Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

If you want to make an "I believe..." statement, fine.

I think you're referring to Acts, which is usually attributed to Luke. And I don't think there was any role that involved taking Christians to Damascus for persecution. Rather, Paul sought permission to go to Damascus and bring back Christians as prisoners. According to Paul, but I think Paul's writings should be considered suspect. It's not possible to know with any assurance which parts of his epistles are true and which are not. When I think of Paul I keep in mind the charismatic preachers of today. Honesty is not a word that comes readily to mind. Do you mean the gospels now? Okay, yes, the gospels. Only those parts of the gospels that can't be traced back to Paul's epistles could be considered oral history, which I guess is by far the larger portion.--Percy

quote:

---

​
The church did not start itself. Such person or persons, the historical Jesus, exists to instantiate the founders.

---

I see two statements of fact. What do you see?

I see one statement of fact and one muddled sentence which I take to mean that there had to be a Jesus character for a religion to form around.Well maybe or maybe Jesus was a pure invention by a group of motivated rebels trying to create an uprising or simply looking for the main chance.But on all normal standards of evidence we have to say that we don't know. Or that you believe...

Thank you. Actually I was thinking Q. To me Q was the oral tradition that developed in the church prior to the gospels.

Yes, that is the case. The same. A historical Jesus, just a rather more modest one than many of their Christian colleagues. The same amongst Jewish scholars. I find that telling. These people have no skin in the game after all. To reiterate, the number of professional scholars who take mythicism seriously can be counted on one hand - if you take a very generous definition of "scholar". Both of those are good examples of problematic elements though, the Criterion of Embarrassment applies. John the Baptist anointing the actual Messiah makes little sense. That makes me more inclined to believe it might have happened. And the crucifixion is especially problematic for early Christians (especially those who still considered themselves Jews). Crucifixion was a shameful death. The Romans intended it as the ultimate humiliation, not just death, but a horrifying and shameful death. Jews of the time would also have seen being nailed up as a shameful death, an outsider's death. This was not what anyone had expected from a Messiah. This would have ben a hard sell and I don't see why anyone would come up with it except out of great need. I think that immediately after his death, Jesus' followers found themselves in a similar position to the Millerites after the Great Disappointment and like the Millerites, they immediately set about explaining to each other how they had never really been wrong after all. They found ways of getting around all of the contradictory evidence that was piling up and believed what they wanted to believe; that Jesus was the Messiah and that everything was going to according to plan actually. To me, that sounds like human nature. Oh absolutely. Religiously inspired bias is clearly at play here. There's more at play than mere bias though, as the existence of non-Christian scholars who dismiss mythicism attests. This is what make people like Ehrman so valuable. Sure. If you could get a clear look at the real Jesus I suspect he would seem rather an unremarkable figure in most ways. A well intentioned kook, ranting about an apocalypse that still hasn't come two millennia later. Yes. Is that so hard to believe? He was unreliable about events he witnessed only in a "vision". He was reliable about actual events from his own life. He was unreliable about supernatural things that never really happened and reliable about real actual events involving no fanciful elements. That seems sound to me.Mutate and Survive

I accept. That fits right well as a historical Jesus and founder of this sect.

I doubt you're agreeing with the word "invention."

