The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

Your post is absolutely amazing. It is a perfect demonstration of logical fallacies and baseless assumptions.

In the NT, Jesus is the Son of the God of the Jews.

The God of the Jews in the NT is an "apple" but Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews in the NT is an "orange"!!!!???

They believe that in Belfast, perhaps.

Proving the existence of the God of the Jews in the NT is not the same as proving the existence of Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews in the NT!!!

It is impossible to prove the existence the God of the Jews in the NT but it is reasonably possible to prove the existence of Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews in the NT!!!???

How in the world can the Christian Bible be used to prove the Son of the God of the Jews existed as a man but cannot be used to prove the God of the Jews existed with human flesh?

Because it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh. Gods don't exist. But people sometimes believe that other people are sons of God. The people who believe this are wrong; but the people falsely called sons of gods may exist - like Alexander - even if the gods don't.

God and his Son Jesus the Creator were on earth in the Christian Bible.

According to the Church, Jesus is ONE and the same substance as a Ghost and God.

You don't have any evidence to "prove" your theory that Paul and the Apostles existed.

You don't get it.

You believe whatever you imagine is true in the Christian Bible.

1. Prove that the Apostles existed when the Resurrected Jesus ASCENDED in a cloud.

2. Prove the disciples existed when Jesus WALKED on the sea.

3. Prove that Paul existed when Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

You got proof???

Dejudge this us all quite insane. It is the contention of rationalists at Jesus was not a god, whatever the Christians might say. I've been gently mocking your propensity to argue thus:

Jesus is believed by Christians to be God
There is no god
Therefore there is no Jesus.

That's not a valid argument. My counter is that original followers of Jesus didn't believe him to be God, and that later Christians who did believe him to be God were wrong. So Jesus is not a god, and the question whether gods exist has nothing to do with the question whether the person Jesus existed.

A contemporary of Jesus was also revered as a god. The Emperor Augustus. He was not a god, dejudge. So we can separate considerations of his historicity from those of religion.

I am continually baffled by your approach to this question, unless it's some kind of joke.

 

[Walter Ego]

As I said before Remsburg said that over 100 years ago:

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."...Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth: "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who.

I agree, though he may have been less obscure in his time than Remsburg suggests.

 

[Walter Ego]

Dejudge this us all quite insane...I am continually baffled by your approach to this question, unless it's some kind of joke.

Nah, no joke, just some fundie ranting. They come in all stripes and flavors.

 

[IanS]

Apples and oranges. Proving the existence of a deity is not the same as proving the existence of a historical human being. The former I would say is impossible, the latter, in the case of Jesus, possible to a reasonable degree.


Paul and the Apostles were mythic?

Oh, you need them not to have existed to "prove" your theory. Got it.

Walter - there is no literal "proof" for anything, even in science let alone for a biblical figure who nobody ever met.

We can only talk about credible reliable evidence. Not about "proof".

The problem is there is actually no evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone who wrote about in him any gospels or letters, or anywhere else.

What all those authors wrote about was a religious belief in a messiah from the past that none of them had ever known.

And what they said about him, although believed by everyone at the time as certainly true, has since turned out (mainly courtesy of relatively recent science) to be "certainly" untrue!

The Jesus figure who was written about in the bible, is certainly fictional. And that is the only Jesus figure that anyone at the time wrote about and believed in. Nobody at that time ever wrote about belief in what we now call a "HJ". The idea of a HJ is a relatively modern proposal dreamed up by Christians and bible scholars from around circa. 1800 (iirc the rough date correctly), specifically to avoid, or in fact "evade", the growing realisation that science was by then showing that miracles as described in the bible were & are physically impossible. And also the growing realisation that side-by-side comparison of the canonical gospels showed that they had been copied from one another and were not independent accounts. And finally, also the growing realisation that the gospel writers had used various passages from their old testament to construct their Jesus stories.

That's why bible scholars and Christians actually had to invent the idea of a HJ, a figure completely different from the biblical Jesus, if they wanted to retain any belief in Jesus as real person at all.

