Did Jesus for sure exist?

[Pattylt]

. 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).

He discusses this in the book. He always assumed Jesus existed until he was pressured by friends to read a book (and I can not remember the author right now…I read him, too!) discussing the idea of Jesus having started as a celestial savior later brought to earth. He read the book and started questioning the usual history. He received a grant to do a thorough study and either debunking the idea or showing its validity. He did and claims it is a valid theory. He became a mythysist. He admits his bias as an atheist against Jesus as God but claims he never really cared if Jesus existed or not as it has no effect on his beliefs. He has been defending the myth position ever since. I won’t comment on the honesty of claims. He’s a pretty open and honest person on other topics but anyone is capable of self deception.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m a Christian and so I can be accused of bias, but mythicists like Carrier seem to have an axe to grind. That there was a historical rabbi named Yeshua/Joshua from Nazareth is the most plausible explanation for Christianity and the gospels, whatever else one believes about the claims of Messiah-hood, miracles, or divinity.

The idea of a religion of religion made up whole cloth around a crucified Messiah is absurd. That is just anti-thetical to ancient near east origins and Judaism. If I was a skeptic, the crucifixion being a historical fact that early Chridtians felt like they had to explain around would seem most plausible. The same goes for the story of a Nazarene born in Bethlehem. If Jesus is a myth, why not just have the family be from Bethlehem instead of a seemingly convoluted narrative about how he was born there? If I was a skeptic, the rabbi’s Nazarene origin seems a historical fact that early Christian’s had to work to explainwitht a fictional narrative of how he was really born in Bethlehem as promised.

I worded the above paragraph as if I were a skeptic. I am not. I believe the Biblical details. But the most plausible explanation for the gospels having details about this rabbi being from Nazareth and for the crucifixion is, from a skeptic’s perspective, that these are historical facts that followers had to explain. Not something that was made up entirely.

 

[Pattylt]

I worded the above paragraph as if I were a skeptic. I am not. I believe the Biblical details. But the most plausible explanation for the gospels having details about this rabbi being from Nazareth and for the crucifixion is, from a skeptic’s perspective, that these are historical facts that followers had to explain. Not something that was made up entirely.

I’m a skeptic and I agree with you! The highest probability is that there was Jesus, from Nazareth!

 

[MNathaniel]

He discusses this in the book. He always assumed Jesus existed until he was pressured by friends to read a book (and I can not remember the author right now…I read him, too!) discussing the idea of Jesus having started as a celestial savior later brought to earth. He read the book and started questioning the usual history. He received a grant to do a thorough study and either debunking the idea or showing its validity. He did and claims it is a valid theory. He became a mythysist. He admits his bias as an atheist against Jesus as God but claims he never really cared if Jesus existed or not as it has no effect on his beliefs. He has been defending the myth position ever since. I won’t comment on the honesty of claims. He’s a pretty open and honest person on other topics but anyone is capable of self deception.

I’m familiar with Jesus mythicists to a degree and have read some such literature before (my grandma tried to argue me into believing Jesus was just a myth, when I began to become Christian, and to be respectful of her I read the material she gave me, though she never returned the favour and read the material I gave her for the other side, including materials pointing out academic critiques of the sources she was choosing).

I don’t know Mr. Carrier personally but I do know many academics and artists personally. And there are certain folks who will become fascinated with a pet theory (especially in the direction of contradicting a ‘boring’ consensus, and moving things from the concrete to the more abstract and subjective) and push it their whole lives, seeking only the evidence they think confirms their theory and always trying to find a way to dismiss or rebut evidence that contradicts their theory.

I’m not interested enough to read Mr. Carrier’s book, not least because the majority of scholars with his same training (perhaps more in many cases; just having a PhD doesn’t mean too much to me, I know too many PhDs) come to the opposite conclusion, but from a distance it sounds like he may potentially be in such a camp. He’s found an idea that tickles him and he enjoys connecting dots to argue in favour of it. But he has to ignore a lot of other dots to do it.

 

[Pattylt]

but from a distance it sounds like he may potentially be in such a camp. He’s found an idea that tickles him and he enjoys connecting dots to argue in favour of it. But he has to ignore a lot of other dots to do it.

Agreed! He’s latched on to it full throttle. My biggest concern is that he uses the Ascension of Isaiah as a foundational document. We know it’s been modified by later Christians and he eliminates the modifications and then dates it earlier than most scholars do. Have you ever read this? It is an early writing though most don’t give it as early a date as he does. Without this document saying what he thinks it says, much of his later case crumbles.

You know how some people will say…it’s possible that this happened so that must have happened? No, if it’s just possible (how possible? 80%, 50%, 10% possible?) then your conclusion is just possible. By whatever % your possibility was! :hugs:. Yeah, he tries to avoid doing that but doesn’t seem to recognize that he still did it!

 

[Dr-Pepper]

How likely do you think Jesus existed since you’ve read the book?

 

[Pattylt]

If I had to put a number on it? 95%, I guess. I don’t have 100% certainty about much of anything historical but I think Jesus existing is pretty strong…leaving myself just enough wiggle room for some new evidence changing everything…also not likely! :hugs:

 

[Dr-Pepper]

Ah, cool. But you are right tho. We can’t know for sure with a lot of historical figures

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve spent nearly 30 years arguing with Christians (nearly a decade and a half of them here) about the origins of their religion but I have to say that arguing about whether there was a real person underlying it all is an enormous diversion/waste of everybody’s time.

