D
Dr-Pepper
Guest
I’ve been seeing Richard carrier, but nobody has really refuted his book. How do I know for sure Jesus existed?
- Status
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Yes.
For those of us who haven’t read Mr. Carrier’s book, could you please summarize for us what you believe is the strongest argument he makes against Jesus existing?
Given that there’s basically a universal consensus among scholars (including atheistic scholars) about the historical existence of Jesus, Mr. Carrier would have quite a task ahead of him to try to prove otherwise (and the burden of proof is certainly on him, not on the scholars who already agree on the consensus position of Jesus’ existence).
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
This is true. I’ve met several well-educated atheists, one a PhD of history, who all stated Jesus existed. They don’t believe he was the Son of God or anything other than some itinerant Jewish preacher, but they agree he definitely existed based on historical evidence. The only non-believers I meet who claim he didn’t exist at all tend to be the ones who never went to college.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Yes, He exists.
E
EugeneCharles
Guest
Hello Dr-Pepper! 
You have a nice username dude.
Whenever I think Jesus is just an illusion or something that never exists or doesn’t exist as a God, I simply use this, I don’t think that this will really help you, but think of the miracles in your life when you’re praying to Jesus. Recall the apparitions of the Blessed Mother, in Knock, Fatima, Lourdes, Pontmain, and Guadalupe. If you read the story and meaning of each Our Lady’s Apparition, you can realize that Jesus is real no matter what happened. To Jesus, Through Mary. Jesus couldn’t be a man without Mama Mary and Momma would appear to us.
You have a nice username dude.
Whenever I think Jesus is just an illusion or something that never exists or doesn’t exist as a God, I simply use this, I don’t think that this will really help you, but think of the miracles in your life when you’re praying to Jesus. Recall the apparitions of the Blessed Mother, in Knock, Fatima, Lourdes, Pontmain, and Guadalupe. If you read the story and meaning of each Our Lady’s Apparition, you can realize that Jesus is real no matter what happened. To Jesus, Through Mary. Jesus couldn’t be a man without Mama Mary and Momma would appear to us.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great
M
Montrose
Guest
Why does anyone have to refute his book?
M
mdgspencer
Guest
.
Ancient historians in the time of Jesus, who were not Christians, spoke of Jesus.
See Historical Jesus - Ancient Historians Mentioning Jesus and the Christians (Bible History Online)
Ancient historians in the time of Jesus, who were not Christians, spoke of Jesus.
See Historical Jesus - Ancient Historians Mentioning Jesus and the Christians (Bible History Online)
Last edited:
Indeed. Or Socrates.
OP, no serious scholar would contest that Jesus did exist.
Look at Bart Ehrman, for example. He’s a Bible scholar and a former fundamentalist turned agnostic who got a little exasperated by all the people who think they can “debunk” Jesus and wrote a whole book explaining why, whatever one thinks of him, one cannot seriously doubt that Jesus existed (Did Jesus exist?).
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I’m not a believer in his divinity but I am sure there was a person called Jesus (or the Aramaic version). I rely on Bart Ehrman, the agnostic biblical scholar, for my understanding. His refutation of mythicists (people who believe there b=never was such a person) is compelling.
However this does not mean that Jesus did everything scripture and other writings say he did. Or that he said all he is said to have said.
However this does not mean that Jesus did everything scripture and other writings say he did. Or that he said all he is said to have said.
I
indymb
Guest
I believe The Case for Christ, book and movie do a pretty good job.
One Amazon reviewer’s 5-star movie review (partial, due to post word restraint);:
Dr. Jerry Parks, National Teacher’s Hall of Fame, 2009
When the chili hits the cheese, let the facts determine your conclusion…"
You see, the problem with most faith-based films is that they are either preachy, low-budget but well-intentioned less-than-stellar productions, or they just trust ‘evangelism’ alone to supplant tightly-written and poignant scripts. With these opinions in mind I went to see The Case for Christ, all the time weighing my options—through the previews of coming attractions—as to how I’d slide out to another movie if this one didn’t hold my attention. I didn’t. It did.
Unlike a majority of previous Christian films, this one is professionally made, top-notch in every performance, suspensefully written (no easy task when one knows how it concludes), and refuses to end before a seriously hardcore atheist reluctantly drops to his knees the last ten minutes of a two-hour film.
. . . . . .
In a memorable trip back to the 70’s and 80’s, as the film unfolded, I was brought to remember Christ’s question of Saul (the Apostle Paul) as the Pharisee who persecuted believers from Jerusalem to Antioch. “How long will you continue to kick against the goads?” he is asked. Paul was a ‘chosen vessel’, we are told, but a vessel who was so adamant in his non-Christian ideology that he had to be virtually brought ‘kicking and screaming’ into the Kingdom of God. So too was Lee Strobel (Mike Vogel).
