• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind

Ceist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
534
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Like many people in the Western world, I never questioned that Jesus of Nazareth had existed as a real person. Ironically, I only really started to question the historicity when researching the claims of Christian evangelists. Over and over again, I found these claims of historical evidence for Jesus were often exaggerated or based on misinformation and lies.

Dr Richard Carrier discusses the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as an actual person:

 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Earl Doherty's work is also fascinating and extremely well researched:

Books:
The Jesus Puzzle - Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?
Jesus: Neither God Nor Man -The most comprehensive presentation of the case for Jesus Mythicism.
Challenging the Verdict - exposes the deficiencies, the fallacies, the selective and misleading use of evidence inherent in the popular book Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ

Website:

AgeOfReason - Main Articles
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

I very much don't think that such a person who did all those things (even the ones that didn't require magic) existed. The story sounds like an amalgamation of several stories together. Some of which likely came from older legends, some actually about Jewish preachers at the time. The story could have coalesced around a recently executed Jewish preacher named Joshua, and his story was told and retold and expanded many times after his death, with many embellishments. By the time Constantine gets to it, he wants a single, unified version, and Christians spend several hundred years trying to hammer out exactly what that version is, and honestly have never stopped.

Jesus Christ the preacher who said all of those things, was born around that time and place, was killed in that way for being a political inciter... it's possible. Jesus Christ, the descendant or avatar of an immortal god... not so much. Jesus Christ, a story put together but elements of others stories put together and reshaped over a thousand retellings... pretty reasonable.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Who cares whether this non-magical politician existed some 2000 years ago?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Who cares whether this non-magical politician existed some 2000 years ago?




The people who belong to the Christian Church, it's a big part of their life.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

The people who belong to the Christian Church, it's a big part of their life.

But the non-magical politicians are not a matter of deity, they are a matter of politicians?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Who cares whether this non-magical politician existed some 2000 years ago?

Probably several billion people?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

I very much don't think that such a person who did all those things (even the ones that didn't require magic) existed. The story sounds like an amalgamation of several stories together. Some of which likely came from older legends, some actually about Jewish preachers at the time. The story could have coalesced around a recently executed Jewish preacher named Joshua, and his story was told and retold and expanded many times after his death, with many embellishments. By the time Constantine gets to it, he wants a single, unified version, and Christians spend several hundred years trying to hammer out exactly what that version is, and honestly have never stopped.

Jesus Christ the preacher who said all of those things, was born around that time and place, was killed in that way for being a political inciter... it's possible. Jesus Christ, the descendant or avatar of an immortal god... not so much. Jesus Christ, a story put together but elements of others stories put together and reshaped over a thousand retellings... pretty reasonable.

The more I have looked into this over the years, the more it looks to me like Jesus may originally have been a 'spiritual' being, not a flesh and blood human. Much of this came from Paul's writings (the legitimate ones), Philo on the Logos etc. All the Gospel backfill stories came later- and were just stories.

As for Acts? Pretty much looks like mostly fiction where the author borrowed historical detail from Josephus etc.



and

Luke and Josephus
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Like many people in the Western world, I never questioned that Jesus of Nazareth had existed as a real person. Ironically, I only really started to question the historicity when researching the claims of Christian evangelists. Over and over again, I found these claims of historical evidence for Jesus were often exaggerated or based on misinformation and lies.

Dr Richard Carrier discusses the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as an actual person:

You people read and watch what you want to, and damn the facts. Well, here's what all you skeptics are missing because you didn't do the rest of your research:

Ancient Historical Evidence for Jesus - Parts 1 through 5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxQzIkHINW0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7mZdPAMNVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbbPHlgE0FE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJvgwGPIND8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvYeTlixqg


The Resurrection of Jesus: Religious Invention or Historical Fact? Gary Habermas vs. Ken Humphreys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93UyXGfYDG4

Historical Facts Approach to the Resurrection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

You're busted.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Logicman,

I take it that you have not bothered to watch the video?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

The more I have looked into this over the years, the more it looks to me like Jesus may originally have been a 'spiritual' being, not a flesh and blood human. Much of this came from Paul's writings (the legitimate ones), Philo on the Logos etc. All the Gospel backfill stories came later- and were just stories.

As for Acts? Pretty much looks like mostly fiction where the author borrowed historical detail from Josephus etc.