 

[MNathaniel]

Ah, cool. But you are right tho. We can’t know for sure with a lot of historical figures

Which other historical figures do you doubt the existence of, besides Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[JerryZ]

There are many “historical” characters whose reality has been put to question and Jesus is definitively NOT one of them.
Socrates is an excellent example of this. Historicity of events hinges on today’s ramifications that could not be explained but for the true existence of someone. No one can be said to have had so much influence in the history of the world than this man Jesus.
The Church HE founded has done so much for humanity in general than any of the previous civilizations.
Naive people deny it, but it is there and it is a fact.

Peace!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

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?

Totally agree. I wouldn’t waste $ on it.

It’s like reading any scholar that goes against the grain…they are sometimes fun to read!

Depends on what they’re writing about. When I hear about authors like the OP mentioned then I avoid them like the plague.

 

[MarkRome]

Can a fictional person split time in two?

 

[Montrose]

Christianity.com

What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know​

The Shroud still exists, and we would argue for a divine reason. And by its very existence, proves that the cloth has been “protected” after being hidden in a wall in Edessa for over 400 years and then surviving through crusades, wars, numerous fi…

The Shroud is not evidence of anything.

The fanatical supporters of the Shroud being genuine will never accept the view that it is not genuine so if you want to discuss The Shroud please start a thread on the Shroud. It is not evidence of anything and nor do Catholics have to believe in it. I certainly do not believe it is the burial cloth of Jesus.

 

[FiveLinden]

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

Many people of other religions dies for their faith.

 

[JSRG]

I’ve been seeing Richard carrier, but nobody has really refuted his book. How do I know for sure Jesus existed?

Richard Carrier has written multiple books, so exactly what “his book” is supposed to mean is unclear. This site has some responses to him, though not necessarily whatever specific book you are referring to is:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.php#carr1

That site also has a more general page on the question of Jesus’ existence:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.php

In case someone thinks a Christian might be too biased, there’s always Bart Ehrman’s book “Did Jesus Exist?” (he argues in the affirmative). Ehrman, an agnostic who has written multiple books criticizing Christianity, can hardly be accused of pro-Christian bias here.

 

[JSRG]

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.

And I saw someone else use that exact same formula (Bayes’ Theorem) to argue that the Resurrection was the most likely explanation for what happened to Jesus. You can use it to argue for anything you want if you just put the right numbers into it. I don’t take it particularly seriously when it comes to arguing about things like this.

Actually, there was an essay (no longer online) criticizing people who rely too much on Bayes’ Theorem that happened to mention Richard Carrier. I’ll share that excerpt, which I thought was amusing:

"Another over-enthusiastic Bayes fan is the historian and “New Atheist” loudmouth Richard Carrier, who in his book Proving History claims that any valid historiographic method should be reducible to Bayes’ Theorem. In the general sense, this claim couldn’t be less interesting: both Bayes and historians are concerned with getting at “truth” by processing “evidence”, and pointing this out will enlighten no one. And in the specific sense, the claim couldn’t be more stupid. The idea that historical evidence and theses could be reduced to probability values, and that plugging them into Bayes’ Theorem would make historical research more accurate or reliable or rigorous, is not only the worst kind of technocrat fantasy, it’s also completely unworkable.

In general practice, there’s no way to come up with meaningful figures for the right-hand side of the Bayes equation, and so Bayesians inevitably end up choosing values that happen to justify their existing beliefs. The Reverend Bayes originally used his theorem to prove the existence of God, while in his next book, Carrier will apparently use the same theorem to disprove the existence of the historical Jesus. I myself have applied it to a thornier subject: the problem of uncovering academic frauds. In fact, by (name removed by moderator)utting the precise values for what I believe about academic frauds, their likelihood of spreading pseudoscientific ********, and the likelihood that pseudoscientific ******** is precisely what Carrier is spreading, I have used Bayes’ Theorem to calculate that Richard Carrier is almost certainly a fraud, to a confidence level of five sigma."

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

It is, however, consistent with the theory that the Shroud was subjected to a neutron flux, and the only time that such an event could have occurred is when the corpse it enveloped vanished into another dimension.

YES! I think the Shroud of Turin needs more attention! I’m shocked to learn that some people still have not even heard of the Shroud.

 

[Montrose]

I understand why atheists, JWs, Moslems, Bahais, etc, do not like the Shroud. But I just do not get why any Catholic, who presumably believes that Jesus corpse really did vanish into another dimension just as described in our Holy Gospels, would be so annoyed by it.

In the first place the Church has not declared it to be authentic. The Church does not require Catholics to believe it’s authentic.
I am fed up with Shroud fanatics telling me what I should believe. End of story. This thread is NOT about the Shroud.

 

[Montrose]

If authentic, the image on the Shroud proves that Jesus did exist (which is the subject of this thread.)
Science has proved its authenticity, at least to anyone who does not have a preconceived prejudice against it.

Science has NOT proved it’s authenticity. That is an incorrect statement. You can say in your OPINION it is genuine but you cannot say it’s proven because that is not the case.