Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[SpecialFrog]

So I saw Carrier talk a few days ago. It was pretty good.

Interestingly, he spent very little time on the evidence for Jesus (partially because there is little ) and most of his time talking about the prior probability, in Bayesian terms.

He talked about the mystery cults that were spreading throughout the Mediterranean world and their commonalities. They all were offshoots of existing religions and they all involved a celestial being who went through an ordeal (in some cases dying and rising) after which they had mastered death and who could therefore intercede on your behalf. All of these other mystery cult figures are considered mythological, though all have stories of them on earth that were seen as allegorical by initiates.

Jesus ticks all of the same boxes as the mystery cult figures and early Christianity has all the characteristics you would expect for a Jewish version of the mystery cult. So based on no other information it is more probable that he was also mythological since everyone else in that category was.

Of course, strong evidence can compensate for a low prior probability. But that's not what we have in this case.

He also mentioned there was a video of a debate with Trent Horn. Not exactly Bart Ehrman but the video is here (I have not watched yet):

 

[thenexttodie]

So I saw Carrier talk a few days ago. It was pretty good.

What? You ass-clowns are hopefully not still donating money to him, are you?

 

[Prolescum]

Yo, civil tongues please.

 

[thenexttodie]

Do not give that guy money.

 

[Dustnite]

Do not give that guy money.

BUT WHO DO I GIVE MY MONEY TO!!?!?!?!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Do not give that guy money.

I have never given Carrier any money. I have a few of his books on my wishlist, but I am such a slow reader that it will take years before I get to them. However, your petulance is making me think of donating something to him in your honor. How much should it be, thenexttodie? I thinking $25.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

If i was to get his books i'd just torrent a .pdf or something

 

[Dustnite]

I have never given Carrier any money. I have a few of his books on my wishlist, but I am such a slow reader that it will take years before I get to them. However, your petulance is making me think of donating something to him in your honor. How much should it be, thenexttodie? I thinking $25.

[sarcasm]Come on HWIN, don't be an ass-clown...[/sarcasm]

 

[Laurens]

Do not give that guy money.

I just bought one of his books

No wait two, I have one on my phone too.

 

[Laurens]

I have not read this entire thread, so I cannot be sure if some of our Theist members have jumped into this argument. I do not see why we would not have that argument though. If the historicity of Jesus was proven to be a myth, then all of Christianity would fall apart. Carrier's assumptions are based on pure conjecture, which is why I do not believe he has made a good case.

That's really really inaccurate. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions I can tell you from reading his book that Carrier puts forward a really strong case, all referenced with relevant scholarship.

I'd suggest reading his book. I'm not even half way through and historicism is already sounding pretty weak.

 

[tuxbox]

Sorry that I've been awol, but I have been preoccupied with health problems. I will try to address the responses to my posts soon. Funny enough I have been having this exact argument on FB for the past couple of days. It appears I'm losing that battle as well. hehe...

Welcome back Laurens!

 

[Laurens]

Sorry that I've been awol, but I have been preoccupied with health problems. I will try to address the responses to my posts soon. Funny enough I have been having this exact argument on FB for the past couple of days. It appears I'm losing that battle as well. hehe...

Welcome back Laurens!

No need to apologise, I hope things are alright.

I look forward to your responses

 

[tuxbox]

Unfortunately, I'm in a lot of pain and will not be responding to everyone's posts on Carrier's assumptions. I have not read any of Carrier's books, therefore, I cannot dispute the claims he has made, nor do I have the so called sources that he uses in his books. I can only go by what he has said in the video posted in this thread. I have already argued against his assumptions made in the video. I see no reason to rehash that argument again.

I will, however, try to make a case that the early Christians existed in the first century, however, they were more than likely Jews and did not call themselves Christians. I will also try to make the case that the New Testament books that refer to Jesus were probably based on a historical figure who was named Yeshua.

