Did Jesus exist?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I've kind of said this before, but I think it's worth bringing together:

Let's say we agree that there are details included which embarrass the author. We conclude that this means the author really believed those details to be true.

Now, if the author was an eye witness, the logical inference would be that those details were probably true. However, it is not evident they are eye witnesses. So what they believe is just based on the stories they have heard. All we know is they are faithfully reproducing an aspect of the story, which they find is embarrassing. So what? This doesn't tell us whether the detail arose out of a real event, or was a detail added to the story via Chinese Whispers.

I throw it all out of court. The authors did not have access to the truth, they had access to hearsay.

The veracity of the stories is irrelevant.  The intent is to get people to believe and to obey without exception.  Asking questions is discouraged.  It's like telling kids about Santa Claus.  The intent is to get them to behave and to stop being a pain in the butt when the parent tells them to do something because if they obey they will get some fancy gifts at Christmas.  It gives them something to look forward to.  That's the way religious stories work.

[Jackalope]

Supernatural resurrected Jesus? No. The gospels are vlcompletely uncorroborated by any independent source in this regard.

Jesus as a mortal man? I really don't care, and this is not the Jesus that Christianity was founded upon, as far as I can tell.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The dead do not rise.

[robvalue]

People seem to love bringing up other historical figures.

If the evidence for them (which I haven't examined) is as weak as it is for Jesus, then I wouldn't put much confidence in them either. I would hope that the evidence is indeed better.

[GrandizerII]

I've kind of said this before, but I think it's worth bringing together:

Let's say we agree that there are details included which embarrass the author. We conclude that this means the author really believed those details to be true.

Now, if the author was an eye witness, we could conclude that those details were probably true (being generous). However, it is not evident they are eye witnesses. So what they believe is just based on the stories they have heard. All we know is they are faithfully reproducing an aspect of the story, which they find is embarrassing. So what? This doesn't tell us whether the detail arose out of a real event, or was a detail added to the story via Chinese Whispers. If more than one story ended up getting amalgamated over time, it wouldn't be surprising that some details don't sit very well with others.

I throw it all out of court. The authors did not have access to the truth, they had access to hearsay. Their embarrassment is irrelevant.

In fact, it is evident that the Gospel authors were NOT eyewitnesses to some of these embarrassing details, but now what happens?

Either:

Be completely agnostic and say "I don't know" (in which case you can't argue for the likelihood that Jesus did not exist because that would not be pure agnosticism). This is OK. You can be agnostic, and it would be reasonable thing to do.

Or (if you want to go for an explanatory position instead):

Dig deeper: Why do these embarrassing details exist? If Jesus was a pure myth, then what was the significance of the Messiah being from Nazareth? What was the significance of the Messiah being baptized by John the Baptist, being crucified, preaching the imminent end of the world. Why did he have to die at all rather than ascend straight away to the heavens? They liked tragic heroes? But if so, would death and failure suit the Messiah of God? What does the evidence we have say about Jewish beliefs regarding the Messiah? Figure how the puzzle pieces fit together in the best way you can see it. Compare and contrast both sides and figure out which one weighs more in terms of evidence quality and reasonability.

And that's just for the embarrassing/inconvient details criterion. You could use this approach for other aspects of the debate as well (such as Paul referring to James as Jesus' brother and what he really meant by that)

[ignoramus]

I believe that 99% of religious people believe in the myth only. (After all, there's not a lot they can learn about the historical Jesus).
Without the great kind honourable bigger than life magical Jesus, how can they possibly live forever in heaven.
I don't think they give 2 shits whether "Jesus" is based on a historical person or an amalgamation of several characters.

The power of perception has long overshadowed any actual truths which may have existed to the point of making them completely inconsequential.
A perfect testament to the saying: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Well done religion!  

[robvalue]

I'd much prefer "I don't know" or "the evidence is inconclusive" to a conclusion I was not even 25% confident in. I think it's misleading to say there was a HJ based on hypotheticals that aren't properly supported by evidence. Of course there were people that it definitely could have been based on, the problem is identifying a single one from the crowd.

Once the explanation is more like 60-75% likely based on evidence, then it's worth putting forward, in my estimation.

I'll stop wittering on about this. Clearly some people are impressed by the evidence, and some are not. It doesn't really matter, at the end of the day. It would only actually matter to is Christians, and they don't give two hoots about evidence anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

So... We can just say that there is no evidence for the existence of anyone, with perhaps a handful of names, who lived more than a 1,000 years ago - because no one can meet Rhythm's standard

No one?  We're talking about jesus, and whats been presented to me in this thread.  Aren;t we?

- and conclude therefore that maybe 100 people walked the earth (the ancient world according to mythicist logic).

Batshit crazy, no worse than the inferences in thread so far, and not even related to the mythicist position.

Or we can use our best inferences by looking for details that might give us historical information in texts that aren't entirely free of error or mythology - like all historians do - to formulate a realistic and coherent picture of the past.

Is your best inference -also- the criterion of embarrassment?  Your best in that case, is still invalid.  I'm fine with taking historical information from these texts, someone needs to tell me which ones and why, though.  The historical jesus bit has so far been one part fallacious argument and nine parts amateur insults.

That's not history, not even by a lower standard than my own.

[Minimalist]

I'd much prefer "I don't know" or "the evidence is inconclusive" to a conclusion I was not even 25% confident in. I think it's misleading to say there was a HJ based on hypotheticals that aren't properly supported by evidence. Of course there were people that it definitely could have been based on, the problem is identifying a single one from the crowd.

Once the explanation is more like 60-75% likely based on evidence, then it's worth putting forward, in my estimation.

I'll stop wittering on about this. Clearly some people are impressed by the evidence, and some are not. It doesn't really matter, at the end of the day. It would only actually matter to is Christians, and they don't give two hoots about evidence anyway.

Ultimately, Rob, you have to grab jesus freaks by the lapels and ask them if they think there was a "historical" Osiris, or Odin, or Marduk, or Shiva, or whatever fucking god you want to name.  That's where the special pleading is most obvious.  They really do think that their boy was "different."  They can't deal with the fact that if every other religion was a simple invention of the human imagination that their own might be the same.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So this guy Jesus spent forty days and forty nights in the desert without any food maybe no water and the devil flew him around the city and the countryside tempting him with fame and fortune. Sounds real.