What is Reddit's opinion of
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
10 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
What are you even talking about? I'm not posting some fringe view here, this is the overwhelming consensus on the subject. Bart Ehrman has written an entire book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0053K28TS/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i11 .
Sun Tzu allegedly lived around 550 BC and yet he isn't mentioned until the Spring and Autumn Annals 150 years later, and no specific stories about him until the Shiji in 100 BC.
Jesus had Mark and Q and the Pauline letters all written about him within 40 years of his life, and Josephus and the other 3 gospels written by around 100 AD within 70 years.
If you are truly interested, get Bard Ehrman's book on the issue. He is an agnostic/atheist, but as a scholar/historian he thinks that Jesus of Nazareth the person did exist and he explains in detail why scholars believe that.
>For centuries few people in the Western world doubted that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Actually Ehrman goes into this and according to him this is not true, that the concept that Jesus was not a real person is actually fairly new, dating to around the French Revolution and gaining traction when it was picked up by Lenin/taught in Soviet places. Before that even Christianity's biggest decriers were more focused on arguing that Jesus was a fraud rather than that he wasn't real.
I was talking about this:
Bart Ehrman's book, his extensive promotion of said book, and debates that followed. The whole book is about how the gospels were about a real person, but reflect very little if anything about the real person. Maybe you looked into Richard Carrier, who does not believe in any kind of historical Jesus.
That said, I am more-or-less uninterested in the topic of Jesus Mythicism. It's a silly argument on either side. Who cares??? If the gospels are rooted around an actual historical figure, who was essentially completely different than his portrayal in said gospels, then cool I guess. In that case it's a mythical narrative about some dude. If he never existed, then it is a mythical narrative about some fictional dude. It's mythical either way, right?
Edit: Actually, I think if you're really interested in the subject go check through the posts in r/AcademicBiblical. There is a lot of information in there on the subject, most of it through the eyes of non-believers, scholars and hobbyists. No need to even make a new post, it has been thoroughly touched upon over there. Like I said, not really a subject I care much about beyond being familiar with it.
> So, we do not have enough evidence of Jesus existance …
I'm sorry but that's false. It's somewhat difficult to take some people seriously when they make such elementary mistakes. Please don't be offended but if this matter is important to you then I don't see why you wouldn't have taken even just a little time to do some basic research on the matter.
“There’s a lot of evidence; there’s so much evidence …” Bart Ehrman, popular contemporary agnostic/atheist scholar.
He goes on to say that once skeptics get outside their conclave (their group of like minded skeptics) that they’ll find that it’s not an issue for scholars of antiquity. He states that there is no credible scholar in any college, university in the western world who teaches classes on: ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity, any related field who doubts that Jesus existed. He says, “If you have a different opinion you better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself. … He is abundantly attested in early sources.” Here’s a link to his book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Paul was a historical person too. In fact Paul’s letters are among the most highly attested manuscripts in biblical and historical scholarship. Paul's provenance is unprecedented in history. From Paul’s letters scholars know: who he was, where he was, what time he lived and that he associated with the right people. This places Paul in a credible position to be right. Gary Habermas, UCSB
We know Paul’s letters were copied and collected very early during the lives of the apostles. The author of 2 Peter, identifying himself as Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, equates Paul’s letters to scripture (2 Peter 3:16).
Thirteen New Testament books bear Paul’s name. Across the board bible scholars, from conservative to liberal including non-believers, allow that 6-7 of these books are “authentic” meaning no one reasonably doubts Paul authored these 6-7 books: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. These are considered authentic Pauline epistles.
I’ll stop at this point and wait for you to respond.
Well, it's impossible to argue with someone who wants to remain ignorant. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. New Testament historiography is a disciplined academic skill, which is engaged in by atheists, agnostics, Christians, liberals, and conservatives. Each and every one of these scholars with a teaching position at a university not only believes that Jesus existed, but that many things can be known of him.
Here is a book for you:
Did Jesus Exist, by Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman is not some trying to "push their religion". He is an agnostic who has spent most of his career criticizing biblical Christianity.
If you don't like books, then here is a short presentation of his. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw
A debate on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIxxDfkaXVY
> It's anecdotal...
I'm skeptical of anecdotal evidence as any reasonable person should be.
>I'm not sure of the authors of your sources but are they actual PHD's in the field of research they're writing about
Yes they are.
However are the critics who question Christianity actual PHD's in the field of research they're writing about? Or does your skepticism only cut one way?
>and is there general consensus about what they are writing even among their non-religious colleagues?
You do realize that arguing by consensus is a fallacy? Great minds think for themselves.
>many researchers have questioned the historical authenticity
We could go on with dueling experts - though you haven't listed any - but it comes do to the data, ans even an agnostic like Bart Ehrman acknowledges that Jesus existed in Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth much to the chagrin of atheists everywhere
> Let's say you have a closed box.
I don't find this analogous to the KCA at all.
>What conclusion? That we can never know? If we knew, it would no longer be supernatrual.
So if we know something is non-physical that makes that it physical?!?!?
>None of that is true!
That is the conclusion of a logical deductive argument. You have to show how the premises are not true to invalidate it; not just make an assertion.
Why? and if so, why doesn't this supernatrual being have a cause? Everything we know that has begun to exist has a cause.>
Causation [cause and effect] is one of the foundational ideas of science.
If you read the KCA then you'd know it says whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Many years ago it was thought the universe simply existed without a beginning; which is why the Big Bang was such a revolutionary idea at the time.
But there must be some sort of metaphysically necessary "something", something that is uncaused otherwise there is the nasty problem of the infinite regress.
>Debatable. HIGHLY debatable.
Oh, please. It is about as debatable as climate change.
>Of which there is none. Study the historians.
Read Erhman he is an atheist leaning agnostic historian was says, after many years of studying the matter, it is absurd to say He didn't exist. And he says he doesn't know of any historian, who has studied the matter who disagrees with him. Watch this short video
>Cool. I'll look into what you gave me even though you still haven't provided evidence, instead cited one dudes opinion
Nope, Metzger is 1) an expert in the field, 2) who literally wrote the book giving the reasons for the conclusions in the UBS5 or NA28, and his conclusion are backed up 3) another expert in the field [Erhman] who is 4) an atheist/agnostic.
>Because Jesus has never been confirmed to have even existed.
Let's give a listen to Bart Erhman, famed Biblical scholar, atheist/agnostic, and critic of Christianity on whether Jesus actually existed And the book Erhman refers to can be found here
I would suggest you go and read Erhman's Did Jesus Exist? as he lays out the evidnece and arguments - the things that you cite above do not concern historians; they've determined historical figures and events have occurred on much less evidence.
Further, to say that "it wasn't written by anyone who witnessed these events" get the facts wrong; but again read Erhman.
I recommend reading Dr Ehrman's book which gives a good overview. That is, if you are serious about this topic.
As I've stated, while I do believe he probably existed, I don't think we'll ever be able to say one way or the other definitely. If he did exist, he came from a poor family in Nazareth, a very small village in the middle of nowhere. It's hard to get records on anyone from that time, much less a backwoods preacher with limited success.
But read Ehrman's book for a good overview of the existing evidence. Keep in mind that 99% of historians also believe Jesus did exist, and no, they are not all Christian fundamentalists. They include Jewish scholars, atheist/agnostic scholars (like Ehrman), etc.
Popular alternatives to Did Jesus Exist?: The Histo...
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