First, let's start with evidence of early Christians. There is archaeological evidence from the first century that has possible ties to early Christianity. You can read an article from LiveScience.com Possible Earliest Evidence of Christianity Resurrected from Ancient Tomb. There is also a book, which I have not read, but plan buying soon, that is based on this evidence. You can find it here: The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity.

Now let's start with the contemporaries of Yeshua:

There was the Apostle Paul who supposedly lived from A.D. 5 - A.D. 67. These are supposedly the undisputed writing of Paul: Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians and Philemon. He would have had the knowledge that a man named Yeshua existed and was crucified by the Romans.

There was also Peter who's birth is unknown but supposedly died A.D. 64 and was the first church leader (AD 30-AD 64). He his mentioned by Paul in Galatians, and this is evidence of Peter's existence. He was an Apostle of Yeshua and would have had the knowledge of his crucifixion.

There was also James, supposedly the brother of Yeshua. Birth unknown, but died in A.D. 69. He was also mentioned by Paul in Galatians. He was also mentioned by Josephus (not a contemporary) in the Antiquities of the Jews.

Now let's go to the non-contemporaries:

Tacitus was born 56 A.D. and by the time he would have reached adulthood in the first century. So, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to conclude that he would have at least heard of Christians, considering Nero was in power during part of his lifetime. Nero supposedly hated Christians and persecuted them. He also would have had knowledge that Yeshua was crucified by the Romans. I seriously doubt that he would have mentioned Christians and Yeshua in the Annals if he did not some knowledge of their existence.

Josephus, also born in the first century (37 A.D. - 100 A.D.), would also have heard of Christians at an early age, and therefore, he would also would have heard of Yeshua. Now you can disputed the accuracy of the his mention of Yeshua, as do I. The only difference is that I believe that he did mention Yeshua and then Christian transcribers added to his entry. It does not make sense for a Christian transcriber to just mention Yeshua in one short paragraph if they were trying to prove Christ's divinity.

Pliny the Younger, also born in the first century (61 A.D. -112 A.D.), talks about how to deal with Christians that would not worship the emperor, but instead worshiped Christus in a letter to Emperor Trajan.

There are more sources for the historicity of Yeshau but I have no desire to post them all.

Why would all of these historical figures mention Christians and in some cases Yeshua if a real man was not in the picture? It makes more sense that a real man is behind all this madness, than it is to believe that the entire story of Yeshua was made up and all of these true historical figures were just added to the story. Think about it, who started the story? Who added to the story? Why did they create the story in the first place? It just seems like an awful lot of work to create this elaborate story out of thin air for no reason at all, other than to create a new religion. Also, why would the majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman, believe that a real man is behind the stories of the Bible? Believe or disbelieve what you will. As skeptics, I appreciate your position and I also have my doubts, however, it just seems more reasonable to take the majority of scholars word for it, than it is to dismiss everything due to being overly skeptical.

 

[Laurens]

Unfortunately, I'm in a lot of pain and will not be responding to everyone's posts on Carrier's assumptions. I have not read any of Carrier's books, therefore, I cannot dispute the claims he has made, nor do I have the so called sources that he uses in his books. I can only go by what he has said in the video posted in this thread. I have already argued against his assumptions made in the video. I see no reason to rehash that argument again.

I will, however, try to make a case that the early Christians existed in the first century, however, they were more than likely Jews and did not call themselves Christians. I will also try to make the case that the New Testament books that refer to Jesus were probably based on a historical figure who was named Yeshua.

First, let's start with evidence of early Christians. There is archaeological evidence from the first century that has possible ties to early Christianity. You can read an article from LiveScience.com Possible Earliest Evidence of Christianity Resurrected from Ancient Tomb. There is also a book, which I have not read, but plan buying soon, that is based on this evidence. You can find it here: The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity.

Now let's start with the contemporaries of Yeshua:

There was the Apostle Paul who supposedly lived from A.D. 5 - A.D. 67. These are supposedly the undisputed writing of Paul: Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians and Philemon. He would have had the knowledge that a man named Yeshua existed and was crucified by the Romans.