I've been some of that, too. Ultimately, without strong evidence one way or another, I don't really care whether or not there a specific person that these stories were based on. The important parts of the stories are either good on their own (love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek), or are obviously false (all the god parts and the magic). I like taking the good ideas on their own merits, and I strongly advocate that we stop caring about the BS parts and definitely stop the bigotry and violence that come with them.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

You people read and watch what you want to, and damn the facts. Well, here's what all you skeptics are missing because you didn't do the rest of your research:

Ancient Historical Evidence for Jesus - Parts 1 through 5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxQzIkHINW0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7mZdPAMNVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbbPHlgE0FE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJvgwGPIND8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvYeTlixqg


The Resurrection of Jesus: Religious Invention or Historical Fact? Gary Habermas vs. Ken Humphreys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93UyXGfYDG4

Historical Facts Approach to the Resurrection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

You're busted.

You don't think I've heard all that before? Those are great examples of what I was referring to when I said "Over and over again, I found these claims of historical evidence for Jesus were often exaggerated or based on misinformation and lies."


Exaggerations, misinformation and lies like those parroted by the "Pastor J" (whoever he is) and Gary Habermas in the videos you linked to.

You're basted. In cool-aid.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Logicman,

I take it that you have not bothered to watch the video?

I think that's obvious.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Whats the readers digest version? Or whats the most compelling evidence that Jesus was not historical?
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

You don't think I've heard all that before? Those are great examples of what I was referring to when I said "Over and over again, I found these claims of historical evidence for Jesus were often exaggerated or based on misinformation and lies."


Exaggerations, misinformation and lies like those parroted by the "Pastor J" (whoever he is) and Gary Habermas in the videos you linked to.

You're basted. In cool-aid.

Horse manure. Your claims were taken to task and exposed for the drivel they are.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

This is the most exhaustive, scholarly, thoroughly documented and well-respected work ever written on miracles - both in Jesus' day and today. Over 100,000 classical references. Modern miracles documented.

I doubt the skeptics will read it because they don't want the truth. They just want to bash religion and Christianity.


Miracles, 2 volumes - The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

by: Craig S. Keener, Ph.d.


Miracles, 2 volumes | Baker Publishing Group

"Seldom does a book take one's breath away, but Keener's magisterial Miracles is such a book. It is an extremely sophisticated, completely thorough treatment of its subject matter, and, in my opinion, it is now the best text available on the topic. The uniqueness of Keener's treatment lies in his location of the biblical miracles in the trajectory of ongoing, documented miracles in the name of Jesus and his kingdom throughout church history, up to and including the present. From now on, no one who deals with the credibility of biblical miracles can do so responsibly without interacting with this book."--J. P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

"Craig Keener's magisterial two-volume study of miracles is an astounding accomplishment. The book covers far more than the subtitle implies, because Keener places the debate over the biblical miracles in many different contexts, including the philosophical debate over miracles, views of miracles in the ancient world, contemporary evidence for miracles, and the relationship of the issue to science. Although this book is clearly the product of immense learning and a mind at home in many disciplines, it is clearly written and argued and shows good sense throughout."--C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University

"Keener dares to accuse prevailing approaches to biblical-historical inquiry of operating according to ethnocentric prejudices and presuppositions, and then dares to make the charges stick with an avalanche of interdisciplinary arguments and evidence. He challenges us to ask--not only as persons of faith, but also as committed academicians--one of the most important questions that we can: Is the natural world a closed system after all? This monumental study combines historical inquiry into late antiquity, philosophical and existential criticism of antisupernaturalism and the legacy of David Hume's epistemological skepticism, and ethnographic study of the phenomenon of the miraculous throughout the Majority World. The result is a book that is important not only for the historical study of Jesus and the New Testament but also for our understanding of our contemporary world beyond the boundaries of our social location and its worldview."--David A. deSilva, Trustees' Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek, Ashland Theological Seminary
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Horse manure. Your claims were taken to task and exposed for the drivel they are.

You don't even know what the claims were as your response shows you clearly didn't watch the video in the OP.

However I did watch the videos you posted - and I'm still laughing. :D

Your "Pastor J" dude just parrots from a piece from apologist Gary Habermas in those 5 videos. He claims there are 15 points of evidence in the Tacitus interpolation? Talk about desperate.

By they way, he actually repeats the same things about Tacitus in video 1 and 2.

Did you hear what he had to say about the Josephus interpolations? What a joke.

