Did Jesus exist?

[Pat Mustard]

[The Grand Nudger]

He's becoming the focus of plenty of the christian evangelicals.  They talk about him more than they talk about jesus, it seems.

[Minimalist]

Dawkins exists.  That has to cause them some trouble.

[athrock]

That's nice.  And?  Would -you- care to take a crack at how that's done in the case of jesus?

What specifically are you looking for? I've read a few pages in this thread now of how embarrassment is very present in the documents discussed and in the story of Jesus. What is it you want instead? Also...

Let me suggest that this, just like arguing the position by invalid inferences, falls well below the standards of history.

They do not. I've been saying this since the beginning. Standard of evidence for ancient historians is lower than you and everyone else supporting you realize. And when I finally beat that into someone's head, that person (I forgot who, may have been Min) then said, "Great, we don't know if [fabricated facetous name] may or may not have existed. Who cares!" But it matters, it matters a lot. Comparing Historical Jesus to other accepted historical figures without contemporary sources (Hannibal springs to mind) is crucial. I understand where that person is coming from; they think that the historicity of Jesus is more important than these other people I've spoken about so it demands more evidence. But that's not true. From an historical point of view it's a level playing field.  

I still have a lot to learn as a person. I'm still a student. But it's worth nothing that my undergraduate degree will be in History and I interact with historians every day, and I'm working on my undergraduate thesis with an historian. I've been taught how to think like an historian. That's why it's so frustrating to me to see people have these double standards with evidence. You're approaching it wrong. I have no desire to repeat why, because I've written longer posts earlier in the thread and I have no reason to try and say it all again. 

In the end, does it really matter? Would him existing versus him not existing make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things? No. Christians would still believe, atheists would continue not believing, and the world will continue spinning. But for historians whose concentration is in the Ancient Near East, yes, it matters quite a bit. And over the course of hundreds of years, the best scholars to come out of that area have gone on record saying that it adds up: there was most likely a preacher named Jesus who was executed. The details about him do not match any mythology concerning the Jewish Messiah. This is evidence from an historian's point of view and that's how history should be approached. This argument hasn't ever really been "Does Jesus exist?" but rather "Should we accept the prevailing theory concerning the historical Jesus?" And the evidence accepted by the scholarly community says: yes! But you and a few others disagree.

I will again compare historiography with scientific study. Historians have their practices and their standards of evidence. Scientists have their practices and their standards of evidence. Those two things are fundamentally different, but the irony is if you decide to look at the dissenting opinions in the scientific community about man-made global warming, funny enough you'll find arguments very similar to the ones presented in this thread against Historical Jesus. A couple of arguments such as...

-Even if there is a scientific consensus, questions are not decided by "consensus." (Argumentum ad Populum?)

-95 percent of climate change models proving global warming have been false* (your historical sources are bullshit?)

*http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz2t4gPo8iJ

So realize that you sound to me like climate change deniers sound to you.

With all that being said, I think I'm done with this topic. Please respond though, I will read your response and consider it, but I have no interest in posting on this topic any longer.

Outstanding. Well said. 

[athrock]

Stop trolling you ball sucking little shit you. You know as well as I do that Dawkins is the focus of exactly 0 religions. And you also know that christianity is a lie.

Here is a working definition:

Something is a religion if it has a position on the divine and/or the afterlife.

Double-Positive Religions
Christianity, Islam and Hinduism accept both the divine and the afterlife.

Single-Positive (aka Single-Negative) Religions
Theravada Buddhism rejects the former but accepts the latter (via reincarnation). Sadducee Judaism accepts the former but rejects the latter.

Double-Negative Religion
Atheism rejects the divine and the afterlife.

[athrock]

He's becoming the focus of plenty of the christian evangelicals.  They talk about him more than they talk about jesus, it seems.

Whereas Jesus is becoming the focus of the atheist fundamentalists. In this forum, they talk about Jesus more than they talk about Dawkins.

[The Grand Nudger]

What specifically are you looking for? I've read a few pages in this thread now of how embarrassment is very present in the documents discussed and in the story of Jesus. What is it you want instead? Also...

-
-What I've asked for, explicitly, many times..... to many people in this very thread....is a valid means of inference from the "criterion of embarrassment" to historicity.  A way to go from a to b.  

They do not. I've been saying this since the beginning. Standard of evidence for ancient historians is lower than you and everyone else supporting you realize.

Are they below the standards of reason?  Because that's what you're describing.  Reason demands valid inference. You aren't asking me to accept the best evidence we have, you're asking me to accept irrationality -surrounding- what evidence we have, apparently on the basis of tradition......which you've described multiple times as having chronically low standards. I'm well aware of the things that pass for history, and the standards that led to that. That's not exactly a good argument for historical jesus...you realize?

I think its hilarious that we're even left to this..because the only reason we have to appeal to a reduction in standards, invalid inferences, and tradition...... is that even the hj'ers can't just provide some hj. At the very bottom of all of this...all that we are discussing, ultimately, all that -any- of you can offer is "the bible says". That's it. That's the sum total of evidence. That's not evidence....that's the claim, and it's a fairy tale.........

So, while you're busy feeling smug for no good reason..and likening me to a climate change denier, remember that climate scientists bring evidence that I accept, by a standard I have confidence in, arguing by valid means of inference....... you're just telling me why you accept the details of a ghost story as history....and I'm telling you why I find that far less compelling.

[Mudhammam]

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

[robvalue]

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.

[Vincent]

I believe a man named Jesus lived and started the Christian religion and preached to a bunch of people and accumulated followers. Historically speaking, we have enough evidence to assume that this was the case. 

But all the other mythical stuff? Twisted claims and exaggerated or fabricated events that were likely born from rumors, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, years of distortion, and/or the gullibility of human beings at that time period. Fiction.