But as dejudge and Max have pointed out, there have been at least 3 stages of searching for or trying to "create" a HJ that would fit the biblical stories ... but all those attempts have failed in the sense that they could not agree on any actual known historical figure that had any supporting evidence of existence at all.

That's the problem - zero evidence of a human Jesus.

 

[Walter Ego]

Walter - there is no literal "proof" for anything, even in science let alone for a biblical figure who nobody ever met.

So you would need a reliable, contemporaneous first-person account from someone who actually met JC in the flesh before you would entertain the idea that he existed?

Would you hold this same standard for other historical characters from the ancient world?

 

[maximara]

So you would need a reliable, contemporaneous first-person account from someone who actually met JC in the flesh before you would entertain the idea that he existed?

Would you hold this same standard for other historical characters from the ancient world?

This old strawman chestnut has been dealt with before (from Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article at rationalwiki):

When discussing the evidence for Jesus' existence, a common claim made by apologists is that there is "more evidence for Jesus than 'X'".

[...]

While it is is impossible to cover all the ancient figures and events Jesus has been compared to there are a few popular ones that show just how shaky the position really is (It should be noted that this sometimes mixed with the more accurate than Homer argument).

Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) (544–496 BCE?): his very existence is debated in scholarly circles [198] despite reference in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived.

Confucius (Kong Qiu) (551–479 BCE) the Records of the Grand Historian used archives and imperial records as source material (which themselves have not survived). Its author Sima Qian noted the problems with incomplete, fragmentary, and contradictory sources stating in the 18th volume of the 180-volume work "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank." Moreover, Kong Qiu was the governor of a town in Lu and ultimately held the positions of Minister of Public Works and then Minister of Crime for the whole Lu state not exactly minor positions one could create a fictitious person to fill.


Leukippos (shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE): very existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).[199]

Socrates (c469 – 399 BCE): written about by contemporaries Plato, Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE), and Aristophanes (c446 – 386 BCE).

Plato (428 – 347 BCE): written about by contemporaries Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE)[200]: official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus where all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Additionally there are known contemporary accounts that survive: Isocrates, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Dinarchus, Theocritus, Theophrastus, and Menander.[201] And on top off all that there are the contemporary inscriptions and coins.

Hannibal (247 – 182 BCE): Written about by Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Never mind the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.

Julius Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julius Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.

Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE): Often refereed to as the "Pagan Christ", fragments of Apollonius' own writings are part of the Harvard University Press edition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1912) ISBN-13: 978-0674990180 as documented in Carrier's Kook article.

Boadicea (d. 60 CE): Tacitus himself would have been a 5-year old boy when she poisoned herself c. 60 CE making him contemporary to her. Furthermore, his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary, but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

Muhammad (570 – c. June 8, 632 CE): Contrary to the picture some apologists like to point there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary with Muhammad. The earliest is the personal notes of an unnamed monk c 636 CE mixed in with his copying of the gospels that talks of the "many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives"[202] and in 661 CE Sebeos writes about Mụhammad and it is believed to be an eyewitness to many of the events he recorded. As if that wasn't enough,, the Quran and other writings about Muhammad can be traced to identifiable people who actually were with him during his lifetime (as in the case of Alexander the Great).[203]

Now compare those to Jesus:
1) The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.
2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.
"A viable theory of historicity for Jesus must therefore instead resemble a theory of historicity for Apollonius of Tyana or Musonin Rufus or Judas the Galilean (to list a few very famous men who escaped the expected record more or less the same degree Jesus did.)"[204]


197 Richard Carrier (May 10, 2014) "On the Historicity of Jesus: What Would You Look Up?"
198 Sawyer, Ralph D. (2005), The Essential Art of War, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-07204-6
199 Diogenes Laërtius x. 7
200 E P Sanders as cited by Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 21
201 Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 22
202 W. Wright, Catalogue Of Syriac Manuscripts In The British Museum Acquired Since The Year 1838, 1870, Part I, Printed by order of the Trustees: London, No. XCIV, pp. 65-66. This book was republished in 2002 by Gorgias Press.
203 Nigosian, Solomon Alexander (2004). Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21627-3. pg 6
204 Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 291

---

I should mention that in his peer reviewed scholarly published book Carrier spend doubt four pages under the heading The Socrates Analogy disproving this silly comparison.