Gary Habermas seriously believes the Shroud of Turin is 'evidence' for Jesus? Seriously?

Even I could have come up with a better Apologist source. Somehow, I doubt you even bothered watching the videos in your own links.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Like many people in the Western world, I never questioned that Jesus of Nazareth had existed as a real person. Ironically, I only really started to question the historicity when researching the claims of Christian evangelists. Over and over again, I found these claims of historical evidence for Jesus were often exaggerated or based on misinformation and lies.

Dr Richard Carrier discusses the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as an actual person:



I, for one, don't care about these sorts of speculations. It's a waste of time to consider them. These historical facts, speculations and extrapolations can't be used to prove anything one way or the other. There is certainly nothing here that would shake a mature believer. Believe in Christ or don't, I won't try to change your mind.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Horse manure. Your claims were taken to task and exposed for the drivel they are.
2438326-laughing-hysterically.gif
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

This is the most exhaustive, scholarly, thoroughly documented and well-respected work ever written on miracles - both in Jesus' day and today. Over 100,000 classical references. Modern miracles documented.

I doubt the skeptics will read it because they don't want the truth. They just want to bash religion and Christianity.


Miracles, 2 volumes - The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

by: Craig S. Keener, Ph.d.


Miracles, 2 volumes | Baker Publishing Group

"Seldom does a book take one's breath away, but Keener's magisterial Miracles is such a book. It is an extremely sophisticated, completely thorough treatment of its subject matter, and, in my opinion, it is now the best text available on the topic. The uniqueness of Keener's treatment lies in his location of the biblical miracles in the trajectory of ongoing, documented miracles in the name of Jesus and his kingdom throughout church history, up to and including the present. From now on, no one who deals with the credibility of biblical miracles can do so responsibly without interacting with this book."--J. P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

"Craig Keener's magisterial two-volume study of miracles is an astounding accomplishment. The book covers far more than the subtitle implies, because Keener places the debate over the biblical miracles in many different contexts, including the philosophical debate over miracles, views of miracles in the ancient world, contemporary evidence for miracles, and the relationship of the issue to science. Although this book is clearly the product of immense learning and a mind at home in many disciplines, it is clearly written and argued and shows good sense throughout."--C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University

"Keener dares to accuse prevailing approaches to biblical-historical inquiry of operating according to ethnocentric prejudices and presuppositions, and then dares to make the charges stick with an avalanche of interdisciplinary arguments and evidence. He challenges us to ask--not only as persons of faith, but also as committed academicians--one of the most important questions that we can: Is the natural world a closed system after all? This monumental study combines historical inquiry into late antiquity, philosophical and existential criticism of antisupernaturalism and the legacy of David Hume's epistemological skepticism, and ethnographic study of the phenomenon of the miraculous throughout the Majority World. The result is a book that is important not only for the historical study of Jesus and the New Testament but also for our understanding of our contemporary world beyond the boundaries of our social location and its worldview."--David A. deSilva, Trustees' Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek, Ashland Theological Seminary



Keener has a series of self-promoting Youtube videos on his book. I watched half a dozen of them before realising that he had nothing new. Just the usual anecdotes and claims.







I was expecting more from all the hoopla you wrote. A least some verifiable evidence.

It's fascinating what some people want to believe is 'evidence' that prayer can heal or even "raise people from the dead". :D

And yet there is a question that has been asked many times but never really answered:

Why is it that no amputees have ever claimed their limbs have grown back? What does your God have against amputees?

But this doesn't address the points made by Carrier in the video in the OP anyway.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Like many people in the Western world, I never questioned that Jesus of Nazareth had existed as a real person. Ironically, I only really started to question the historicity when researching the claims of Christian evangelists. Over and over again, I found these claims of historical evidence for Jesus were often exaggerated or based on misinformation and lies.

Dr Richard Carrier discusses the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as an actual person:



Richard Carrier, (like Robert M Price), take loose corrolations and claim Direct causation.

The parrallels in Acts and Josephus are clearly not Direct, and the are much better explained that they come from a common Source, or general knowledge, Acts was written in the 80s or (at latest) 90s, it was quoted by early second Century Church fathers as authoritative, and even Clement in the late 1st Century, There is just NO WAY it was written late enough for it to be copying of Josephus.

