Was Jesus a real person?

[Poorisolation]

Except he didn't tell you not to question it. He told you that there is no reason to question it. There's a pretty big difference.

Actually, what he 'did' was compare questioning a literal Jesus to creationism, and placed the burden of proof on the skeptic.

It's a very disturbing position for an archeologist to take.

No he compared your referring to his pointing out that a majority of scholars in this field across a wide range of beliefs agreed that Jesus could reasonably be considered as an historical figure as an "An appeal to authority" as the kind of tactic a creationist would use. He also offered you the chance to cite scholars who would support your case.

You however seem to have taken the position that wilfully misrepresenting AR statements is somehow a better way to make your case appear stronger rather than citing scholarly support for your position. As a rule of thumb it is genuinely understood in many circles that such tactics are used when a argumentative or philosophical position is weak.

Unable to deploy evidence to counter his assertions you have turned to trying to pour scorn on his academic credentials. While it is true this in no way helps to resolve the debate it does not reflect well upon yourself.

[Caninope]

Not all creationists do so. Furthermore, I've found that many of those who deny the existence (or doubt) of a historical Jesus have an agenda, be it consciously or not.

Denying? Perhaps. Doubt? An agenda seems unlikely. Skepticism needs no excuses.

It does when the majority of people in the field, who have been educated in the field, believes in that premise.

[New Roccoland]

Yes, and He walked on Earth as The Lord in flesh. He died for our sins, but IS alive and will return for those who believe in Him. He is the King of Kings, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords and all will bow before Him on the day of Judgement and admit from their mouths that He is God.

No matter if you believe in him or not, He loves you. He is closer than the air you breath.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, and He walked on Earth as The Lord in flesh. He died for our sins, but IS alive and will return for those who believe in Him. He is the King of Kings, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords and all will bow before Him on the day of Judgement and admit from their mouths that He is God.

No matter if you believe in him or not, He loves you. He is closer than the air you breath.

As good as I'm sure that makes you feel, it doesn't really contribute to the conversation. Thanks, though.

[Ashmoria]

Yes, and He walked on Earth as The Lord in flesh. He died for our sins, but IS alive and will return for those who believe in Him. He is the King of Kings, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords and all will bow before Him on the day of Judgement and admit from their mouths that He is God.

No matter if you believe in him or not, He loves you. He is closer than the air you breath.

As good as I'm sure that makes you feel, it doesn't really contribute to the conversation. Thanks, though.

now im getting paranoid about breathing jesus.

thanks NR.

[The Free Companeros]

*cough* *cough*

[Grave_n_idle]

Denying? Perhaps. Doubt? An agenda seems unlikely. Skepticism needs no excuses.

It does when the majority of people in the field, who have been educated in the field, believes in that premise.

No, it doesn't.

Now you're just compounding the fallacies. You've replaced individual appeals to authority and popularity with a joint appeal to both.

I'm also skeptical about the Big Bang, by the way - despite my education as a scientist, and my couple of decades working in the field. Skepticism is the correct default. Always.

[Grave_n_idle]

...citing scholarly support for your position. As a rule of thumb it is genuinely understood in many circles that such tactics are used when a argumentative or philosophical position is weak....

Scholarly support for skepticism? I don't need scholarly support for skepticism. Doubt should be your default.

Unable to deploy evidence to counter his assertions you have turned to trying to pour scorn on his academic credentials.

Actually, no - unable to provide proof for the existence of a literal Jesus, Arch resorted to his credentials in place of evidence (as well as the popularity of that position).

That's a logical fallacy.

While it is true this in no way helps to resolve the debate it does not reflect well upon yourself.

So, what's that... an appeal to ridicule? They're all going to laugh at me?

Whether it's going to let me hang with the cool kids, has never been a reliable arbiter of my position on any issue.

[Hydesland]

Popularity has never been a reliable arbiter of truth.

Scholarly popular opinion among experts, in an age where we have peer review and the scientific method, actually is a good arbiter, a very good one.

[Mostrov]

Actually, no - unable to provide proof for the existence of a literal Jesus, Arch resorted to his credentials in place of evidence (as well as the popularity of that position).

That's a logical fallacy.

