Did Jesus Exist? It's the Question That's the Problem, Not the Answer.

Every so often, the question of the scholarly consensus on the existence of Jesus comes up, and both atheists and Christians tend to get over-excited by the answer. I believe we should be more concerned with the question than the answer, and when the right question is asked, the answer becomes a total non-issue for people on both sides of the debate.

When Christians (and some atheists) ask, "Did Jesus exist?" the question they're REALLY asking is, "Did the son of God come down from heaven, incarnate as a man named Jesus, perform supernatural miracles, resurrect himself from the dead, and ascend back to heaven?" But they don't say that. What they SAY is, "Did Jesus exist?" And when they get the answer, "Yes," they lose their collective shit, the Christians in smug triumph and the atheists in disappointed disbelief.

But what is the actual question that Biblical scholars and historians are attempting to answer? It's just this: "Was there a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Palestine named Yeshua or something like it who either claimed or was believed by his followers to be the messiah and who was executed by the Romans?"

The scholarly consensus is, "Yes, there probably was such a person, and the New Testament is most likely based on the stories that sprung up among his followers surrounding his life, death, and teachings." That's it.

But that's not the real question, remember? The real question is, "Did the son of God come down from heaven, incarnate as a man named Jesus, perform supernatural miracles, resurrect himself from the dead, and ascend back to heaven?"

So what is the answer to THAT question? What is the scholarly consensus on THAT issue, the REAL issue? The answer so far as I have been able to determine is, "We simply do not have any hard evidence to support the idea that these supernatural events actually happened, and that's not a question that history and textual criticism can or should attempt to answer."

So where does that leave us, Christians and atheists alike? It leaves us with a giant red herring. The question of whether the historical Jesus existed is a non-issue. The supernatural claims cannot be proven, which leaves Christian apologists without a leg to stand on when it comes to proving the religious claims of Christianity, and you cannot prove that the MAN Jesus did NOT exist, which means that atheists cannot use that as an argument against Christianity.

It simply does not matter. Now, if someone could definitively prove that the supernatural claims of the Christians really did happen, then it would matter. Conversely, if someone could definitively prove that Jesus the man did not exist, that would also matter. But neither of those things is provable, so the speculation from both sides is meaningless.

The only thing that actually matters is ensuring that the RIGHT question is being asked and that people do not accept the scholars', "Yes," as the answer to a question they aren't attempting to answer.

Why "Last Thursdayism" Fails - A Comment From a Redditor

How do you counter the "biblical worldview" card when it is played by Christians? : TrueAtheism

Let's suppose that God created everything, including all of my memories of life before that time, last Thursday. If He did a perfect job, I'll never be able to tell. But what people arguing about this miss is that I don't have to be able to tell. As long as the illusion of age is perfect, behaving as if it's true will never lead me into error!

I'm just leaving out the middle part of the statement "the planet is exactly as if were 4.72 billion years old" as not contributing anything useful.

What we're making from the evidence is not stories, but predictions. The explanation is only a useful mental tool for getting to what's important: accurate predictions of the future.

Epidemiologists and oncologists and biologists use the theory of evolution every day to make predictions about what will happen in particular situations. And as long as the theory keeps making accurate predictions, they'd be stupid to give it up.

If a young earth, or separate creation makes the slightest difference at all to what those predictions should be, to what we will observe in the rest of our lives, then let's explore the differences and resolve the dispute. But so far every attempt by creationists to come up with a theory that's different in any detail from the modern evolutionary synthesis, but still consistent with observed reality, it's been an embarrassing failure.