I had never realized that the author of so many books I have enjoyed so much came to his faith based upon—to quote Dragnet’s Joe Friday ‘the facts, ma’am—just the facts’. Strobel was a highly intelligent, highly motivated and award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, who earned a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale, and eventually won four Gold Medallions for publishing excellence. He was no ‘needy lamb’ looking for a Shepherd, but a man with insight, influence, and enough connections that he could interview the best medical doctors, theologians, psychologists (Faye Dunaway is terrific), and archeologists in the world in his search for truth.
His search concluded with the counsel from a friend that ultimate truth eventually comes down to finding the facts, synthesizing the evidence, and, by faith, accepting what all those conclude. This was the advice, believe it or not, from an atheist—who reasoned that even atheism is a leap of faith. “When the chili meets the cheese", he is told by another, “let the facts form your proof”.
. . . . . . .
As an apologetic against unbelief, this film checks all the boxes, examines all the evidence thoroughly, and leaves but one conclusion…no matter how ardently a skeptic might fight to the end to deny it.
One Amazon reviewer’s 5-star movie review (partial, due to post word restraint);:
Dr. Jerry Parks, National Teacher’s Hall of Fame, 2009
When the chili hits the cheese, let the facts determine your conclusion…"
You see, the problem with most faith-based films is that they are either preachy, low-budget but well-intentioned less-than-stellar productions, or they just trust ‘evangelism’ alone to supplant tightly-written and poignant scripts. With these opinions in mind I went to see The Case for Christ, all the time weighing my options—through the previews of coming attractions—as to how I’d slide out to another movie if this one didn’t hold my attention. I didn’t. It did.
Unlike a majority of previous Christian films, this one is professionally made, top-notch in every performance, suspensefully written (no easy task when one knows how it concludes), and refuses to end before a seriously hardcore atheist reluctantly drops to his knees the last ten minutes of a two-hour film.
. . . . . .
In a memorable trip back to the 70’s and 80’s, as the film unfolded, I was brought to remember Christ’s question of Saul (the Apostle Paul) as the Pharisee who persecuted believers from Jerusalem to Antioch. “How long will you continue to kick against the goads?” he is asked. Paul was a ‘chosen vessel’, we are told, but a vessel who was so adamant in his non-Christian ideology that he had to be virtually brought ‘kicking and screaming’ into the Kingdom of God. So too was Lee Strobel (Mike Vogel).
I had never realized that the author of so many books I have enjoyed so much came to his faith based upon—to quote Dragnet’s Joe Friday ‘the facts, ma’am—just the facts’. Strobel was a highly intelligent, highly motivated and award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, who earned a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale, and eventually won four Gold Medallions for publishing excellence. He was no ‘needy lamb’ looking for a Shepherd, but a man with insight, influence, and enough connections that he could interview the best medical doctors, theologians, psychologists (Faye Dunaway is terrific), and archeologists in the world in his search for truth.
His search concluded with the counsel from a friend that ultimate truth eventually comes down to finding the facts, synthesizing the evidence, and, by faith, accepting what all those conclude. This was the advice, believe it or not, from an atheist—who reasoned that even atheism is a leap of faith. “When the chili meets the cheese", he is told by another, “let the facts form your proof”.
. . . . . . .
As an apologetic against unbelief, this film checks all the boxes, examines all the evidence thoroughly, and leaves but one conclusion…no matter how ardently a skeptic might fight to the end to deny it.
M
Maximian
Guest
You can say the same about Churchill. There are millions of churchillian quotes which you’d be hard put to prove he actually said
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I agree. The fact that someone is recorded as saying something does not mean they did. In Churchill’s case we know he employed teams of writers and even actors to voice some of his radio work. Saying that I think Jesus did not say and do all that scripture reports does not prevent anyone else from accepting it. It is that sort of information. Not providing proof, but possibility.
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
To me, the most compelling evidence is the martyrdom of so many early Christians under persecution for 300 years. How many people do you know who would die for a lie.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Richard Carrier is an outlier amongst scholars on his position that Jesus was a mythical savior brought to life by euhumorization (the process of taking a mythical character and humanizing him…giving him a place and time in history). He fully accepts that his a small minority position.
I’ve read the book. You can summarize his evidence in shortish comment…he builds his case step by step. His basic claim is that Paul’s Jesus is never placed on earth. Jesus is known by visions and teasing out from the Old Testament. Mark is the one that euhumarized him with Matthew and Luke expanding the story. John is later when the earthly Jesus has gained momentum and expands Jesus as God. Carrier claims that the Gospels were meant to be symbolic stories utilized by missionaries, not historical texts. After the destruction of the Temple, the original Mythical Jesus worshippers originating in Jerusalem are disbursed and basically not heard from again but the followers of Marks physical Jesus are now the leader that arise and control the story, later becoming the Catholics/Orthodox.
It’s an interesting read. His case has a few holes in it but he brings up interesting information and points out the holes in the Jesus story we understand today, as well. Carrier is very much into Beyesian statistics and uses it throughout the book. His conclusion shows the probability low for an historical Jesus and high for a mythical one.