As I have said before the whole Pro-HJ position comes off as if in 2089 you found that people were claiming Adolf Hitler was assisted every step of the way by his younger brother Edward who also passed himself off as a double of his brother and that it was Edward and not Adolf who spent his final days in the bunker allowing his brother to escape.

There is more evidence for that total fantasy then for Jesus!

 

[Craig B]

This old strawman chestnut has been dealt with before (from Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article at rationalwiki):

On the topic of straw man chestnuts (whatever these may be!) that's not what Walter Ego said. He asked not about Jesus being more famous than x, but this; and it's a good question which I invite you to address.

So you would need a reliable, contemporaneous first-person account from someone who actually met JC in the flesh before you would entertain the idea that he existed?

Would you hold this same standard for other historical characters from the ancient world?

Not all your probable historical people satisfy that criterion.

 

[IanS]

So you would need a reliable, contemporaneous first-person account from someone who actually met JC in the flesh before you would entertain the idea that he existed?

Actually I do "entertain the idea that he existed". I think it's entirely possible.

However, I think the very serious lack of evidence means that we cannot say that it's more likely than not that he existed. Certainly not on the biblical evidence. And the bible is actually the only primary evidential source for any belief in Jesus.

But more generally - yes, I would need to find either reliable accounts from people who claimed to have met him. Or else, some sort of physical evidence such as archaeological remains, or some sort of documentary evidence such as we have other historical figures.

IOW - just the sort of relatively reliable independent evidence that we do have in the case of other well known historical figures.

Of course there are famous figures from ancient history for which there is little if any reliable evidence. But in none of those cases is it the existence of the person themselves that is important to history ... in those cases what is important is what was done in their name, e.g. philosophical movements, mathematical discoveries, famous battles etc.

But if there are other extremely famous people who's existence has become anywhere near as important as Jesus is in the everyday lives of millions of people today, and where there is zero evidence of anyone having known that person, where there is no archaeological or other physical evidence, where there is no independent documentary evidence, where there is no evidence of any kind, and where all that was originally said about him/her was claims of the supernatural, and where it is subsequently found that the stories had been taken from what was written centuries before as religious superstition in an old testament, and where all the extant earliest writing about that person had been subject to alteration by devoted followers in later generations .... then yes, I would be very suspicious about whether such a figure was actually real or whether they were just the figment of fanatical superstition that most of the writing has certainly turned out to be.

Would you hold this same standard for other historical characters from the ancient world?

Yes, of course. But with the essential caveat that, as noted above - for other famous figures such as philosophers, kings, queens and military leaders etc., nobody really cares whether such people were actually real or just the stuff of legend. So nobody can be bothered to argue about it except a few academics. Instead what matters in those cases is only the very real and fully evidenced things that were done in their name.


But we have been over all the above at least 50 times before in this thread. And those accusations of (1)holding Jesus up to an unreasonably high standard not applied to other figures, and (2)demanding evidence that would be impossible for any figure in ancient history, are not only both erroneous and untrue claims, but also standard pro-HJ arguments that are always trotted out by Christians, bible scholars and others who are convinced that Jesus had to be real.

 

[Walter Ego]

[T]hose accusations of (1)holding Jesus up to an unreasonably high standard not applied to other figures, and (2)demanding evidence that would be impossible for any figure in ancient history, are not only both erroneous and untrue claims, but also standard pro-HJ arguments that are always trotted out by Christians, bible scholars and others who are convinced that Jesus had to be real.

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

If this counter to the prevailing dogma, you'll just to have me excommunicated as a heretic.

 

[Craig B]

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

If this counter to the prevailing dogma, you'll just to have me excommunicated as a heretic.

You will be; and your heresy is uttering "arguments that are always trotted out by Christians".

 

[IanS]

(T)hose accusations of (1)holding Jesus up to an unreasonably high standard not applied to other figures, and (2)demanding evidence that would be impossible for any figure in ancient history, are not only both erroneous and untrue claims, but also standard pro-HJ arguments that are always trotted out by Christians, bible scholars and others who are convinced that Jesus had to be real.

