Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

People laugh and say that I am willfully ignorant at remaining a believer. My only response is that I dont want my pursuit of truth to lead only to more questions and more uncertainty. And I would be as much of a fool to declare there to be no Historical Jesus ....thus negating the possibility that a universal Creator is real and tried to relate to humanity through a human medium.

Then of course I suppose I can't deny what the facts say.

Can anyone deny anything that they don't want to deny to begin with, however?

I suppose. My Dad gave me everything I ever wanted...except certainty. He died when I was 17. Looking back, I wanted him...not his money. I wanted him to never leave me.

Then there is jar. Jar used to talk to me in chat. Now, he wants nothing to do with chat or with talking. Frankly it makes me mad! He says he never would accept lotto money...yet the man works every day and has no time for talking? what kind of a worthwhile life is that?

My idea of God is of one who always has time. Who would never leave me alone. I dont need money from God. I need God.

I dont need riches from life. I need certainty. To me, science is vapid and hollow. Yes, they will cure cancer. But what good is 20 more years added to a lifespan that has nothing promised, no certainty, and a certain death with an uncertain conclusion...aside from ceasing to exist?? These people seek to find truth. Yet they only find uncertainty apart from the false god of human reason.

Sorry to have ran your topic off of the road, Jon. Let me attempt to steer it back on the road....

Jon writes: In Ehrman's most recent book, released just last month, he presents what he believes are the best arguments for the existence of an historical Jesus. The book is primarily geared toward the refutation of an increasingly popular a historical line of argumentation against the existence of Jesus known as 'Jesus Mythicism'. Jesus mythicists argue not only that Jesus did not exist but that the character Jesus was invented based on the traditions of pagan gods that supposedly share characteristics in common with Jesus.

We cant very well discuss Jesus...at least with believers....without asking you to tell us your preconceptions about a historical Jesus. Was He just a he? (a mere human) Do you believe that Ehrman seeks to walk a middle road so as not to offend his believer friends? Of all of the evidence (or lack of) that you have read so far, what are your personal tentative conclusions regarding Jesus? Finally, what is your current opinion on Jesus Mythicism

Rahvin writes: Shouldn't we want to hold beliefs that accurately reflect reality more than we want to hold to a belief that we just happen to like?

In most cases, yes. In regards to whether Jesus existed or not, I dont see enough evidence that he did'nt...and I admit to a bias in favor of him actually existing. I wonder what Ehrman thinks regarding admitting any bias. I think that Dougherty has a clear bias against, but I could change my mind.

crashfrog writes: The problem isn't that there's no birth certificate or execution order. The problem is that there's no anything...

Do you feel that you have no bias for/or against? Do you feel that evidence is required for belief?

crashfrog writes: If the mythicist position is something other than "the evidence put forth to substantiate the historical existence of Jesus is insufficient" then I'm happy for you to not consider me a "mythicist." I'm not interested in defending any positions but my own.

I never was impressed much with "absence of evidence equals no Jesus as default position. I concur that for many, the idea of no Jesus...historical or otherwise, is a biased position.

For an argument supposedly based only on facts or the lack of same, there is quite a bit of emotionalism from either side...and it seems to me that there has to be a reason why the atheist side invests so much emotion into these arguments. Just what feels so good about your (not you personally,Crash) position, exactly?

ok, but lets let Jon have his topic back. We can argue this one elsewhere....should I simply start a new topic?

Lets go here

Edited by Phat, : link

Edited by Phat, :

ringo writes: I don't believe that Jesus, the human, existed - because there is no solid evidence that he existed. I think the stories about him are most likely based on an amalgamation of preachers who wandered Palestine in the 1st century - like Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry was based on real-life evangelists. It has NOTHING to do with any gods.

And yet it does.

Conceptions Of God

This wiki article, though far from conclusive, brings up some valid points.

Wiki writes: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and also the Bahá'í Faith) see God as a being who created the world and who rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence and omnipresence. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal, unchangeable and unaffected by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.

Thus, the idea that such a Being must be composed of chemicals limits the being by definition. I can see why you prefer building a case for origins that is based in what we can prove and understand. I can also see why such an approach limits the understanding and conceptualization of a Deity.

ringo writes: The default would naturally be something that actually exists, like chemicals.

In other words, if we can't understand it, it likely need not exist for all intents and purposes. The problem with your approach is that it is similar to some philosophies of God.

Wiki writes: According to The Kybalion, The All is more complicated than simply being the sum total of the universe. Rather than The All being simply the physical universe, it is said that everything in the universe is within the mind of The All, since The All can be looked at as Mind itself.[3] The All's mind is thought to be infinitely more powerful and vast than humans can possibly achieve,[4] and possibly capable of keeping track of every particle in the Universe. The Kybalion states that nothing can be outside of The All or The All would not be The All. The All may also be a metaphor alluding to the godhead potentiality of every individual. "[God]... That invisible power which all know does exist, but understood by many different names, such as God, Spirit, Supreme Being, Intelligence, Mind, Energy, Nature and so forth."[5] the Hermetic Tradition, each and every person has the potential to become God, this idea or concept of God is perceived as internal rather than external. The All is also an allusion to the observer created universe. We create our own reality; hence we are the architect, The All. Another way would to be to say that the mind is the builder. Freemasonry often includes concepts of God as an external entity, however, esoteric masonic teachings[citation needed] clearly identify God as the individual himself: the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality.

To be fair, you don't actually say that we create our own reality, but that we merely define it through the scientific method.

They can't find a lot of the supposed antimatter in the universe that should exist either. Does that then mean that it does not exist for ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES?

One difference between believers and the rest of you in general seems to be that believers presuppose that God should exist. The rest of you see no such need.

For me, I was culturally raised to believe that God should exist. Whether He actually did or not was never discussed. Later, at around age 30, I became "born again" and felt subjective evidence of His reality. Subsequent arguments with many of you here have shown me that I had no evidence...despite my having experienced many unknown events that my bias would show me corroborated my belief. I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone anymore, apart from attempts at argumentative persuasion. I'm beginning to think that there is a reason for all of this disconnect in our culture, and I'm not sure how to explain it. It would be nothing more than my subjective belief anyway, but I am convinced that the scientific method has not neatly tied this argument up yet.

After all, look at how long humans have been around in the grand scheme of things. look at how often we were wrong before about many things. It is just as silly in my opinion to presuppose that no God is necessary as it is to believe that one is. You limit yourselves by sticking to evidence. You also limit yourselves by believing that such imagination is limited to children's stories. You have far too much faith in scientific and psycho-sociological progress alone. Finally, you limit your whole hypothetical idea of what God would be like if he DID exist.

Ask A Humanist Note the variety of answers. They all sound like you guys!

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

While I personally think that your cut & pastes are getting better and more towards making a point, I see that your audience is not interested in your style of debate. Perhaps you need to listen to them and shorten your responses.

If either a unicorn or fairy had impacted human history as much as a supposed mythological figure, the conclusion that I would start with is that there must be something to this character.

OK, but my question would then be why *this* character? Why not another traveling rabbi? Why did Jesus catch on while lesser brands fizzled?

Tangle writes: Odd that you don't think that about Mohammed or Joseph Smith or......

I'll saythis much. Neither Muhammed nor (especially) Joseph Smith would have even been widely known had Jesus not started the trend. Muhammed was Burger King to Jesus McDonalds. Islam had their own hero to emulate...and in opposition to those pesky European Catholics. Same with our Mormon franchise here in America. They needed to have their own brand. The next question is what did jesus originally represent that made Him a popular brand? Hope for oppressed downtrodden people? Liberation from stern secular governments? Liberation from authoritarian religions? Or perhaps you guys will argue that He became a myth that supported the creation of a franchise.