There is a reason common scientific consensus' exist you know, he showed evidence - how is that an appeal to popularity?

Following your logic, the entire field of History and Archeology is moot.

[Poorisolation]

It does when the majority of people in the field, who have been educated in the field, believes in that premise.

No, it doesn't.

Now you're just compounding the fallacies. You've replaced individual appeals to authority and popularity with a joint appeal to both.

I'm also skeptical about the Big Bang, by the way - despite my education as a scientist, and my couple of decades working in the field. Skepticism is the correct default. Always.

Always I have to say is an unusual word to be employed by the empirically trained.

To cite one example of when scepticism is not the default correct position I am going to suggest to you that throwing yourself into a live volcano is a an action likely to result in an outcome detrimental to your continues good health.

Yes it is in this case a merely semantic point as we have no handy live volcano with which to test the hypothesis. Yet I rather doubt that many persons in the fields of public health or Vulcanology would care to argue the point with me.

I also note that while you decry AR referencing that a wide cross section of academics believe his position as more likely to be the right one you attempt to burnish your own aura of credibility with an appeal to your own academic background.

You could of course take the rigorously correct position that Jesus' existence as an historical figure is unproven while allowing that AR has the weight of an academic consensus that his actual existence as a human was likely. You could however point out that where evidence is sketchy there is no shame in taking the minority viewpoint.

Instead you would appear to have taken the rather unequivocal position that anyone not matter how careful their weighing of the available evidence must be wrong as you are the sole arbiter of the correct conclusion.

[Ashmoria]

I offer my contribution as a professional archaeologist and academic - though, I fully acknowledge, not a wholly unbiased one on this specific topic - who specialises in the archaeology of historical periods. I always used to write "I've generally stayed out of these threads", but I found in doing a search of the records that I've previously contributed more on the topic than I thought I had, so rather than re-hash old arguments, I'm simply going to quote past relevant posts of mine, with one or two very minor edits. I would ask that anyone tempted to immediately reply to the final, unspoilered, paragraph in this post do me the courtesy of at least skimming the spoilered sections so as to get a more rounded feel for my position - though I concede that it will turn into a vast wall of text once unspoilered.

To which a summing up of the above spoilers would be, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to disagree over whether Jesus of Nazareth is, or was, whom his followers claim him to be. Take for example (again citing McCulloch, this time from page 859) David Strauss' highly influential 19th-century Hegelian reanalysis of the New Testament - one which McCulloch personally endorses - which argued that "Jesus was a Jewish teacher whose followers had retold the story of his life in the best way they knew by borrowing themes from Old Testament stories and fitting their hero's life into them. No conscious deception was involved, but [parts of] the New Testament narratives were works of theological symbolism rather than fact." I think that's a perfectly reasonable position for atheists and agnostics to take, and the only real point of contention - though it's a hugely significant one - is therefore over which parts of that narrative are symbolism, and which are factual. Total rejection of any form of a historical Jesus, however, is a fringe minority position well outside of the mainstream of modern academic debate.

Popularity has never been a reliable arbiter of truth.

not that i really want to wade into this argument but id have to agree with your assessment.

all AR said in this post is "few experts are on the "no real jesus" side". the only assertion he gives is that some expert finds the words of jesus to have a singular voice. (which i find doubtful since the books cannot possibly be a direct quotation of the actual words of jesus.)

of course AR is right. few experts are willing to come down on the side of "no jesus". but the question remains.... so?

[The Free Companeros]

I don't know a lot about the subject because I don't practice particularly the Christian faith.

Based on my knowledge I believe Jesus was either a fictional character of an ancient spiritual text/holy book or a spiritual thinker and writer that, with help, created a book in which his thoughts (of life, people, society, and everything around him) were combined with others' similar thoughts.

... and the skepticisms of the peoples Jesus (and friends) had met and how the skeptics could learn from "the words of God".

[Nnxxynx 1]

Popularity has never been a reliable arbiter of truth.

not that i really want to wade into this argument but id have to agree with your assessment.

all AR said in this post is "few experts are on the "no real jesus" side". the only assertion he gives is that some expert finds the words of jesus to have a singular voice. (which i find doubtful since the books cannot possibly be a direct quotation of the actual words of jesus.)

of course AR is right. few experts are willing to come down on the side of "no jesus". but the question remains.... so?

