Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

The facts I cited were I don’t think we disagree on those.

quote:

---

For the Jesus of the New Testament I would expect a great deal of evidence, and you apparently agree that there was never any such Jesus. I wouldn't expect any evidence, or at least very, very little, for "an obscure religious mystic."
​

---

The New Testament is going to be about as reliable as an official Scientology biography of L Ron Hubbard.

quote:

---

I think Paul created Christianity. He might have made Jesus up out of whole cloth, or he might have based him upon a real person. I wouldn't venture a guess which and I don't think it matters.

---

Paul may have reshaped Christianity, but he’s clear that it existed in some form before he joined it.

quote:

---

According to the New Testament.
​

---

According to his own writings - which are included in the New Testament.

quote:

---

The books of the new testament that are Paul's letters to various congregations, is there any debate of their authenticity?

---

Oh there’s debate but most of those are accepted as genuine.Of those addressed to people, only Philemon is accepted as genuine. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are almost certainly not genuine.

quote:

---

Which is where Paul's writings can be found and which you just called unreliable.

---

Well, there goes your hope of being thought sensible.The New Testament is not reliable on the subject of Jesus - and that certainly includes the Pauline Epistles. But that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong on everything. Paul’s claim that he persecuted the early Christians before his conversion may well be exaggerated, but hardly makes sense if there were no Christians to be persecuted. Likewise his reported dealings with the Jerusalem Church are no sense unless the recipients knew of the people involved.So, no. The evidence that there was some sort of Christian church prior to Paul’s involvement seems pretty solid.

quote:

---

Why should we be discussing a Jesus that is not Jesus. If he isn't named Jesus di nothing the fictional character did and no one remembers him. Then he isn't the basis for Jesus.

---

Because he likely is “named Jesus” in the sense that matters and is the basis for the Jesus of the Gospels. Why is it necessary to dismiss such a possibility out of hand?

You made yourself the subject in Message 336

quote:

---

Show evidence. Show something from the historical record. Anything

---

Tell me then what you mean when you say that he wasn’t called Jesus.

It’s not surprising that John the Baptist has more evidence, being more successful than a historical Jesus actually would have been.Moses may be fictional - the Exodus story is more fiction than fact, perhaps a complete fiction, or nearly so.

quote:

---

That's a tautology isn't it? JtB is more successful historically than JC because we have more evidence for him.
​

---

Not entirely. After all the synoptic Gospels imply a very short career for Jesus as a preacher. Even the Gospels admit that Jesus came to John for baptism. And of course there is no problem with proposing that Jesus was far less successful than the Gospels say - we’d expect exaggeration there.

quote:

---

But JtB didn't perform miracles or rise from the dead - yet he has more historicity than JC who did?

---

Of course Jesus didn’t do those things either (And have you sought 915278 out the stories told by John’s followers? Can you say that they did not credit him with any miracles?)

quote:

---

He didn't actually exist did he? No evidence at all.

---

It’s hard to say. How do we tell the difference between pure fiction and fiction with some historical basis? And how do we say what was and was not part of that basis without evidence? The expulsion of the Hyksos was real - and maybe one of the inspirations for the Exodus story. Or maybe not. We can’t tell.

quote:

---

But you made sensible people the topic before that

---

The point being that sensible people wouldn’t jump to conclusions on clearly inadequate evidence.

quote:

---

All I did was identify myself as a member of the group of people who you claim would not conclude that Jesus didn't exist, except that I do. And now you're further claiming that the opinion I hold means I'm not a sensible person. Woe to they who disagree with you.

---

Obviously not - it’s the reasoning I’m criticising, not the position.

quote:

---

You're trying to rule out disagreement out of hand by saying no sensible person would conclude differently than you.

---

No, I’m clearly not saying that.On the other hand you aren’t answering with substantive points. You’re just complaining that you are considered less than sensible (possibly incorrectly, even after my clarification in Message 337). Would a sensible person do that ?

quote:

---

You are saying that the gospels are unreliable but we can rely on them for the historicity of Jesus? Doesn't work, sorry.

---

I guess if you want to take a very superficial view you could say that. But it’s hardly an accurate description. Unreliable does not mean “completely false”. Nor do I say that Jesus definitely existed - only that it seems more likely than not that there was a historical person behind the stories. L Ron Hubbard existed even though he never battled with a Japanese submarine, nor even suffered the serious injuries he supposedly healed.Someone founded Christianity. They would have to have lived at about the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. Why should he not have a common name at the time? Why should he not have parents named Joseph and Mary? Why should he not be executed by the Romans if he was fomenting rebellion, even if by only encouraging people to think of him as the Messiah?The Gospel stories are there. Saying that they were just made up is not an adequate explanation for their existence - it explains nothing about them.

quote:

---

We don't we just say there's no evidence and then shrug.

---

It’s better than claiming certainty when no certainty is available.

quote:

---

Sure, but "more likely than not" is a kind of certainty.

---

It isn’t though. It’s more likely than not that I’ll roll 3 or higher on an ordinary die. But it isn’t certain at all.And if you want to change my mind all you have to do is offer better evidence or a better explanation of the evidence we do have. But I’ve yet to see any really good arguments for a purely mythical Jesus - although I have seen some appallingly bad ones.

quote:

---

Since we don't have an adequate explanation for their source or basis, I don't see how making up an explanation helps

---

Then the Jesus Myther’s position is dead. Without an alternative explanation for the Gospels, the idea that they are a heavily fictionalised account of Christianity’s beginnings stands unchallenged.

quote:

---

Revisionism. Discussion hadn't even started.

---

Outright falsehood. My original statement was

quote:

---

…we don’t know when or where Jesus was born, nor do we know much of his ancestry. But no sensible person concludes that Jesus didn’t exist based on those facts

---

Note the last four words. It’s not the conclusion it’s the reasoning.

quote:

---

You clearly are. Just look how you ended your post.

---

Yes, look at it and note how it doesn’t support your claim at all.

quote:

---

Message 337 is a clarification? Who could tell.

---

Someone who read it and noticed that I was suggesting that further evidence could make the conclusion sensible?

quote:

---

There you go again, trying to characterize people as not sensible even before any discussion has taken place.

---

Pointing out that your behaviour is less than sensible is simply stating a fact. The fact that you haven’t made any substantive points is down to you - it hardly makes your position any more sensible,