Did Jesus Exist?

Ryan Turner of www.carm.org discusses the textual evidence for the existence of Jesus.

• Category

  Education

[Tony Laurent]

The bible is not an historical work. Using it to 'prove' something happened is silly.

[xxxTDAxxx]

Matthew Ferguson has shown this Jesus vs. Tiberius argument is badly flawed in his article: Ten Reasons to Reject the Apologetic 10/42 Source Slogan.

[mRwhite298]

people should look video;Jesus: Evidence, ancient historical sources - Part 1 of 2

[mRwhite298]

people should look video;Non Biblical evidence as proof for Jesus Christ (1 of 4)

[Samura1gamer]

LOOOOOAAAAAAL @ this video. These kind of "evidence" can impress only the completely uneducated on the subject. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the so called sources are born AFTER jesus' death.There is not a single eye witness testimonial EVEN IF YOU INCLUDE the gospels (which count as much evidence as the harry potter books)

[Paul Anthony]

How many textual sources are there for King Arthur. Add to that the movies and TV programs and you have a lot more evidence that you do for Jesus.

[HairyHu]

I am familiar with Bart Ehrman's ex-christian, now agnostic, or atheist, view on Jesus' existence. As William Lane Craig pointed out, he is NOT a historian. He is a textual critic, and a very good one of that. I and others, like R Carrier, disagree with him on Jesus' existence.

But, where is the list of sources you're boasting about? I am not interested about people's opinions. I need evidences.

[flotopo]

Well...for start just watch this.. Bart Ehrman is not a Christian so I guess you'd consider his opinion objective. He is a well-known historian who's an expert on the issue: /watch?v=kENorS_piks

[HairyHu]

What are those sources, with which historians see no credibility issue?

Care to give me the list?

[flotopo]

What I meant was simply this: we will not discuss the theological implications of the claims Jesus made. That in itself IS another discussion, from a systematic point of view. So, there was never no intention on my side to separate Jesus of Nazareth from His claims. I simply wanted to organize the discussion into topics. Having said that, let me tell you that Jesus' claims ARE documented by external sources to the Bible & historians see no credibility issue today with those sources. ;-)

[HairyHu]

flotopo: "The CONTENT of Jesus' claims is not part of the discussion."

If not, than we are not talking about the same Jesus. Without the claim that Jesus was/is the Son of God. Jesus is just another dude. There were and there are lots of dudes called Jesus.

A part from that, from Tiberius we have a lot more physical evidences than statues. Like his villa at Rhodes.

[HairyHu]

I agree with you. There is no textual evidence for Jesus. That is why I put quotation marks around "textual evidence". As they are so called textual evidence, but in reality are not.

Again I agree that the gospels are religious propaganda. Josephus in section is an obvious fraud. In the other section is coincident of same names. Suetonius, Tacitus and others write about what Christians believe not history.