Comments about ‘Defending the Faith: An agnostic's argument that Jesus did exist’

Interesting article, hopefully it will be a beginning of a real public discussion of the historicity of Jesus to take place, whether mainstream academia, or mainstream media. A major explanation on the topic will need to be why Philo of Alexandria never makes mention of Jesus.

The most convicing evidence that Jesus existed is the rise of Christianity itself which history shows happened within a relatively short period of time. More than a few scholars have examined the possibility that he was myth and dismissed the notion, many of them non-Christians and some of them atheists.

So, DP, are we to believe everything Bart Ehrman writes, just because he writes it?

Instead of claiming that Bart Ehrman is living proof....perhaps you should have written that Bart Ehrman provides compelling evidence.

@ Craig Clark

That is ridiculous. There are numerous God theories that have risen throughout history. Most of them preclude the others from being true. So, how is it that the rise of Christianity is any more convincing of its truthfulness than the others?

@romorg - neither the article nor Craig Clark's comment addressed the topic of truthfulness. 'Tis your comment that is ridiculous as a rebuttal.

romorg,

".....how is it that the rise of Christianity is any more convincing of its truthfulness than the others?"

It doesn’t. But the rise of Christianity is evidence enough for me that there was a man named Jesus who sparked a movement that grew and transcended his existence. I didn’t personally witness Columbus discovering the new world but there’s a lot of history to explain if he didn’t.

Like Ehrman, I'm in the agnostic/borderline atheist camp, so I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't doubt that there could be (probably was) a historic Jesus who was an itinerant preacher and had a positive message. That's not the big issue. The big question is the divinity of Jesus, the Son of God thing. Lots of people have claimed they were god without really demonstrating it (BD Mitchell, anyone?). Of course, it's easier to make the case of Jesus as divine if you accept the premise that Jesus himself actually existed. Much harder otherwise.

@LetsDebate

The debate is concerning whether Jesus actually existed, not of his divinity or the truthfulness of his message.

CC offered "the rise of Christianity" as evidence of the truthfulness of the existence of Jesus.

DP proclaimed Bart Ehrman to be living proof that it's a matter of historical evidence.

When I used the word "truthfulness", it was in reference to "the rise in Christianity" as evidence of Jesus' existence (as proclaimed by CC), not in reference to the truthfulness of Christianity.

One could likewise argue the question of both if other Biblical figures existed or not, and if so, if what they did involving 'miracles' happened or not. One could ask-

Did Adam exist?
Did Noah exist?
Did Abraham exist?
Did Isaac exist?
Did Jacob/Israel exist?
Did Joseph (Jacob's son) exist?
Did Joseph's 11 borothers exist?
Did Moses exist?
Did Joshua exist?

Did the "judges" exist (Sampson, Baruch, Gideon, Deborah, etc)?
Did Saul exist?
Did David exist?
Did Solomon exist?
Did Elijah and Elisha exist?
Did Jonah exist?

Did Micah, Isaiah and all of the other prophets exist?
Did Jeremiah exist?
Did Ezekiel exist?
Did Nehemiah exist?
Did Ezra exist?
Did Malachi and all the 'minor' prophets before him exist?

With all of these 'historical'and - or 'Biblical' figures, many 'miracles' have been claimed to have happened. Did they, in reality, occur?

Did Peter, James, John, Andrew and the other originally called apostles exist, including Judas Iscariot?

Did Saul/Paul exist, and all his fellows?

The whole literature that is, supposedly 'evidence' of them, did it spring into existence due to misleading human fabrication? Are there literary works that try to 'prove' the miraculous that was fabricated?

Indeed, one can find what in Mormonism is called the "interpolations of men" that have indeed occurred. Many books and literary works contain at least some, and some of these a lot, if not complete fabrication.

Is that a reason to dismiss all of them?

Hugh Nibley pointed out how, as 'scientists' and/or others have long said, "the evidence speaks for itself" isn't really necessarily so.

He pointed out, rather, how both 'believers' and 'non-believers' have both appealed to the same evidence, and arrived at diametrically opposing conclusions.

The New Testament character who most indisputably existed was Paul. Paul made very clear, deep, and wide impressions on the historical record. Christianity exists today because of Paul. Jesus’s historical existence is a much more elusive—the gospels were written decades after Jesus’s death, and were written from the perspective of third-person omniscient storytellers. It’s not obvious they have a basis in history.

So if you’re with me that Paul is the strongest witness of Jesus and the key promoter of early Christianity, isn’t it ironic that Paul never knew the historical Jesus, but rather only knew the Jesus he saw when he fell off his horse and hit his head?

There is more documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there is of most of his contemporaries in the First Century. There are documentary references to him in the writings of Josephus and other non-Christians. The claim that he never existed is not a position taken by any of his contemporaries, even his critics. To claim that Jesus never existed is to make a positive claim that there was a group of men who conspired to create a fictional person and were determined to tell a consistent story about him to thousands of people. Note that Paul in his early days of persecuting Christians did not make any pretense that Jesus never existed, just that his status as the Son of God was questionable. The burden of proof is on those doubting the reality of Jesus of Nazareth, a real person, to disprove all of the contemporary evidence of the reality of the man.

We tend to think of Saul’s epistles as ancillary to the gospel narratives when in fact, they were written independent of them and predate them. Indeed, Saul’s epistles have as much influence or more on the gospels than vice versa.

I haven't really ever doubted that Jesus existed, but I don't know if he was divinely the son of God.

Knowing that he existed isn't that difficult to prove or disprove.

Knowing that he was the son of God and was resurrected is the real question.

@romorg - if you're debating ONLY the historical existence of Jesus, your first comment is rather strange in referencing a proclaimed truthfulness as a way to preclude the truthfulness of other ideologies. Based on your second post, we have to assume that the comments in your first post make the claim that Jesus' existence somehow precludes the existence of other religious figures, which is indeed ridiculous. You, and you alone, raised the issue of "its" (Christianity's) truthfulness.

The sudden rise of Christianity and its associated historical texts is indeed a strong evidence of Jesus' actual existence. Just like the rise of Confucianism, Lutherans, Baptists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons are evidence of the actual lives of those who started them.

Are you trying to equate these religious movements with mythical figures like Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Isis, and various Sun, Moon and War Gods? You realize, of course, that nobody believes in these figures as historical beings, right?

To "a bit of reality":
Paul didn't ride a horse in any writings attributed to him or by any about him. Historians will point out that very few in that period and area rode horses. Most travel was on foot. Importantly few also read or wrote any language too. See this is how falsehoods arise. Some one makes a remark completely without merit and others start quoting it. So get back to the predominate "reality" and don't make up convienent stories to support your alternate position.

Last of 3 Comments -

It is apparent that one can/will come to any conclusion they choose, based on the 'evidence' they 'believe' or 'find' to be 'convincing'.

One always has to rely on many assumptions to come to any conclusion on any matter. And the assumptions one chooses are based on one's prejudices, which may or may not be affected either by one's experiences and/or one's own inclinations. And these seem to typically be formed by one's personal agenda.

@Thinkman - if something is not difficult to prove, wouldn't that make it difficult to disprove, and vice versa? I think what you mean is that among shallow thinkers and poor debaters, "Knowing that he existed isn't that difficult to prove or disprove."

Use the idea behind your moniker.

Agreed, however that the most important questions are about his divinity and resurrection.

DSB,

"....Agreed, however, that the most important questions are about his divinity and resurrection."

Jesus’ resurrection was a contentious issue in earliest Christianity and his divinity was still being debated by bishops at the Nicean council three centuries later. For one whose kingdom was not of this world, as John recorded, Jesus made quite an impression in the short time he lived here on Earth.

It is important to understand that people who disbelieve in the historical Jesus aren't being belligerently hyper-skeptical. Rather, it is because people such as Earl Doherty make a positive case that he didn't exist.

The argument centers on understanding what Paul actually meant when he talked about Christ. Was he specifically referring to a philosopher/carpenter from Nazareth that lived among the people a couple of years earlier, or was he talking about having faith in a deity that was crucified in the spiritual world? The question is more interesting than you might think; other people at the time believed in a God that was crucified in the spirit world.

We have lots of writings from Christians during the first 40 years of Christianity. Those early Christians never talked about the life of Jesus. They just said 'faith in Christ who was crucified.’ In fact, nobody talked about his life until after he was dead for 40 years. Why wouldn't they talk about his life? His life was a great story. Was it because the story hadn't been invented yet?

It's an interesting question.