Did Jesus Exist On YouTube

I may have a problem. The first thing I noticed in the still frame of this video was not the person sitting at the desk, but the 3 WBC commentaries behind him.Addiction or not, I’m just plain nerdy.

Hi James, I’m glad you’re pursuing this in more depth. I’m currently in debate with Stephen Law on this point (he’s quite a prominent atheist in the UK, not at Dawkins levels, but well known amongst people who follow this sort of discussion). His writings on the topic, with various arguments from me, can be found here. (My own argument against his perspective can be found here, but there’s nothing there you won’t already have thought about.) I’ve sent him a link to this page!

Stephen, welcome to the blog! I’ll just say for the moment that if I’m in trouble, so are most historians. The “criterion of embarassment” is widely used as a tool for historical investigation, and so your criticism is of historical method in general.AIGBusted (or is there something else you prefer to be called?), I’ll be making the same point that I’m making here in the parallel discussion on an earlier post. I wonder if I can direct the discussion from there to here. I’ll try. At any rate, if you are suggesting that a story about a crucified Messiah was invented based on a non-Jewish parallel, this must have been done within a few years of the time at which Jesus is purported to have died, since Paul is in contact with Christianity (first as an opponent, then as an adherent) from very early. You also have to suggest that this was done in a largely Jewish context, and yet that somehow the message of later Christians, even those like Paul who proclaimed the Christian message to non-Jews, failed to take advantage of the “Jesus is like Dionysius” or “Jesus rose like Tammuz” aspects of their faith, and instead told them to “turn from idols to serve a living and true God”.Why is this supposed to be plausible again?If you’re not advocating the idea that Jesus was pure invention, then we can proceed differently, and once again the criterion of embarrassment can be useful. Not only the crucifixion, but Peter’s denial, Jesus’ baptism by John, and John’s doubts about whether Jesus was the Messiah all are strong candidates for being authentic based on this criterion alone.Other elements can also be included based on other criteria. The use of “Abba” by Paul in his letters to non-Aramaic-speaking Christians suggests that this was an early facet of Christian prayer, and there is no reason to think it doesn’t go back to Jesus himself, given its early attestation and its multiple attestation.

I think if given just the two choices, it’s more probable that the early Christians did not make up the whole thing. It’s not impossible that they did. However, we are dealing with probability and the available evidence. Bear in mind I’m not talking about a resurrection or missing body which is a different topic. And if you read post-missing body accounts of the crucifixion the early Christians where trying to figure out what had happened to said body.My short two cents. If I get time maybe I’ll make it longer.

You mention that historians can’t say anything about the resurrection, but can’t they rely upon science to verify that a resurrection is counter to our understanding of modern biology? I’m not trying to be a gadfly or a troll or anything. I just admire your reliance on science when talking about young earth creationism and I wonder what your opinion is regarding this matter.

Thanks for responding to my question.You make a good point when you state that Jesus’ resurrection is separate from a biological resuscitation. After all, he had gaping holes in his body which apparently could be touched and he walked through walls. However, instead of clearing up the problem, from my point of view, that just adds biological impossibility on top of physical impossibility. We would agree that bodies do not function with giant holes where organs should be, and solid flesh cannot pass through solid walls without breaking said walls. Your response to this line of reasoning was:”But unless biology can decide the matter of God’s existence, then presumably it can only tell us what normally happens to bodies, and not what might happen through divine intervention.”According to modern biology, a mind is a product of a physical system called a brain. Since engineers and programmers have not yet formed a computerized mind with silicon and metal, we can safely say that we have never encountered any mind that did not originate in complex organic matter. That rules out an immaterial mind or God until empirical evidence is established that indicates that minds do not have to come from complex arrangements of matter.I do have a few questions about things you said that I don’t quite understand. ” And in the context of the modern scientific worldview, stories about a virginal conception or a resurrection are no longer simply about impressive instances of the same sort of divine involvement that permeates all of life, but stand out as claims to unusual divine interventions that are not normally witnessed.”Part of my confusion probably stems from the fact that I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist Assemblies of God church which preached that all of creation was permeated with constant divine interventions from the creation of the world 6000 years ago to the speaking in tongues and divine healing session last Sunday. After seventeen years of that, I went to school at Oral Roberts University, which is not much of a change of religious scenery. Jesus, his disciples, and Paul all claimed lots of divine manifestations rather than just one or two spectacular miracles. Was there a time period that we must refrain from applying modern scientific knowledge to, or does this continue today?I have one last question, if you have time. I just finished John Loftus’ book “Why I Became an Atheist” and I was somewhat disturbed by his claim that the author of Matthew mistranslated the verse describing the mother of the Messiah as a “virgin.” According to Loftus, it was supposed to be “young woman,” which lends credence to his assertion that the book of Matthew contained fabrications to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, rather than an honest eyewitness recording of events.Is this claim correct, or is it as specious as the “Jesus as Myth” hypothesis?

Did Sherlock Holmes exist?There are millions of documents about Holmes, within years of the events.There are Sherlock Holmes societies where people meet to discuss the life of Holmes.There is a museum at 221B Baker Street, London, which is where Holmes lived.Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who recorded Holmes stories, was always very careful to explain that there was a real person behind Holmes. This real person is well documented.So if Jesus of the New Testament existed, then Sherlock Holmes did.After all, all you need to exist is to be based, however loosely, on a person who did exist.Which puts Sherlock Holmes and Jesus of the New Testament on the same level.

McGRATHThe use of “Abba” by Paul in his letters to non-Aramaic-speaking Christians suggests that this was an early facet of Christian prayer, and there is no reason to think it doesn’t go back to Jesus himself, given its early attestation and its multiple attestation.CARRTo translate McGrath’s words into their true meaning, Paul gives not one word suggesting Jesus had ever used such a phrase.Perhaps the Gospel writers put Christian prayers into the mouth of Jesus.After all, they wrote after Paul.Christian logic is A was written after B.So if A mentions something, then B probably got it from A.Real logic is the other way around.

But there WERE people claiming to be relatives of the person Sherlock Holmes was based on.So now we know Sherlock Holmes existed, just as the Jesus of the New Testament existed.

If I was still an atheist I would still be hacked off at the Jesus myth thing. They are much like the YECs in many ways, except unlike them they argue from silence almost entirely. But they have a contempt for real scholarship and dismiss it as some kind of “establishment hoax.” I find their whole approach very anti-intellectual.My real objections to the view point have more to do with being a historian than with being a christian. If Jesus didn’t live as a real man in history that would change the trajectory of my faith but it would end it. I would not say “O well there’s no reason to be a Christian now.” As pure symbols the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection are still power symbols and if understood correctly, they could be life transforming symbols.If the Jesus myth theory were true I cold not go on being a historian. It would mean all the work that all historians have done has been meaningless and we can’t know anything about the past.why? Because the stands they set for knowing amount to seeing it on the six o’clock news. If we don’t’ see Caesar on the six O’clock news we can’t assume there was a Caesar. Everytime you say “here’s an ancient historian who speaks of Jesus” they say “but he wasn’t contemporary.” So in their view it seesm no historian’s word is good for anything.

"According to history"? Care to provide a source, some argument or evidence of any sort?