Did Jesus exist?

[GrandizerII]

Personally, I think there is no way to be at all certain or even confident that it's exactly one person under the myth, no way at all. Especially given the length of time between the events and the recording of the events by people who didn't even experience it themselves. They could even have intended to write about a single figure, and yet have actually written about a legion, due to the nature of oral stories. They couldn't even know, I'm buggered if we can.

Yep, very true. And this isn't just a problem with Jesus. This is a problem with pretty much most historical figures in antiquity. But this is exactly why Ockham's Razor is useful as it gives us the most reasonable answer given what we have (reasonable is not the same as accurate, btw). Not being certain of something does not mean you can't think in terms of probabilities.

[robvalue]

Yes, probabilities is all we can have with history, I agree.

If they wrote the shit down quickly and actually saw at least some of it, I'd err on the side of it being one person. Given they didn't, couldn't even agree, copied off each other, wrote contradictory stories and did so ages after without any first hand sources, the probability of it being a single pure person drops to about 10% in my estimation. That's just my opinion, of course. It could still be mainly one person, with a few details added in, though.

[Minimalist]

Right, because it is a well known fact that people are simply incapable of making shit up.

The Gospels are filled with legendary, embellished material.  Even William Lane Craig acknowledges this fact with respect to Matthew 27, going so far as to say that Matthew was not writing literal history.  Of course, Craig is a fool; very little historical information can be gleaned from the Gospels, but they all, clearly, point to an epileptic revolutionary with delusions of grandeur, Jesus of Nazareth.

And does the Iliad point to a pissed-off archer named Apollo?

So he prayed, and Phoebus Apollo heard him. Down he came, in fury, from the heights of Olympus, with his bow and inlaid quiver at his back. The arrows rattled at his shoulder as the god descended like the night, in anger. He set down by the ships, and fired a shaft, with a fearful twang of his silver bow. First he attacked the mules, and the swift hounds, then loosed his vicious darts at the men; so the dense pyres for the dead burned endlessly.

For nine days the god’s arrows fell on the army, and on the tenth Achilles, his heart stirred by the goddess, white-armed Hera, called them to the Place of Assembly, she pitying the Danaans, whose deaths she witnessed.

You've got to watch the special pleading Jehanne.  It is not "different" because you think it is about your godboy.

[Lemonvariable72]

Jesus definitely existed. I know that a lot of people try to dismiss his existence entirely because the accounts we base his existence on are second-hand and/or written many years after he died, but people have to understand that by classical historical standards that's pretty good evidence.

But like others said, no, the miracle man definitely did not exist.

In the silver age of Latin literature? Yeah I call bulkshit on that. It in fact with romans historians use especially high standards because of Roman propaganda. You know have Pilate's personal correspondance? We always have the writings of 6 contemporary historians from that geological area. The only solid historical evidence we do have is a offhanded remark from Paul in one of his letters.

[Minimalist]

Yet the only evidence they seem to have is the self-serving garbage called, collectively, the gospels.

It's just bizarre to me. You believe in global warming, don't you? Sure, there are a select few scientists that don't think man-made global warming is a thing. But there's a scientific consensus on it existing. It's the exact same situation here. There is a consensus among historians that Jesus existed. So why are you only listening to the select few historians who disagree? I mean, purely from a logical standpoint, there must have been an historical Jesus for 1) the Jews to doubt the divinity of and 2) for an entire goddamn religion to form. How could a religion form over absolutely nothing? Every religion in history has had its driving force. But anyway..

Aside from the gospels, you have Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus (and Lucian, who never seems to get mentioned in these debates.) Here's a comment from an historian on the matter. I think he says it pretty well:

The evidence for the existence of Jesus isn't particularly flimsy: we have four biographies written within around 50 years of his death, two by ostensible eyewitnesses, we have letters written by a member of a religious group he founded written 15-20 years after his death, we have mentions in Josephus around 60 years later, and the existence of the religious group itself which claims to have been founded by him. I'm not certain there's a historical figure whom we have more or equal documentation for whose existence is ever questioned. I've certainly never encountered one, and I study folks whose lives are far less examined and documented than Jesus.

If that's an example of what you think is a "historian" - my guess is that he is just some theologian who desperately wants his bullshit to be true - then I see the problem.

1.  We do not have 4 biographies of fucking jesus.  We have one - written by someone euphemistically known as "mark" and three fan fics which are add-ons to the original.
2.  None of them claim to have been written by "eye-witnesses."
3.  You are far too willing to accept this "paul" bullshit.  "Paul" among other things, never heard of Pilate, Mary, Joseph, Nazareth, no parables, no miracles....not much more than an assertion which "paul" ( or whoever) attributes to "revelation."
4.  The Testimoniam Flavianum is a forgery.  If it weren't then Origen, writing 75 years before Eusebius pulled it out of his ass, would be the dumbest bastard who ever lived as it would have provided evidence to back his claims.  But nary a word.
5.  So, the fact that a religious group exists is "evidence?"  Do you accept Osiris, Odin, Zeus and Quetzlcoatl on that basis or is this special pleading reserved just for your particular god?

Put the fucking bible down and start learning what scholars have been doing for the last 2 centuries or so.  Coincidentally, right around the time that the churchies lost the power to murder people who questioned their horseshit.

[Cephus]

I honestly do have a gardener named Jesus, which always makes me laugh when someone says that.

I'm not kidding. Last name is Contreras (I think). I do note that he will not work on Sundays.

