Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

(it was like 90% my own words)EvC Forum: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured FaithSee my post 1659Theodoric did not respond in any meaningful way.

The proper default position is that something doesn't exist until there is solid evidence that it does exist - e.g. unicorns, fairies.It's believers who start with the conclusion that Jesus did exist and grasp at every straw to try to support it.

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.

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

You keep bringing that up and the answer is still the same. The impact of the character is caused by belief in the character - and by charlatans exploiting that belief for political or economic gain. Neither the belief nor the ulterior motives add to the reality of the 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?

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.

Buddha caught on. Mohammed caught on. Joseph Smith caught on. What does catching on have to do with the validity of the message?

Mormonism and Islam caught on while their founders were still alive. Why does catching on imply that Jesus was a historical figure? Christianity "caught on" over 100 years after this character supposedly was executed. Seems to be a problem there.

I think the Jews would argue that Jesus was a newcomer to the trend. But in any case, the point is that other successful brands are available so your point is rebutted. Sure and political opportunism etc. He probably WAS a myth that supported the creation of a franchise. And it's probably not a single He.

Theodoric keeps blowing the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus Ant. Book 18) flute.He has really been performing a clever "bait and switch", because he keeps making comments like this, to "prove" that the Book 20 reference to "brother of Jesus called Christ" was forged.

quote:

---

As for Josephus you are less than honest in your comments. IN the Testimonium he is reputed to say.

​

quote:

---

He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

---

​

Not something an observant Jew would say. But more importantly it does not matter. This is not evidence of Jesus. It is evidence that people believed in him. No corroboration. Find corroboration.

---

Theodoric is not only a one note flute, but it always is with a bait and switch.He follows this pattern.ONE:Ask for first-century documents mentioning Christians and Biblical characters.TWO:Wait for somebody to present them, which they willTHREE:Change the subject (such as Josephus Ant. Book 20) to another (Book 18).FOUR:Claim that one bit of evidence for later Christian tampering causes ALL other evidence to be thrown out.(Did I miss anything?)Now, what about Theodoric's law code?This legal technicality argument is getting old.(What law code are you applying anyway)You push him long enough, and he responds:

quote:

---

As for Josephus, you miss my point completely. The one Jesus reference puts the other into doubt.

---

I think we all get your point.But you can only really say the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus Ant. Book 18 reference to Jesus: "He was the Christ") is likely a POST 250 CHRISTIAN INSERTION because Origen did not mention it, and the absence of mention by Origen is all the more impressive because he positively comments on Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus as Messiah. The evidence does seem to indicate that the TF is an insertion from around 300 A.D.But Origin did say that Josephus mentioned the "brother of Jesus, called Christ" and he specifically described a murder. Origin even attempted to interpret Josephus' comments as somehow supportive of the idea that the killing of James caused the Temple to be destroyed.Yet there were no textual changes, to Jospehus' Antiquities, that worked that powerful Christian idea (clearly held from the mid-second century Hegesippus through Origen in the first half of the third century and INTO THE FORTH) into the Josephus text.The BOOK 20 (not the Book 18 TF!) text has no evidence of changes to fit Christian theological views of the history of the destruction of the Temple.Origen lived from 184-253.During Origens time:The "brother of Jesus called Christ" in Book 20 was in Josephus' text, it seems.The "He was the Christ" in Book 18 (Testimonium Flavianum) was not.Theodoric says, "The one Jesus reference puts the other into doubt".I can't prove that there were no changes, to Book 20, before 200 A.D. But it seems that there were no changes after 200. Changes (major ones too) to Book 18, around 300, only prove that Book 18 was changed. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

From the Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution thread, starting at Message 323: I don't think anyone has any facts.--Percy

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

No disagreement from me, but I do conclude from the lack of information that he was not a real person.--Percy

Hi Percy,I have to ask; how much information do you think we ought to have?If Jesus was a real person he was, during his life, an obscure religious mystic, born of a no-account family in a cultural backwater. Most of his followers would have been illiterate and the Gospels never mention him producing writings of his own. He died young. It's not like we have a wealth of exacting records from that time and place. What is it exactly that you think we ought to see if he were real?To be clear, I assume we're talking about a realistic Jesus here, not one who walked on water and got into fights with fruit trees. The idea of Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher who left an outsized legacy doesn't seem at all implausible to me.Mutate and Survive