I actually hope this movie does get big. Then perhaps the myth of Jesus not existing will be better exposed for what it is. The case against the nonexistence of Jesus is no stronger than the case against Buddha or Muhammad. You don’t have to be a Buddhist or Muslim to acknowledge that the founders of the religions existed. You don’t have to be a Christian to believe Jesus existed. Indeed, most of the mainstream scholars are not Christians and have no pro-Christianity agenda—both big problems for those who push the theory that Jesus never existed.

So let’s all hope the movie gets wide recognition.

The existence of Jesus is no more disputed than the Holocaust. But of course there are fringe groups for both, stubbornly resisting the available evidence.

To compare skepticism about the historicity of Jesus to Holocaust denial is disingenuous, to say the least.

There is a wealth of contemporary documentary evidence relating to the Holocaust. There is no contemporary documentary evidence to support Jesus’ existence.

From the Wikipedia:

Many historians make statements about historical events or persons based on more pragmatic standards of empirical evidence. They look at scripture not as divinely inspired but as the work of fallible humans, who wrote in the light of their culture and time. There is a paucity of accepted contemporaneous sources and of direct empirical evidence concerning Jesus, which makes it especially difficult for representatives of the different religious and secular traditions of knowledge and faith to reach agreement on a “biography” of Jesus.

Taking a starting point loosely connected with Higher criticism, a rigorous historical analysis of Biblical texts in the 19th century, also known as the “Tübingen School” and connected to the Eberhard Karls university in Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, a number of critics have proposed that there was no historical Jesus. They argue from the internal features of, and inconsistencies between, the Gospels and other canonical and non-canonical Christian and Gnostic writings to argue that Jesus was a mythical (or mythologized) figure. The paucity of non-Christian historical sources that corroborate Christian writings is adduced as support for this position.

and…

Unlike religious fundamentalists, who assume that such texts as the Gospels are entirely and literally true, and unlike some critics of Christianity, who assume that such texts are entirely false, most academic historians believe that such texts are historical sources, but that their meaning depends on a variety of factors. Historians generally assume that the Gospels, like other historical sources (for example, the works of Josephus), were written by human beings. Some argue that a text with a clearly identified author (for example, the Gospel of Luke) was written by someone else, or by several authors, or by an author drawing on several sources. Historians assume that a text that is based on real events may nevertheless reflect the biased view of the author or authors, or a bias that is meant to appeal to an intended audience. They also generally don’t believe in supernatural phenomena, and tend to look for naturalistic explanations of any supernatural phenomena that were recorded. Consequently, they believe such texts contain information not only about a described event, they also reveal information of historical value about the authors and audience. Historians then use information about the cultural, political, and economic context (from sources outside the text in question) as a basis for reconstructing the intended or understood meaning of the text. Although historians use established methods, there are often vigorous debates over the validity or strength of a given interpretation. Moreover, historians strive to revise their interpretations when new linguistic, literary, or archaeological evidence becomes available.

In other words, there is no clear proof either way.

Personally, it makes little difference to me whether Jesus was or wasn’t a historical figure. The inconsistencies within the Bible - including the New Testament - are so great that I have a lot of difficulty understanding how anyone can accept it as being literally true.

Most scholars do not dispute that a person named Jesus, connected in some way to the events described in the Bible, once lived; they feel that evidence for Jesus’ existence two thousand years ago is by historical standards fairly strong.

….

Moreover, the same historians generally agree that at least some of the sources on which Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus’s lifetime. These historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic account of his life and death.

The thing to remember is by the standards of ancient history, the only standards that are fair to judge by in this case. (True there are no contemporary biographies for Jesus since the gospels were probably written around a little later in the first century, but the earliest biography of Alexander the Great was not written until more than four centuries after his death!) In fact we have better documentation for the existence of Jesus than the founder of any other ancient religion.

Now whether or not Jesus was resurrected, performed miracles etc. is of course not agreed upon (most of the mainstream are not Christians and have no pro-Christianity agenda) nonetheless they agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed. To say that Jesus did not exist is terrible scholarship, certainly not inline with mainstream views (who, again, don’t have a pro-Christianity agenda).

This is not to say that I neccesarily believe that there was no historical charater on which the New Testament stories are based, but I do think that these stories cannot be taken at face value and questioning their accuracy is both valuable and healthy.

I called it disingenuous to compare the idea that Jesus didn’t exist to Holocaust denial because if you require the same standard of evidence, there is plenty to prove that the Holocaust happened and none to show that Jesus existed.

If you want to base your argument for Jesus’ existence on a lower standard for ancient history, then you have to also accept that there is less certainty and that the best you can say is that he “probably existed”. Personally, I think there are contradictions in the Gospels that seem to indicate that at least some of the events described never happened and - because of these inconsistencies - I don’t think they can be taken at face value.

It’s interesting that you say “a poor peasant worker from an insignificant town dying as a common criminal wouldn’t have made the headlines”. I would agree with this, but if he really was so insignificant then any claims of his having any sort of mass following (The Sermon on the Mount, for example, or the Feeding of the 5000) would have to be discounted.

First of all, I don’t think that trying to claim that scepticism as to Jesus’ historicity is somehow radical or extreme is a particularly convincing argument. Plenty of things have been believed throughout history that have later proved to be untrue.

Some young-earthers feel the same way regarding their belief in a 6000 year old earth.