I don't doubt you at all.  My guy is named Gomez.  He comes on Mondays. Maybe he uses his Sundays to rise from the dead.

[Cephus]

Jesus definitely existed. I know that a lot of people try to dismiss his existence entirely because the accounts we base his existence on are second-hand and/or written many years after he died, but people have to understand that by classical historical standards that's pretty good evidence.

But like others said, no, the miracle man definitely did not exist.

How do you know he existed?  And is someone who is nothing like the Biblical account really "Jesus" in any meaningful way?

[Aegon]

(Directed at Min)

If you read my latest post, your 5th point means Plato didn't exist. Please respond to that post. Besides, Jesus was a physical person. Zeus not so much. Also you must see the irony in telling me to "start learning what scholars have been doing for the last two centuries," because all those scholars disagree with you. On top of all that, stop referring to the Christian God as "your god." I'm an atheist.

The problem here is you thinking any historian who agrees that Jesus existed is a Christian trying to prove their religion. That's not true at all. There are plenty of agnostic and atheist historians who believe Jesus existed. But you do see the irony in you dismissing the MAJORITY OF THE HISTORIAN COMMUNITY as theologians with agendas, when the only guy you seem willing to listen to, Carrier, clearly has an agenda himself? You're so wrapped up in trying to discredit Christianity as much as possible that you're just seeing things that will help prove that point. Anyone who says Jesus possibly existed? Fucking stupid Christians. But that's not true at all. You're debating with an atheist here, and there are plenty of atheist historians who'd disagree with you.

There are things that must be understood by everyone arguing with me before going forward. Please read this for No God's sake.

1. History is not a hard science. We very rarely have concrete evidence of anyone from ancient times existing. Josephus, Tacticus, etc. are good evidence by historical standards. Being written decades later does not discredit them. This is THE NORM with ancient history! You want to dismiss his existence because there are no contemporary sources? Welp, looks like Plato never existed. Welp, looks like Hannibal never existed. Can we be totally sure that the events of the Second Punic War even fucking happen? Who knows, there are no contemporary sources on it! I guess it didn't! Could I make this any clearer?

2. If one is to assert there was no historical Jesus, one must make a well-researched, well-argued reason for how the stories of a Jesus-like figure arose and how an entire religion came to be. Doubters of historical Jesus have yet to do that.

3. I just reeealllyyy want to reiterate that if this were another figure from ancient times with little evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since you all seem to want to discredit Christianity as much as possible, you don't even want him to exist at all. There is as much evidence for him as some prominent ancient figures. Is that understood? This is how an historian thinks.

In the end it's just logical; the religion didn't spring out of nowhere. Something had to have started it. A monk whose name escapes me (I'll be willing to expand on this when I have more time to research it) wrote an entire thing about how Jesus was not divine. Nowhere does he doubt his existence. It's assumed he was real. If there was no evidence of Jesus to these people, wouldn't it be easier to say, "This Jesus guy wasn't even real, of course this new religion is full of shit"? But he doesn't. He never doubts Jesus' existence, only his divinity. Again, put on your thinking cap...there's a reason he doesn't doubt his existence.

I mean, really. How could Christianity take off without a central prophet figure? What stops someone from the time saying to his followers, "No man, you're full of shit," and going to where Jesus allegedly lived and preached and saying, "See!? No Jesus! You guys are crazy!" Without Jesus, the rise of Christianity is missing a big puzzle piece. What would you put in his place to explain it all?

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean, really. How could Christianity take off without a central prophet figure? What stops someone from the time saying to his followers, "No man, you're full of shit," and going to where Jesus allegedly lived and preached and saying, "See!? No Jesus! You guys are crazy!" Without Jesus, the rise of Christianity is missing a big puzzle piece. What would you put in his place to explain it all?

Who would die for a lie...........?  

Is it plato that's possibly socrates, or socrates that's possibly plato's?  I can never remember.....but, so what if he didn't exist?  How have you determined that jesus was a physical person and zues "not so much"?  Certainly couldn't have teased that difference out of the stories told about either.

RE the above. Familiarize yourself with Tana, where a member of a foreign aristocracy is worshipped as a god -after natives had an encounter with american military forces. Tease that chain of event's out and into context. Try to work out how those connections were made. It should be a whole lot easier than the case of the gospels, since this occurred in modern times.....well documented....but it isn't. People believe in strange shit. Asking yourself, or another, "how could they have believed that without some kernel of truth at it's center" -as- a defense of a hypothetical kernel of truth is question begging-ly futile......and any proposed scenario to square the circle, for example saying "well, the us forces were advanced and they had a picture of a british snob" utterly and completely misses the mark of whether or not the character of this god, as described by the people of tana (or early christians in the case of jesus) was legendary or mythical.

[Angrboda]

I mean, really. How could Christianity take off without a central prophet figure? What stops someone from the time saying to his followers, "No man, you're full of shit," and going to where Jesus allegedly lived and preached and saying, "See!? No Jesus! You guys are crazy!" Without Jesus, the rise of Christianity is missing a big puzzle piece. What would you put in his place to explain it all?

Oh please. Legends and myths start from the flimsiest of beginnings. We have all sorts of examples of legendary characters who are based on no persons at all. Are you seriously arguing that a myth can't form unless there's some grain of truth to it? The people writing about Jesus were writing decades after the supposed historical events. As far as the common man was concerned, they could have happened in another century. There was plenty of time for an unchecked oral myth surrounding the Jesus character to have formed, and nobody would have been the wiser. It's not like they had CNN or a system of distributing news and fact checking sources.