No skin as believers, but plenty of skin as the main focus of their life's work. That's what I was focusing away from. I wasn't just considering one of the extremes but rather the incredibly broad range of opinion between the two extremes. Most importantly, while there is a significant consensus around the Christ of faith at one extreme, there is also a significant consensus around the Jesus of history that's not all that far from other extreme. That's a chasm of a difference of opinion. I see the baptism as almost self-evidently made up. When no one knew who Jesus was an association with John the Baptist was helpful to Christian evangelists. As the Jesus myth grew and Jesus became greater than John the Baptist it was too late to abandon the story and so it was revised to have Jesus reassure John that he should baptize him. The story about Elizabeth and Mary meeting while pregnant was probably added at the same time. Don't you love stories of private meetings from over a hundred years earlier that actually quote what was said? (Matthew 3:3-17, Luke 1:39-45) A very similar Christian argument is made about the resurrection where it must be true because otherwise Jesus's followers would have been despondent instead of triumphant after his death.I see the crucifixion as a means of glorifying Jesus. The resurrection story came first, and then to make the story even more amazing they gradually added, first theologically and then physically, the elaboration that even though Jesus died in the most shameful way he was resurrected nonetheless. Take it to its logical conclusion. Mormon scholars believe the story of the golden plates just as deeply and sincerely as they do the crucifixion, yet they're wrong about the former and right about the latter. Biblical scholars believe the story of the virgin birth just as deeply and sincerely as they do the crucifixion, yet they're wrong about the former and right about the latter.Doesn't it make more sense that they're all wrong about everything, instead of picking and choosing which things they're right or wrong about? After all, there are no cross-confirming sources, only the single source whose individual parts often borrowed from one another. I don't see how believing that the Jesus of history bore little to no resemblance to the Christ of faith is different in any truly meaningful way from believing there was never any Jesus. You tell me. The question reminds me of the Red Queen who could believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Rhetorically asking "Is that so hard to believe?" is hardly a ringing endorsement of your position. But the crucifixion was not an event from Paul's life. He was not a witness.But more critically, you're deciding whether an event actually happened by whether it was natural or supernatural. I agree the supernatural claims are false, but that still leaves you with no evidence for deciding which natural events actually occurred.--Percy

No objection. The instantiation of the founders, the group, is their invented alter ego, Jesus.We don't know who, what, where, this historical Jesus did, said or lived anything. You came up with two fine scenarios. I can speculate more. But, to no point.The historical Jesus was the one, imo, who provided the bread, dates and wine putting together the first preaching sessions. Call her Jesus.

Yes. Odd, isn't it? What type of kool-aid are these "believers" drinking? AZ vanquished #1 with but a thought. Killed the idea. Again, what on earth were those "believers" drinking? Of course not, now that AZ Antitheist has eliminated #1 as a possibility. You have no "abilities" to give. As A Legend in your own mind, you can vanquish anything in your mind but have no power to vanquish beliefs outside of your mind. Exactly! AZ never will. He vanquished any probability. Stopped it dead in its tracks. All that believers have are the same stories. There are not as many suspicions among believers.

Jesus is accepted as historical by the majority of experts in the field because the majority of experts in the field are Christians. There is still no historical evidence for Jesus. None.
There are respected scholars that do not believe in a historical Jesus. Until there is evidence if a historical Jesus that is where I stand.

And that would be entirely reasonable.The plausible and mundane claims can be believable while the supernatural and impossible or even improbable claims can require more evidence. We believe mundane things with no evidence all the time....because they are so mundane that the threshold for belief is really that low.We do have evidence that many of the non-supernatural claims about a historical basis for Jesus were pretty mundane and ordinary. This assumes a lot though. The name of the person, which may not have been Jesus or Jeshua or Iesu or anything else recognizable. That the records would indicate circumstances we would recognize.I simply think it's easily believable that the mythical character "Jesus" was likely based on one or more actual people. That doesnt mean that all of the attributes came from a single individual, or even from any of the individuals used as the bases. That's the nature of myth.Imagine that a few thousand years from now, all of the American founding fathers and other revolutionary figures are combined into a mythic version of Washington. Maybe people forget the real name, and call him General Washing. General Washing signaled rebels that the British were coming. General Washing wrote the Declaration, but we dont have the original copy any more. Maybe more, entirely fictional events are added. Maybe people say his horse had wings. It would be easily plausible that the character was based on one or more real individuals and that some of the historically mundane events could have had basis in reality, even though the final product is almost unrecognizable.

a. Yes, someone named Paul wrote some letters to groups of people. These letters make it clear that Paul knew nothing about the gospel stories. He knows nothing about an earthly Jesus. The Jesus he knows is a celestial being. He even states that all his knowledge of Jesus comes from revelation. He makes it clear none if his knowledge comes from other people.
b. That's according to Saul. There is nothing in the historical record about such a thing.
c. We know nothing about these "churches". There were many mystery religions at the time. There are also celestial, heavenly Jesus figures in some Jewish sects. Again these churches seem to know nothing about the Jesus of the gospels.
d. No. No one had to start it. Many religions have a mythical "starter"There is no contemporary, historical evidence for Jesus. None.

There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.Your Washington analogy is off because. The founding fathers did create something. In your scenario there are no records. We have Roman records. We have the works multiple writers and historians of the period and over the next 100 years. Nothing about a historical Jesus.