Hopefully, I explained enough. I’d be glad to answer any questions on his explanations but understand it’s pretty in depth and I’m just a reader, not a scholar!
And if you’re wondering, no, I don’t agree with his conclusion. I think it’s possible it happened that way but not at all probable.
Examples of euhumorization (sp?) would be King Arthur and Ned Ludd. Neither are believed to have actually existed but there are stories of their lives, their families, etc. they were mythical people placed into history. There are many others, too! Euhumorization exists…it doesn’t prove that Jesus was one of them.
I’ve read the book. You can summarize his evidence in shortish comment…he builds his case step by step. His basic claim is that Paul’s Jesus is never placed on earth. Jesus is known by visions and teasing out from the Old Testament. Mark is the one that euhumarized him with Matthew and Luke expanding the story. John is later when the earthly Jesus has gained momentum and expands Jesus as God. Carrier claims that the Gospels were meant to be symbolic stories utilized by missionaries, not historical texts. After the destruction of the Temple, the original Mythical Jesus worshippers originating in Jerusalem are disbursed and basically not heard from again but the followers of Marks physical Jesus are now the leader that arise and control the story, later becoming the Catholics/Orthodox.
It’s an interesting read. His case has a few holes in it but he brings up interesting information and points out the holes in the Jesus story we understand today, as well. Carrier is very much into Beyesian statistics and uses it throughout the book. His conclusion shows the probability low for an historical Jesus and high for a mythical one.
Hopefully, I explained enough. I’d be glad to answer any questions on his explanations but understand it’s pretty in depth and I’m just a reader, not a scholar!
And if you’re wondering, no, I don’t agree with his conclusion. I think it’s possible it happened that way but not at all probable.
Examples of euhumorization (sp?) would be King Arthur and Ned Ludd. Neither are believed to have actually existed but there are stories of their lives, their families, etc. they were mythical people placed into history. There are many others, too! Euhumorization exists…it doesn’t prove that Jesus was one of them.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’m curious as to why you found this interesting, especially since you don’t seem to agree with the author’s position.
I frankly think it sounds deranged. It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was mythical. Or King David, although I know people did think he was made up until some evidence was found showing he actually existed.
I don’t know who Ned Ludd is, but I’ve never met anyone who thought there was a real King Arthur.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Thanks for summarizing, Patty! I think you did a great job of explaining the basics of what Mr. Carrier is claiming for those of us who haven’t read (and don’t plan to read) his book.
I have to agree with this. I cannot imagine how Mr. Carrier could arrive at such an interpretation of the historical evidence unless he went in predisposed to trying to rationalize a conclusion he’d already decided upon in advance (wanting a historical Jesus to not-exist).
Whatever this is (I’m no historian) I’m skeptical that Carrier has applied it effectively, if the majority of trained scholars, including atheistic scholars, come to the opposite conclusion.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
There were plenty of people in the Middle Ages that thought King Arthur was real. It’s later scholarship that changed the views and everyone now agrees that he didn’t. Ned Ludd is the supposed founder of the Luddites…a group adverse to technology. During its heyday, Luddites told stories of Ned Ludd and his family making him sound like he actually existed…he didn’t. He was a character told to advance a political position. But, no one knew it at first.
I like to read from various perspectives. Carrier is intelligent, PhD from Columbia, an historian and very outspoken atheist. The book is an interesting read as he goes through all the available evidence showing how likely that evidence actually is. He also shows where there are holes in the evidence. Many of his points are valid and some less so.
I wouldn’t advise Christians to read it. It’s not even accepted by secular scholarship and it’s very challenging to your faith so what would be the point other than to gain a perspective of an outlier scholar? It’s like reading any scholar that goes against the grain…they are sometimes fun to read!
I like to read from various perspectives. Carrier is intelligent, PhD from Columbia, an historian and very outspoken atheist. The book is an interesting read as he goes through all the available evidence showing how likely that evidence actually is. He also shows where there are holes in the evidence. Many of his points are valid and some less so.
I wouldn’t advise Christians to read it. It’s not even accepted by secular scholarship and it’s very challenging to your faith so what would be the point other than to gain a perspective of an outlier scholar? It’s like reading any scholar that goes against the grain…they are sometimes fun to read!
D
Dan123
Guest
Depends on whether the person knew it was a lie.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t avoid stuff like that because it’s “challenging to my faith” (True faith doesn’t get shook by what someone else writes), I avoid it because it’s ridiculous in view of the evidence to the contrary. We only have limited time to read stuff, and this is right up there with QAnon to me.
I’m also never impressed by someone’s educational credentials. I spent way too much time and money in and around universities, and a lot of the scholars around those places are, to put it charitably, unusual, as academically bright/ gifted people often are. They also have all kinds of different reasons for pursuing the research and writing they pursue.
I appreciate that others might find it fun to read for some reason or other. There are a lot of things others find fascinating that leave me cold, and vice versa.
Last edited:
- Status