Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

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

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

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." 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.--Percy

True. According to the New Testament.--Percy

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

Yeah, I kinda suspected I was actually the topic when you first replied.--Percy

Evidence of what? Believers have interpreted every part of the Bible in a multitude of ways. And where that truth lies and what that truth is has been the focus of a multitude of opinions and interpretations. I think my own conclusion that the Jesus of the NT is made up is most likely. Or since there was no such person as Jesus it was necessary for the story's conclusion to include his disappearance, otherwise his absence from the world would have been difficult to explain. Don't forget Peter. When I say I don't believe Jesus was a real person I mean the Jesus of the New Testament, the one who walked on water and turned water into wine.Whether Paul made Jesus up depends on which Jesus you believe he's spreading the good word about. If he's preaching the Jesus of miracles then he's preaching a made-up Jesus, even if he borrowed the name of Jesus from James's brother. But if Paul is just preaching "an obscure religious mystic" who taught charity and forgiveness then sure, I agree it makes it more likely he was a real person.But "an obscure religious mystic" is not the Jesus people of faith believe in. Generally, Christians believe in the Jesus of the gospels, and I'm saying that Jesus didn't exist.--Percy

But you made sensible people the topic before that in Message 323: 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.The things you enumerated that we don't know, such as when or where Jesus was born, would also be disputed by many sensible people.You're trying to rule out disagreement out of hand by saying no sensible person would conclude differently than you. I'm saying that sensible people could conclude differently, indeed have concluded differently, and that there is room for discussion.--Percy

Revisionism. Discussion hadn't even started. You clearly are. Just look how you ended your post. Message 337 is a clarification? Who could tell. There you go again, trying to characterize people as not sensible even before any discussion has taken place.Nothing of substance on the topic has yet been exchanged between us. Your insistence on a priori ruling that a certain position is not sensible makes no sense.--Percy

You stating what you believe sensible is not a discussion. You're precluding discussion by ruling a certain position to not be sensible. Discussion can't begin until you give up that position.--Percy

For the existence of Jesus as "an obscure religious mystic?" Why would such a person even be necessary? If that's who Jesus really was then 95% of the gospels are fiction, and if there never was a Jesus then 100% of the gospels are fiction. That 5% hardly seems worth finagling over.Concerning evidence, no one is questioning the existence of the gospels or the NT, but the exact same gospel passages have been interpreted as saying a variety of different things, and you described them as "dodgy evidence." Some take the gospels literally, others figuratively, others fictionally, and there are multiple interpretations within each of these contexts. Agreeing on what they're evidence of seems challenging.You argue that the gospel writers would not have introduced fictions like the census if they were just making Jesus up, but Paul's epistles were written long before Luke. Separate Christian communities would have had a long time to develop and evolve and create and abandon ideas that later required reconciliation.We already know the gospels are full of fiction. The only question is, "How much?" Sorry, didn't mean for it to come across that way. I only meant that the Jesus that I believe did not exist is the one from the gospels. I don't have any particularly strong opinion about the possibility that Jesus is based upon a real person who didn't live the life described in the gospels. Maybe, maybe not. Why does it matter? You go on to answer: I wasn't aware of the Jesus Mythicists. I'm not intentionally trying to be obscure. I think we're just focused on different beliefs. I'm focused on what Biblical literalists believe, while you seem focused on the historical Jesus.--Percy

I don't think it prudent to discuss with someone with a closed mind.--Percy

Yes, I guess you've told us all we need to know about yourself.--Percy

Well, yes, the issue of focus is the key thing. Was there a squirrel? What does it matter? It's just small talk - I might not even remember the conversation tomorrow.But was there a Jesus who walked on water and turned water into wine? That matters, because it drives the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of billions of people, people I might have to deal with, people who might show up at school board meetings and push for the teaching of creationism or, more recently, for the banning of books.Then there's the alternative being offered in this thread. Was there a real person who did none of the things related in the gospels but upon whom the Jesus mythology was somehow built? An actual young rabbi and his congregants who Paul badgered because of the beliefs he espoused but who otherwise bore no resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels?How would we ever know? All searchers for the historical Jesus make arguments for which parts of the NT Jesus stories they think hint at the person behind the myth. It's true, they argue, that deeply religious people might make up miraculous stories, but what possible reason could they have for making up that Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch? It must be true.Yeah, right.As a matter of history I can't help but be curious about whether there was a real person behind the Jesus myth. I wish there were evidence one way or the other, but as far as I can tell there isn't. I'll listen to arguments that this or that is evidence of something about the real Jesus, but I've listened to these arguments for a long time and found nothing convincing.But those arguing both for and against a real person behind the Jesus myth are light years away from those who believe we should accept Jesus as Lord and Savior because everything in the gospels is true. People writing in the 2nd century would have little difficulty writing stories set in the 1st century that appear plausible to modern eyes, but plausibility was the best they could achieve. Modern analyses reveal a multitude of problems. Sure, it's possible. So's that he was an obscure mystic. So's that there was never any such person. The same type of evidence establishes that Sidney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities was based upon a real person.--Percy

It's like I said before. I don't see much difference between basing Christianity on someone on whose life was nothing like Jesus's on the one hand, and basing it on no one at all on the other. I have no problem with other people doing that. We agree that the Jesus of the gospels never existed, but Christianity's outsize influence is due to people's belief that that Jesus did exist, not to any belief that he was an obscure mystic.Concerning Biblical scholarship, even the most powerful microscope cannot create evidence that doesn't exist. That's why Biblical scholars have no consensus, only a range of opinion from a Jesus of miracles at one extreme to no Jesus at the other. So you believe Paul made up stories about a resurrection but not about a religious movement. Actually, the Jesus that I believe did not exist, the one of the gospels, is a good analog to believing King Arthur did not exist, the one of the round table and the magic sword. Some hypothesize that there was an actual King Arthur, just not the one of legend. Does it matter? Not in the least. But if the King Arthur of legend existed then that would be a very big deal. *That* would matter.In the same way, some hypothesize that there was an actual Jesus, just not the one of the gospels. Does it matter? Not in the least. But if the Jesus of the gospels existed then that would be a very big deal. *That* would matter.--Percy