There was also Peter who's birth is unknown but supposedly died A.D. 64 and was the first church leader (AD 30-AD 64). He his mentioned by Paul in Galatians, and this is evidence of Peter's existence. He was an Apostle of Yeshua and would have had the knowledge of his crucifixion.

There was also James, supposedly the brother of Yeshua. Birth unknown, but died in A.D. 69. He was also mentioned by Paul in Galatians. He was also mentioned by Josephus (not a contemporary) in the Antiquities of the Jews.

Now let's go to the non-contemporaries:

Tacitus was born 56 A.D. and by the time he would have reached adulthood in the first century. So, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to conclude that he would have at least heard of Christians, considering Nero was in power during part of his lifetime. Nero supposedly hated Christians and persecuted them. He also would have had knowledge that Yeshua was crucified by the Romans. I seriously doubt that he would have mentioned Christians and Yeshua in the Annals if he did not some knowledge of their existence.

Josephus, also born in the first century (37 A.D. - 100 A.D.), would also have heard of Christians at an early age, and therefore, he would also would have heard of Yeshua. Now you can disputed the accuracy of the his mention of Yeshua, as do I. The only difference is that I believe that he did mention Yeshua and then Christian transcribers added to his entry. It does not make sense for a Christian transcriber to just mention Yeshua in one short paragraph if they were trying to prove Christ's divinity.

Pliny the Younger, also born in the first century (61 A.D. -112 A.D.), talks about how to deal with Christians that would not worship the emperor, but instead worshiped Christus in a letter to Emperor Trajan.

There are more sources for the historicity of Yeshau but I have no desire to post them all.

Why would all of these historical figures mention Christians and in some cases Yeshua if a real man was not in the picture? It makes more sense that a real man is behind all this madness, than it is to believe that the entire story of Yeshua was made up and all of these true historical figures were just added to the story. Think about it, who started the story? Who added to the story? Why did they create the story in the first place? It just seems like an awful lot of work to create this elaborate story out of thin air for no reason at all, other than to create a new religion. Also, why would the majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman, believe that a real man is behind the stories of the Bible? Believe or disbelieve what you will. As skeptics, I appreciate your position and I also have my doubts, however, it just seems more reasonable to take the majority of scholars word for it, than it is to dismiss everything due to being overly skeptical.

The existence of Christians in 70 CE is not unexpected on mythicism. Perhaps I am missing something though, how does this tomb establish historicity?

Peter is not referred to as being a disciple in the Epistles, he is referred to as an apostle (a category which includes Paul himself). Peter (Cephas) is somewhat revered apparently due to his being the first that Jesus revealed himself to. Paul says:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Note that Paul does not indicate that Cephas was a disciple of an Earthly Jesus. In fact Paul never mentions disciples. He merely states that Christ appears to Cephas in the exact way he appears to Paul. No distinction is made that would in any way indicate that Cephas was known to the historical Jesus. It is also curious that Christ's death is referenced not as being a widely known recent historical fact, but merely in accordance with scripture. He doesn't say according to Cephas---who knew Jesus---he died for our sins, his only inference seems to be from scripture, rather than any historical source. This is perfectly accounted for by mythicism, but seems odd on historicism.

I'd be interested to see where Paul states that Jesus was executed by the Romans. Do you have a reference for that?

As far as I can tell, Paul never unambiguously places Jesus's execution in Jerusalem at the hands of Pontious Pilate. He never refers to any tradition about an empty tomb. In his 20,000 or so words Paul not once mentions anything that implies that Christ was a recently dead rabbi who left behind followers. This is extremely odd. If this was a personality cult surrounding a recently executed person, why doesn't Paul ever talk about the sermons Jesus gave, or his miracles, or any of his earthly deeds? He has ample opportunity to do so. In my opinion it defies belief that Paul would write so many words and never once, even incidentally mention something that confirms historicity.

