Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.[/quote]

Jesus was made up -- not of whole cloth, because a messiah was predicted.  But those were the olden days, before modern science and running water and a bunch of stuff that we now take for granted.

Kids can't imagine life without the internet.  Neither can I!  Remember those old movies where people would wait impatiently for the mailman to come?
[/quote]

No he was not made up. [b]His existence and the words he spoke have been proven.[/b] What is likely made up is that he was the son of God. Probably not. Then again, how did such an extraordinary person come to have such extraordinary advice on how to be a good person?

In any event he was an amazing man and if we all followed his teachings the world would be a better place.[/quote]

Link? 
[/quote]

Don't hold your breath waiting.[/quote]

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2SyPPhwNfqQ&pp=ygUcaGlzdG9yaWNhbCBqZXN1cyBiYXJ0IGVocm1hbg%3D%3D[/youtube][/quote]

And Ehrman undermines his own argument by stating something as true, when it is not in fact true. Not [i]every[/i] scholar believes in a historical Jesus, and there are plenty of scholars now that have made well-reasoned arguments to the contrary. Ehrman also acknowledges there is not evidence, and then he makes his own specious speculation. [/quote]

Your claim that “plenty of scholars now” are making well-reasoned arguments against the historical existence of Jesus doesn’t align with the current state of academic scholarship as of late 2025.

While there are a few voices raising doubts—mostly from independent or adjunct scholars, or those on the fringes of biblical studies—these represent a tiny minority, and their work is overwhelmingly critiqued or ignored by mainstream experts. The “Christ myth theory” (the idea that Jesus is entirely mythical) remains a fringe position, with no significant shift in consensus over the past decade. I’ll break this down with the latest data, including recent publications, to show why the pro-historicity view holds firm.

As of 2025, virtually all professional historians, classicists, and New Testament scholars (across Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic backgrounds) affirm that a historical Jesus existed as a 1st-century Jewish preacher who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is based on cumulative evidence like early Christian writings (e.g., Paul’s letters ~50–60 CE), independent non-Christian attestations (e.g., Josephus ~93 CE, Tacitus ~116 CE), and the rapid emergence of a messianic movement in a Jewish context.

There are not “plenty,” nor do they sway the academy—their output is sparse, self-published or niche, and routinely receives negative reviews for methodological flaws (e.g., overreliance on silence, speculative parallels to pagan myths).

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history, Columbia, 2008): The most active proponent. His 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus used Bayesian probability to argue doubt is warranted. He published The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus in 2025, surveying post-2014 studies and calling for scholarship to drop the historicity assumption. Carrier maintains a list of ~20 “qualified scholars” who take mythicism “seriously” (e.g., as plausible), but many are adjuncts, retirees, or non-specialists like philosophers. His work is critiqued for cherry-picking data and ignoring oral tradition evidence (e.g., in Vigiliae Christianae responses).

Raphael Lataster (PhD candidate, University of Sydney, completed ~2019): A lecturer in religious studies. His 2019 book Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (peer-reviewed but niche) argues evidence “doesn’t add up.” His 2014 op-eds in The Conversation and Washington Post drew widespread scholarly backlash for oversimplifying sources like Josephus.  No major follow-up in 2025; his work is cited in mythicist bibliographies but dismissed in consensus reviews.

Robert M. Price (two PhDs in theology/NT, but not in a tenure-track history role): A former minister turned atheist podcaster. His 2000 book The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems and 2018 Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed recycle 19th-century ideas (e.g., gospel midrash from OT). Active online (e.g., r/AcademicBiblical discussions), but peers like Daniel Gullotta (2017 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus) call it “bizarre” and footnote-worthy at best.

Paul George (2020 book On Christian Origins, UWA student thesis)—argues Christianity arose without a single founder; not peer-reviewed widely.

Hermann Detering (2011–2017 self-published German works)—claims non-Christian references are forgeries; fringe even among mythicists.

A 2023 bibliography (The Christ Myth Theory: A Bibliography from 1970 to the Present) lists ~300 sources, but most are popular books, blogs, or repeats; only ~10–15 from credentialed academics since 2010, none shifting consensus.

Virtually no scholar working in the field doubts the historical existence of Jesus.

Mythicism fails basic evidential tests. Mythicism thrives online (e.g., r/skeptic threads, atheist YouTube) due to viral articles like “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed” (2014), but academia hasn’t budged.

Why mythicists aren’t influencing academia and scholarship?—&gt;

Peer Review Gaps: Mythicist books often skip rigorous review or get panned (e.g., Lataster’s “negative reviews”).

Internet Echo Chambers: Popularized by non-experts like David Fitzgerald (Nailed, 2010), but scholars compare it to Holocaust denial—intriguing but evidentially weak.

No New Evidence: 2025 updates (e.g., Carrier’s book) rehash old arguments without overturning sources like Paul’s references to Jesus’ brother James.

[color=red]If “plenty” means “a vocal few on podcasts,” sure—but in journals like Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, it’s crickets for mythicism. Consensus requires broad agreement among tenured experts; this ain’t it.

The evidence for a historical Jesus is probabilistic, like for Socrates or Hannibal—strong enough for ~99% of specialists. [/color][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics