larger middle eastern empires like the runt of a litter of puppies.

Given that the early Christian community starts to appear on the historical stage at a time when people who knew Jesus during his life would have still been alive (with the earliest extant Christian writings appearing in the middle of the first century, and with the Neronic persecution likely occurring at around the same time), the assumption that he actually existed is the easiest one by far. Most figures of very dubious historicity, like Orpheus, Arjuna, or Moses, don't appear to have had any following until centuries after they allegedly lived.

We have no evidence as to who Paul of Tarsus is either. There is a reasonable doubt to whether he really existed.

As with Jesus, the easiest interpretation (and the one accepted by the majority of scholars) is that Paul actually existed and wrote around seven of the epistles generally attributed to him. The documents are consistent enough to have been written by one person who claimed, in all of them, to be Paul of Tarsus. They lack any of the theological debate and argument that already existed as early as the beginning of the second century, dealing instead with issues that apparently had already died down by that time instead (Christianity when they were written was still apparently one of the developing versions of Judaism, rather than a unique religion), and in fact, they're even less theologically sophisticated than the earliest gospel. With the earliest writings, including Mark and the Pauline epistles, there's no mention even of a virgin birth. The idea of the kind of intricate theology that would develop by the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd century, as presented in the Gospel of John, would have been entirely alien to the author.

They likely debate to the time when Paul would have still been alive, and they all bear his name. So, the easiest interpretation is that they were from him. Any alternative argument requires both evidence, and a reason why it's more likely.

[Aractus]

1. there's no serious historian who doubts that Jesus was an historical figure

Richard Carrier.

That carries about as much weight as saying "David Irving". As I said, extremist views require extreme evidence.

Ordinary claims, cross-referencing, textual evidence... and the textual evidence provided by Paul is that Jesus did not exist and was a conceptual device.

It's sad that you are repeating extremist views - that have no evidence - and as I already mentioned that you need evidence for said views, I see you are not producing any. All you're producing are wild theories. There is (perceptively speaking of course) and unlimited number of theories that are possible, but it's impossible for every one of them to be right.

Not what I heard.

Well, I'm telling you that there is. We have at least 8 different New Testament authors ("Mark", "Matthew", Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul, Jude). Then you have Josephus, then you have Gnostic texts, and then you have early church records that go right back to the beliefs held in the first century, and recorded as early as the first part of the second century.

1 Corinthians as mentioned by Ehrman is universally accepted by modern scholars to have been written by Paul. It contains an early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15 that predates Paul's writings, and goes all the way back to when Paul was first converted to Christianity.

• For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

If you doubt that this message was preached to Paul, then you may as well doubt absolutely everything. Where does it stop?

Again, in Romans 3:

• For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Romans 6:

• Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Galatians:

• I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

This is repeated in 2 Corinthians 11.

Romans:

• Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

1 Corinthians:

• I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarrelling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

There's yet another disinterested comment for you in there:

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name."

There's a few problems here. What we consider history and historical is not what the ancients considered. Our modern concept of history is just that - modern - and before the 1800s most would just take claims at face value.

This isn't true. Historians today largely still take most things at face value; however (and here's the interesting part), even when this is the case there is usually room for argument and discussion, and it's difficult to find facts that are completely universally accepted, but it's easy to find facts that are consensus or "largely" accepted among historians.

Herodotus visited the Egyptian pyramids c. 450 BC and he was told that they had been constructed by slaves, and he wrote this down. For the next 2400 years historians believed this "largely" as consensus, but there was always those who doubted and had other theories, and it was never a "universally accepted fact" held by an overwhelming majority. But that said, if you can’t take the word of Herodotus – a serious historian – then who’s word can you take? He wrote down what he believed to be true, no one thinks he invented his story even though he had been mistaken.