With regards to James. This is what Paul says:

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 1:18-19

Carrier states that "the Lord's brother" is an inaccurate translation, that it actually reads "the brother of the Lord". The following source confirms this. This distinction becomes important because we know that early Christians belonged to a fictive kinship. Paul refers to baptised Christians as being adopted as Sons of God also confirmed here there are numerous other examples, but I shall leave it there for now. If baptised Christians are thus Sons of God, then they are logically brothers of the Lord. Paul often refers to fellow Christians as brethren.

In 1 Corinthians 9:1-6 Paul similarly references "Brothers of the Lord". Carrier argues that he is using brothers of the Lord as a rank among the as yet unnamed Christian church. He distinguishes them from apostles---those to whom Christ had revealed himself, and Cephas---distinguished by being the first to have such a revelation (On the Historicity of Jesus page 583-584). Since all Christians were Brothers of the Lord, Paul would surely need to be more specific if he was talking about biological relatives.

Thus in Galatians 1:19 he might simply be referring to James by this title, as an official way of saying "baptised Christian". In this instance he would have to had to use the official title rather than "brother James" because that might have implied that James was Cephas's brother. Given that Paul does not feel the need to distinguish James from the other brothers of the Lord (all Christians), it is unlikely that he is talking about Jesus's family. He might be but this passage is ambiguous at best, certainly not proof of historicity.

Josephus says "The brother of Jesus (who was called the Christ), the name for who was James" (On the Historicity of Jesus page 337) he goes on to describe how James was stoned to death by the high priest Ananus. Carrier goes into detail about how the phrase "who was called the Christ" was a late third century addition to the text. I won't go into detail on that. However it is unlikely that Josephus would use the phrase Christ (at least not without explanation as to what he meant) as the term would only occur to a Christian. Josephus is normally careful to explain his terms. The most likely explanation is that "who was called the Christ" is an insertion into the text (if you want me to go into more detail on Carrier's arguments for this I will). Carrier argues that it is more likely that Josephus is referring to Jesus ben Demneus who is mentioned elsewhere in the passage.

If we accept that this was a later insertion, all we have is "the brother of Jesus the name for who was James" two very common names---which do not really prove anything.

With regards to Tacitus and Pliny these references to Jesus could simply have been referring to what Christians had said about Jesus, and thus cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels. The same has also been said of Josephus, however it is more likely that the Testimonium Flavinium is inserted wholesale into the text.

Get well soon by the way, hope you're alright.

Laurens

 

[tuxbox]

The existence of Christians in 70 CE is not unexpected on mythicism. Perhaps I am missing something though, how does this tomb establish historicity?

I only added that to confirm that that there is archaeological evidence that 1st century Christians existed. How does mythicism explain first century Christians? How does mythicism explain Paul's passion for following Christ and trying to convert others into believing as well? First Century Christians came from somewhere, and it does not make any sense that they came about on a myth. Especially since they risked persecution and death for believing.

Note that Paul does not indicate that Cephas was a disciple of an Earthly Jesus. In fact Paul never mentions disciples.

In the passage that you quoted, he mentions “the twelve”. Who else could Paul be referring to?

He merely states that Christ appears to Cephas in the exact way he appears to Paul. No distinction is made that would in any way indicate that Cephas was known to the historical Jesus. It is also curious that Christ's death is referenced not as being a widely known recent historical fact, but merely in accordance with scripture. He doesn't say according to Cephas---who knew Jesus---he died for our sins, his only inference seems to be from scripture, rather than any historical source. This is perfectly accounted for by mythicism, but seems odd on historicism.

What scriptures? It could not have been the Gospels, because Paul had written his letters by the time Mark was written (68–73 A.D.), the earliest known Gospel. Also, Paul died in 67 A.D.

I'd be interested to see where Paul states that Jesus was executed by the Romans. Do you have a reference for that?

The only source that I could find in Paul’s letters referring to the crucifixion, was in Galatians 3:1, which say:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you “that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?” (NKGV)

As far as I can tell, Paul never unambiguously places Jesus's execution in Jerusalem at the hands of Pontious Pilate. He never refers to any tradition about an empty tomb. In his 20,000 or so words Paul not once mentions anything that implies that Christ was a recently dead rabbi who left behind followers.

It is true that Paul does not place Christ’s execution in Jerusalem at the hands of Pilate, but he does mention him as being crucified. Also, the book of Mark does mention his trial and execution of Christ, and as I have already mentioned, Mark was written as early as 68 AD. Then you have Tacitus’ passage of Christ’s crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Add them together, and you have a pretty good case that a man named Yeshua was crucified in Jerusalem at the hands of Pilate.

Paul does mention followers. He mentions apostles in Galatians 1-19, a passage which you have already posted. Also, Paul mentions Christ as being crucified. That is a pretty good indicator that Christ was a "recently dead rabbi".

This is extremely odd. If this was a personality cult surrounding a recently executed person, why doesn't Paul ever talk about the sermons Jesus gave, or his miracles, or any of his earthly deeds? He has ample opportunity to do so. In my opinion it defies belief that Paul would write so many words and never once, even incidentally mention something that confirms historicity.

The only miracle Paul ever talks about is Christ's resurrection. That said, why do you find it odd that Paul does not talk about the miracles in the Gospels when they have not been written yet? He only talks about Christ as being crucified and that the Father raised him from the dead. While I find all that to be BS, I find it strange that Paul would put so much energy into converting others into believing in Christ at the risk of persecution, if he did not truly believe and have some knowledge of the existence of the historical figure.

Carrier states that "the Lord's brother" is an inaccurate translation, that it actually reads "the brother of the Lord". The following source confirms this. This distinction becomes important because we know that early Christians belonged to a fictive kinship. Paul refers to baptised Christians as being adopted as Sons of God also confirmed here there are numerous other examples, but I shall leave it there for now. If baptised Christians are thus Sons of God, then they are logically brothers of the Lord. Paul often refers to fellow Christians as brethren.

In 1 Corinthians 9:1-6 Paul similarly references "Brothers of the Lord". Carrier argues that he is using brothers of the Lord as a rank among the as yet unnamed Christian church. He distinguishes them from apostles---those to whom Christ had revealed himself, and Cephas---distinguished by being the first to have such a revelation (On the Historicity of Jesus page 583-584). Since all Christians were Brothers of the Lord, Paul would surely need to be more specific if he was talking about biological relatives.

Thus in Galatians 1:19 he might simply be referring to James by this title, as an official way of saying "baptised Christian". In this instance he would have to had to use the official title rather than "brother James" because that might have implied that James was Cephas's brother. Given that Paul does not feel the need to distinguish James from the other brothers of the Lord (all Christians), it is unlikely that he is talking about Jesus's family. He might be but this passage is ambiguous at best, certainly not proof of historicity.

Josephus says "The brother of Jesus (who was called the Christ), the name for who was James" (On the Historicity of Jesus page 337) he goes on to describe how James was stoned to death by the high priest Ananus. Carrier goes into detail about how the phrase "who was called the Christ" was a late third century addition to the text. I won't go into detail on that. However it is unlikely that Josephus would use the phrase Christ (at least not without explanation as to what he meant) as the term would only occur to a Christian. Josephus is normally careful to explain his terms. The most likely explanation is that "who was called the Christ" is an insertion into the text (if you want me to go into more detail on Carrier's arguments for this I will). Carrier argues that it is more likely that Josephus is referring to Jesus ben Demneus who is mentioned elsewhere in the passage.

If we accept that this was a later insertion, all we have is "the brother of Jesus the name for who was James" two very common names---which do not really prove anything.

With regards to Tacitus and Pliny these references to Jesus could simply have been referring to what Christians had said about Jesus, and thus cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels. The same has also been said of Josephus, however it is more likely that the Testimonium Flavinium is inserted wholesale into the text.

I'm at a disadvantage at this point, because I have not read Carrier's book. I will have to buy and read Carrier's and Ehrman's book/s to counter all the arguments against the historicity of Yeshua. That said, you make some really good points, however, I am not convinced at this point. Maybe after reading those books I will change my mind. I have a pretty heavy reading schedule already. Most of them have to do with the Big Bang and String Theory. I will try to squeeze in Carrier's and Ehrman's books as soon as possible, so we can continue this discussion.

Get well soon by the way, hope you're alright.

Thank you very much.

 

[Laurens]

I only added that to confirm that that there is archaeological evidence that 1st century Christians existed. How does mythicism explain first century Christians? How does mythicism explain Paul's passion for following Christ and trying to convert others into believing as well? First Century Christians came from somewhere, and it does not make any sense that they came about on a myth. Especially since they risked persecution and death for believing.

Christians existing in 70 CE isn't unexpected so that alone doesn't prove anything either way. The apologetics that Christians needed an earthly Christ in order to be willing to die for him doesn't make sense. If they sincerely believed in a celestial saviour figure they might be just as willing to die for it as they would for a historical figure. Martyrs don't provide proof of anything, lots of people throughout history have been willing to die for certain ideas, some real, some imaginary.

In the passage that you quoted, he mentions “the twelve”. Who else could Paul be referring to?

In light of the Gospels this would appear so. The Gospels were written after Paul though, and could have taken this reference or a known tradition of there being twelve apostles (and Cephas). He doesn't call them "the twelve who knew Christ in the flesh", also as I mentioned he doesn't differentiate between their revelatory experiences and his, at least not on any basis other than chronology.

What scriptures? It could not have been the Gospels, because Paul had written his letters by the time Mark was written (68–73 A.D.), the earliest known Gospel. Also, Paul died in 67 A.D.

The Greek Old Testament. Passages such as Zechariah 6, Isaiah 53, and Daniel 9. One could easily derive Christian beliefs from them.

The only source that I could find in Paul’s letters referring to the crucifixion, was in Galatians 3:1, which say:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you “that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?” (NKGV)

It is true that Paul does not place Christ’s execution in Jerusalem at the hands of Pilate, but he does mention him as being crucified. Also, the book of Mark does mention his trial and execution of Christ, and as I have already mentioned, Mark was written as early as 68 AD. Then you have Tacitus’ passage of Christ’s crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Add them together, and you have a pretty good case that a man named Yeshua was crucified in Jerusalem at the hands of Pilate.

On mythicism Christians believed in a Christ that was crucified by Satan in the firmament. This idea is mentioned in a very unusual scripture called The Ascension of Isaiah which was then later interpolated to include Jesus coming to Earth.

Paul does mention followers. He mentions apostles in Galatians 1-19, a passage which you have already posted. Also, Paul mentions Christ as being crucified. That is a pretty good indicator that Christ was a "recently dead rabbi".

As mentioned above Jesus may have been envisaged to have been crucified in a celestial realm by Satan, which does not preclude him from having followers and therefore your point doesn't really prove much.

The only miracle Paul ever talks about is Christ's resurrection. That said, why do you find it odd that Paul does not talk about the miracles in the Gospels when they have not been written yet? He only talks about Christ as being crucified and that the Father raised him from the dead. While I find all that to be BS, I find it strange that Paul would put so much energy into converting others into believing in Christ at the risk of persecution, if he did not truly believe and have some knowledge of the existence of the historical figure.

As mentioned above, Christ was viewed in light of other similar saviour deities who went through an ordeal and were risen again after death. Romulus, Osiris, Inanna etc. why out of all these dying and rising saviour deities would only one be historical? The idea that early Christians would not be willing to endure persecution if Jesus wasn't real doesn't make sense. It implies that they can only really believe in a historical person, but that isn't true. People can be just as convinced of a being that they have seen in visions---which is how Paul describes Jesus appearing to himself and the other apostles.

I'm at a disadvantage at this point, because I have not read Carrier's book. I will have to buy and read Carrier's and Ehrman's book/s to counter all the arguments against the historicity of Yeshua. That said, you make some really good points, however, I am not convinced at this point. Maybe after reading those books I will change my mind. I have a pretty heavy reading schedule already. Most of them have to do with the Big Bang and String Theory. I will try to squeeze in Carrier's and Ehrman's books as soon as possible, so we can continue this discussion.

Cool, no rush.

Thank you very much.

No worries.

 

[tuxbox]

Laurens,

I’ve notice you keep on using the word “prove” in a lot of your responses. I do not believe proof can be had on either side of this debate. Evidence on the other hand, is a different story. I realize that the skeptics will dismiss the evidence that is brought to the table on the historical figure known as Christ, however, there are others that dismiss the evidence that the mythicists bring to the table, too. I’m open minded at this point, and like I have said in other posts, I am not 100 percent certain that a historical figure existed. At this point I’m trusting the majority of historians who believe there is enough to conclude that the historical Jesus existed. That said, I may change my mind after reading Carrier’s book. Then again, I may hold my position after reading Ehrman’s book. I will have to read both to come to a final conclusion.

 

[tuxbox]

Has the debate already taken place? According to the video, the debate was suppose to take place in the fall of this year. We are now closing in on winter.

 

[tuxbox]

Well, main stream scholarship has shown that both the "Sermon on the Mount" and the "he who is without sin" stories are later additions to the gospels (Ehrman points this out in a few of his lectures, I can track them down of you like). Take away both of those stories and your left with someone the did not say anything new or revolutionary. If anything, his ideas were quite regressive in that he said things like people do not have to wash their hands, negating one of the few useful rules in the Torah, and he was here to set families against each other.

Are you referring to Luke 14:26?

In addition, much like today with Joshua, Yeshua seems to have been a very popular name in the Jewish community two thousand years ago. Furthermore, "street preaching" (for lack of a better term) was extremely common in Roman occupied Israel, Josephus writes about this in the Antiquities of the Jews. It frankly would not surprise me to find out that Jesus was based on several "street preachers" from around that time, and a handful of them were actually named Yeshua.

That would not surprise me as well.

 

[tuxbox]

tuxbox, I couldn't reply for a couple of days but I'll try and avoid things others have said.

First of all, as the Wikipedia article notes, the consensus that exists only agrees on three facts: 1) Jesus existed, 2) Jesus was baptized by John (for whom better evidence exists) and 3) Jesus was crucified. The corollary of this is that there is no consensus for literally everything else Jesus is meant to have said or done.

This of course means that there is no consensus on 98% of what the Gospels say. Which makes sense given that the Gospels are most likely literary works along the lines of midrash. Virtually every passage in the Gospels is a reference to something in Hebrew scripture. It also makes sense given that the Gospels get more detailed as they get farther removed from when Jesus allegedly lived despite later Gospels all being at least largely based on earlier Gospels.

And of course the earliest Christian source is Paul, who -- by his own statements -- never met a historical Jesus. In fact Paul only says a couple of things that might suggest he wasn't talking solely to a celestial being (like Mohammad talking to the archangel Gabriel), and even those are up for debate.

So even those who agree Jesus was historical don't agree that the Christian sources tell us anything.

As for the other sources like Josephus and Tacitus, mostly they tell us that Christians existed. And even if all of their claimed references to Jesus (some of which have been addressed earlier in this thread) are authentic and indeed are talking about Jesus, they are far too late to really be considered independent. They could very easily just be reporting what Christians have said based on the Gospels (some of which would have been in circulation at this stage).

And really, I don't see why the Roman empire buying into it is compelling, They bought into the Greek pantheon heavily before that.

You make a lot of good points, but let me ask you this. Why do any scholars believe that a historical Jesus existed?