Nonetheless, let’s have no illusions that the disbelief in the existence of Jesus belongs to a radical fringe group, and mainstream scholars reject it. The point is that the burden of proof lies on the fringe group, and they typically just don’t have any (arguments from silence are not evidence, especially given life of Jesus as a poor peasant worker etc.). We can’t just blindly accept whatever some fringe group says based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence as I’ve seen a number of atheists do.

If you want to base your argument for Jesus’ existence on a lower standard for ancient history, then you have to also accept that there is less certainty and that the best you can say is that he “probably existed”.

The same is going to hold true for all founders of ancient religions. It’s a very high probability that Muhammad existed, for instance. The standard isn’t at all unreasonably low given the circumstances.

Personally, I think there are contradictions in the Gospels that seem to indicate that at least some of the events described never happened and - because of these inconsistencies - I don’t think they can be taken at face value.

The Gospels are actually quite consistent if we judge them by standards of ancient history (the only standards that is fair to judge them by). While I am no believer in Biblical inerrancy and believe genuine discrepancies exist, I also recognize that their number and magnitude are often greatly exaggerated by some critics of the Bible. The number of real “contradictions” in the Gospels is actually quite low.

It’s interesting that you say “a poor peasant worker from an insignificant town dying as a common criminal wouldn’t have made the headlines”. I would agree with this, but if he really was so insignificant then any claims of his having any sort of mass following (The Sermon on the Mount, for example, or the Feeding of the 5000) would have to be discounted.

That doesn’t logically follow at all. Just because he would have been an interesting local curiosity doesn’t mean he would have been noteworthy in eyes of his contemporaries. At the time Jesus existed, historians and record keepers were more concerned with political and military affairs of the time. Jesus of Nazareth led no violent revolt. He was not a part of any military campaign. He never held any political office. And he made no speeches in the Senate. Heretic religious leaders (at least those who led no violent revolts etc.) like Jesus were not considered as historically important. Add to this that few historians had any interest in Palestine, arguments from silence most certainly cannot reasonably be construed as evidence. Nor can we reasonably say that indications of him as an interesting local curiosity can indicate otherwise.

And in any case, whether or not Jesus did miracles, was raised from the dead etc. doesn’t change the facts. Jesus existed as surely as Muhammad (I’m no Muslim, but it’s still lunacy to say the founder never existed) as mainstream scholars say he did. Radical fringe groups have no real evidence to the contrary, and should be disbelieved.

Some young-earthers feel the same way regarding their belief in a 6000 year old earth.

I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here - young earthers are a relatively recent and largely American phenomenon. European Christians going back to the likes of the William Buckland and earlier, had no problem with the idea of a multi-million year old Earth.

Nonetheless, let’s have no illusions that the disbelief in the existence of Jesus belongs to a radical fringe group, and mainstream scholars reject it.

I think you’re shooting at the messenger and not the message here by trying to suggest that anyone who expresses any scepticism as to Jesus’ historicity is some sort of wild eyed conspiracy theorist who can be safely ignored. This is not an open minded approach and, instead, an attempt to disregard the argument without answering it.

Also, you’re not providing any names of mainstream scholars who do reject these arguments out of hand.

The point is that the burden of proof lies on the fringe group, and they typically just don’t have any (arguments from silence are not evidence, especially given life of Jesus as a poor peasant worker etc.).

I disagree. Given the lack of independent evidence and the contradictions within the gospels, I think the burden of proof rests on those that argue for the existence of Jesus as a single historical figure.

We can’t just blindly accept whatever some fringe group says based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence

This is an argument for scepticism with respect to the historicity of Jesus. What little evidence there is both flimsy and contradictory.

The same is going to hold true for all founders of ancient religions.

If you’re trying to say here that all ancient religions have very shaky foundations, then I would agree with you.

The Gospels are actually quite consistent if we judge them by standards of ancient history (the only standards that is fair to judge them by). While I am no believer in Biblical inerrancy and believe genuine discrepancies exist, I also recognize that their number and magnitude are often greatly exaggerated by some critics of the Bible. The number of real “contradictions” in the Gospels is actually quite low.

I don’t really understand this concept of “being fair”. If we are trying to establish the accuracy of the Gospels then the most rational approach is to subject them to the highest possible standard to which we are able. If they don’t meet that standard, then we can’t say in all honesty say that they are true.

That doesn’t logically follow at all. Just because he would have been an interesting local curiosity doesn’t mean he would have been noteworthy in eyes of his contemporaries. At the time Jesus existed, historians and record keepers were more concerned with political and military affairs of the time. Jesus of Nazareth led no violent revolt. He was not a part of any military campaign. He never held any political office. And he made no speeches in the Senate. Heretic religious leaders (at least those who led no violent revolts etc.) like Jesus were not considered as historically important. Add to this that few historians had any interest in Palestine, arguments from silence most certainly cannot reasonably be construed as evidence. Nor can we reasonably say that indications of him as an interesting local curiosity can indicate otherwise.

According to the Bible, Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a method of execution reserved by the Romans for rebels, traitors and especially despised enemies of the Empire. If Jesus was no more than a local curiosity, why did the Romans Crucify him? If the Romans crucified him, then they must have seen him as a political or military danger and would - therefore - have mentioned him - as was the case with Spartacus.

And in any case, whether or not Jesus did miracles, was raised from the dead etc. doesn’t change the facts. Jesus existed as surely as Muhammad (I’m no Muslim, but it’s still lunacy to say the founder never existed) as mainstream scholars say he did. Radical fringe groups have no real evidence to the contrary, and should be disbelieved.

This is brilliant. You say that people with no real evidence should be disbelieved and precede this with a completely unsupported statement.