As for other parrallels, what the gospels often do, is take Jesus' actions and interperate them in the context of the Tanakh, but that happens all the time in Jewish writings and it doesn't imply that Jesus was just made up.

He tries to tie mystery cults With Christianity ... CHristianity started in Jerusalemn ... not exactly a hotbed for Mystery Cults.

I mean I could continue, but the myth theory of Jesus just doesn't hold up, which is why it's treated in historical scholarship the same way climate denial is treated in climate studies, it just doesn't hold up.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

Richard Carrier, (like Robert M Price), take loose corrolations and claim Direct causation.
The parrallels in Acts and Josephus are clearly not Direct, and the are much better explained that they come from a common Source, or general knowledge,
It's not a exactly a recent theory that the author of Acts lifted historical information from Josephus to add some authenticity to the stories. Yes, it's possible that both the author of Acts and Josephus used a common source, but there are a lot of coincidences that are not so easily explained away.
eg Josephus and the New Testament

Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories


Luke and Josephus.




Acts was written in the 80s or (at latest) 90s, it was quoted by early second Century Church fathers as authoritative, and even Clement in the late 1st Century, There is just NO WAY it was written late enough for it to be copying of Josephus.
The main objection for a later date seems to come from people who need to believe that the author was a companion of Paul. The work wasn't quoted before Iraneus in the very late 2nd century. What "early second century church fathers" are you referring to and what are you claiming they wrote? I think you are confusing your Clements. Perhaps you might like to present your sources for these claims?

As for other parrallels, what the gospels often do, is take Jesus' actions and interperate them in the context of the Tanakh, but that happens all the time in Jewish writings and it doesn't imply that Jesus was just made up.
I don't think either Carrier or Price say that "Jesus was just made up" and if that's what you think then it doesn't appear that you know much about their work. But there are plenty of examples of where the gospel stories of an historical Jesus were made to fit the OT scriptures - sometimes rather awkwardly.

He tries to tie mystery cults With Christianity ... CHristianity started in Jerusalemn ... not exactly a hotbed for Mystery Cults.
Which just shows you don't know a lot about the religious philosophies of that era.

I mean I could continue, but the myth theory of Jesus just doesn't hold up, which is why it's treated in historical scholarship the same way climate denial is treated in climate studies, it just doesn't hold up.
You use a poor analogy. Challenging mainstream religious consensus and mainstream scientific consensus is very different. Yes you could continue, but you might want to do some better research as your claims are rather flaky.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His


Amazing how utterly accurate your little gif is. At least you're honest, I'll give you that.
 
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His

1. It's not a new theory that the author of Acts lifted historical information from Josephus. Yes, it's possible that both the author of Acts and Josephus used a common source, but there are a lot of coincidences that are not so easily explained away.

2. The main objection for a later date seems to come from people who need to believe that the author was a companion of Paul. The work wasn't quoted before Iraneus in the very late 2nd century. What "early second century church fathers" are you referring to and what are you claiming they wrote? I think you are confusing your Clements. Perhaps you might like to present your sources or these claims?

3. I don't think either Carrier says that "Jesus was just made up" and if that's what you think then it doesn't appear that you know much about his work.

4. But there are plenty of examples of where the gospel stories of an historical Jesus were made to fit the OT scriptures - sometimes rather awkwardly.

5. Which just shows you don't know a lot about the culture and philosophy of that area and time.
Yes you could continue, but you might want to do some research as your claims are rather flaky.

1. I've read the argument, and honestly its extremely unconvincing.

2. Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians quotes Acts 11:26 ..... ignatius died 108 AD ... EARLY second Century, 1st Letter of Clement quotes Acts 20:35, Celement died around 101 CE.

Then there is Tertullian and Irenaeus.

3. No, If I'm not mistaken Carrier believes Jesus was a myth who was narratized, a God who was narratized as a human and re-diefied later.

4. That's the point, the awkwardness of it, and spurious Connection, makes it MUCH more likely that the early disciples re-read the OT in the context of Jesus, rather then Write a story of a Mythical God in the context of the OT, the narratives read like a history which is interperated through the OT.

5. You have to look at the archaeology of the time, Jerusalem was a temple priesthood ruled city, in the city of Jerusalem the mystery cults were not a big deal, around the area, in parts of galilee, maybe, but not in the city of Jerusalem where CHristianity started.

And actually look at the mystery cults, they don't match Christianity in anymore than a very very very vague way.
 
Back
Top Bottom