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

If this counter to the prevailing dogma, you'll just to have me excommunicated as a heretic.

Well when you quoted me above you omitted the very first line which explained that I was talking about accusations that we had been over 50 times or more in the thread before your latest posts, and that those particular questions are actually in the form of quite spurious accusations always trotted out by HJ "apologists" .

Why did you remove that first line from the quote?

Here is the actual quote of what I said -

But we have been over all the above at least 50 times before in this thread. And those accusations of (1)holding Jesus up to an unreasonably high standard not applied to other figures, and (2)demanding evidence that would be impossible for any figure in ancient history, are not only both erroneous and untrue claims, but also standard pro-HJ arguments that are always trotted out by Christians, bible scholars and others who are convinced that Jesus had to be real.

 

[IanS]

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

If this counter to the prevailing dogma, you'll just to have me excommunicated as a heretic.

You will be; and your heresy is uttering "arguments that are always trotted out by Christians".

No, quite untrue Craig. Neither Walter or anyone else is going to be “excommunicated as a heretic” from any atheist stance. And neither I nor anyone else is either in a position to do any such “excommunicating”, nor has anyone ever shown the slightest notion of any such idea.

If Walter is ever criticised here by me upon the actual "facts" (as distinct from any personal attacks of the sort we witnessed much earlier in this thread where three pro-HJ members in particular spent months filling almost every post with replies saying Liar, Liar, Lying Liar etc., often in oversized bold type, and where as a result I eventually stopped bothering to exchange posts like that with two of them), then it will only be where I think he is wrong and where I hope I can explain why I think he is wrong.

 

[Walter Ego]

Well when you quoted me above you omitted the very first line which explained that I was talking about accusations that we had been over 50 times or more in the thread before your latest posts, and that those particular questions are actually in the form of quite spurious accusations always trotted out by HJ "apologists".

Why did you remove that first line from the quote?

I didn't read it the first 50 times so that part was irrelevant.

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

 

[dejudge]

They believe that in Belfast, perhaps. Because it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh. Gods don't exist.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

If it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh then it is impossible that Jesus of Nazareth existed in human flesh.

Jesus was God of God, a TRANSFIGURER and WATER Walker in the NT.

But people sometimes believe that other people are sons of God. The people who believe this are wrong; but the people falsely called sons of gods may exist - like Alexander - even if the gods don't.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You very well know that Jesus is GOD from the beginning in the NT.

Dejudge this us all quite insane. It is the contention of rationalists at Jesus was not a god, whatever the Christians might say. I've been gently mocking your propensity to argue thus:

Jesus is believed by Christians to be God
There is no god
Therefore there is no Jesus.

Again, you display intellectual dishonest. You cannot EVER PRESENT the historical data to support your HJ argument.

Assumptions are worthless when you were asked to present HISTORICAL data.

You NEVER had the required historical data to support an HJ argument.

That's not a valid argument. My counter is that original followers of Jesus didn't believe him to be God, and that later Christians who did believe him to be God were wrong. So Jesus is not a god, and the question whether gods exist has nothing to do with the question whether the person Jesus existed.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. Your own HJ argument was NEVER EVER valid. You NEVER EVER had the REQUIRED historical data to start an HJ argument.

You argue that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE. The Pauline Corpus specifically states Jesus was the LORD from heaven, God Creator, the LORD GOD and use the very same NOMINA SACRA as the GOD of the Jews.

Jesus in the NT is the LORD GOD of the CHRISTIANS.

The NT was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus[Jesus with a human father] in WRITINGS of antiquity.

See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.
See "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.[/u]

Your HJ argument is baseless, VOID of logic and historical data.

A contemporary of Jesus was also revered as a god. The Emperor Augustus. He was not a god, dejudge. So we can separate considerations of his historicity from those of religion.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. You very well know that the human parents of Augustus are documented and that there are artifacts of Augustus which corroborate that he was a figure of history.

You have NO historical data and NO contemporary artifacts for Jesus of Nazareth.