I don't think these experts flip a coin and go to whichever 'side' based on how it lands (and I'm not implying that's what you were saying,) but I believe there is a lot of thought put into this. I think if we met these people in real life, shook their hands, we would realize they aren't dumb people. And if a very good many of them agree that Jesus at least existed, whether or not he was/is actually God, I think that's still worth something in all of this.

[Ashmoria]

not that i really want to wade into this argument but id have to agree with your assessment.

all AR said in this post is "few experts are on the "no real jesus" side". the only assertion he gives is that some expert finds the words of jesus to have a singular voice. (which i find doubtful since the books cannot possibly be a direct quotation of the actual words of jesus.)

of course AR is right. few experts are willing to come down on the side of "no jesus". but the question remains.... so?

I don't think these experts flip a coin and go to whichever 'side' based on how it lands (and I'm not implying that's what you were saying,) but I believe there is a lot of thought put into this. I think if we met these people in real life, shook their hands, we would realize they aren't dumb people. And if a very good many of them agree that Jesus at least existed, whether or not he was/is actually God, I think that's still worth something in all of this.

im not disputing his experts nor am i dissing him for making a very informative post that tells me some names of people i ought to look up if i want more info on the subject. thats a great thing.

but aside from that, saying that most experts agree that jesus existed isnt particularly good evidence that he did.

[Hydesland]

but aside from that, saying that most experts agree that jesus existed isnt particularly good evidence that he did.

I think it's a compelling argument for laymen, precisely because the plausibility that such a high number of high calibre experts are wrong is low. But I really don't think that was his argument at all, many of the segments he posted were informative, and did not just include stuff about the 'oneness' of his writing.

[Nnxxynx 1]

I don't think these experts flip a coin and go to whichever 'side' based on how it lands (and I'm not implying that's what you were saying,) but I believe there is a lot of thought put into this. I think if we met these people in real life, shook their hands, we would realize they aren't dumb people. And if a very good many of them agree that Jesus at least existed, whether or not he was/is actually God, I think that's still worth something in all of this.

im not disputing his experts nor am i dissing him for making a very informative post that tells me some names of people i ought to look up if i want more info on the subject. thats a great thing.

but aside from that, saying that most experts agree that jesus existed isnt particularly good evidence that he did.

ah I see.

It seems a lot of people who've commented in the thread seem to think Jesus was likely a real person, but just not the son of God he said he was. I think that's pretty neutral, it doesn't really give an "advantage" to any certain "side", it just makes things easier for everyone. Sort of like if we all agree on the idea that we actually exist, or that two and two will always make four, or other things.

EDIT: since his existence can't be one-hundred percent proven or one-hundred percent disproven. I say if we can agree on just this one neutral view, then I think we can move on past this and put this discussion in the books.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger, one of us, trying to make us a way home!

[Beldonia]

What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger, one of us, trying to make us a way home!

No one callin' on the phone.

[Ursiroth]

Is it? It's the same general area of the world, meaning he would have the same general appearance. That's all I was trying to say.

I absolutely agree that if Jesus existed, he'd blend right in with any crowd in modern Jerusalem, Amman, Damascus or Beirut, or Gaza. I was just disputing your very generous definition of the Arabian Peninsula.

Wikipedia-endorsed definition, mind you. You know, I like this much better than arguing with Christians.

[Teccor]

OP and title are two totally different questions?

Was he real? I don't know.

Do I think so? Yes.

You don't know but you think so anyway?
What?

It's called "Faith".

Not that I expect anyone on this site to understand that word.

On-Topic: Was he a real person? Probably.
Do I believe he existed? Yep.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger, one of us, trying to make us a way home!

No one callin' on the phone.

Except the Pope maybe in Rome...

[Rokartian States]

You don't know but you think so anyway?
What?

It's called "Faith".

Not that I expect anyone on this site to understand that word.

Not even the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other theists?

[Beldonia]

No one callin' on the phone.

Except the Pope maybe in Rome...

I like it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Except the Pope maybe in Rome...

I like it.

I liked that song too. I wonder what happened to Joan Osborne?

Oops... not the thread for that. My bad.