I am continually baffled by your approach to this question, unless it's some kind of joke.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You have discredited the Christian Bible and referred to Christian writer as 'Bigots' but still use their writings as credible historical sources.

Why are you actively using gMark to argue that Jesus was a human being when it is specifically stated that Jesus was a TRANSFIGURER who WALKED on WATER.

In the Christian Bible--ONLY the LORD God can WALK on WATER and Calm the Storm.

Job 9---8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.


Psalm 107:29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.

Your HJ argument is worthless because you rely directly on the Canon of the Church which was used to demonstrate that Jesus was BORN of a Ghost, God Creator and a TRANSFIGURING Water Walker, who ascended to heaven in a CLOUD after he RESURRECTED on the THIRD day.

You are actively using admitted chronological and historical garbage [the NT] as an historical source.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument.

 

[Craig B]

If it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh then it is impossible that Jesus of Nazareth existed in human flesh.

Jesus was God of God, a TRANSFIGURER and WATER Walker in the NT.
...
Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument.

No, it's not the worst ARGUMENT, dejudge. You have just written again the worst argument THAT I warned you about and you are not PAYING attention. I wrote this

Jesus is believed by Christians to be God
There is no god
Therefore there is no Jesus.

But you've just given me that ARGUMENT again, by saying Jesus is god OF god so if gods can't HAVE flesh then Jesus can't either. But you SEE, Christians are wrong and mistaken in believing Jesus the Christ IS god, so even if there is no god, Jesus could still have had flesh. Why do you keep preaching THE Christian doctrine about the divinity of JESUS? Is it because you are seeking eternal SALVATION through faith?

 

[IanS]

I didn't read it the first 50 times so that part was irrelevant.

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

You did not need to read it 50 times before. And I did not ask you to do any such thing.

I simply told you that we have already been over those same questions 50 times here already. And answered them very fully 50 times before!

Any suggestion that Jesus is supported by no less & no more evidence than other comparable figures in ancient history, and is therefore subject to a double standard whereby sceptics such as me question only Jesus whilst not questioning the existence of people like Pythagoras or Socrates, or Julius Caesar or any of the numerous others that have been compared here to Jesus by HJ posters, is simply wrong ...

... the case of Jesus is not comparable to any of those other figures (for numerous reasons that we have been over here more than 50 times before).

 

[dejudge]

If it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh then it is impossible that Jesus of Nazareth existed in human flesh.

Jesus was God of God, a TRANSFIGURER and WATER Walker in the NT.
...
Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument.

No, it's not the worst ARGUMENT, dejudge. You have just written again the worst argument THAT I warned you about and you are not PAYING attention.

Of course, your HJ argument is the very worst.

Your posts are recorded.

Your argue that gMark's Jesus [the TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER] was human because the Son of God is a "Davidic title".

What absolute nonsense!!!

A TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER is a MYTH/FICTION character with or without your "Davidic title".

 

[dejudge]

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

 

[Craig B]

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

I predicted that Walter Ego would be accused of this

You will be; and your heresy is uttering "arguments that are always trotted out by Christians".

Of course you go much further than that, and accuse him of being a Bible-Thumping Fundie.

 

[maximara]

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

Put that way the odds are reasonably good but (and this is important part) was that teacher actually the founder of Christianity?

Resmburg who said he felt the evidence was just enough to show Jesus existed as a human being also said "But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

Classic Christ Mythers like Drews and John M. Robertson were not saying that a Jesus didn't exist but that connection between such a man and the Gospel version was on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur. You can postulate "historical" origins for them but at the end of the day they is nothing to connect them to a definitive version.

As Archibald Robertson said "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man or perhaps as a composite of actual people]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

Carrier doesn't go quite that far only requiring:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

3) This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

Now "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" doesn't mean that there wasn't a historical Jesus but that like Robin Hood or King Arthur what ever historical core did exist has been obliterated by legend and myth.

Carrier is giving a lot of leeway here:

"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite) ... My point at present is that even if we proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

Carrier goes with the Gospels and Acts as they are our most detailed accounts and [supposedly] closest to the "actual" events. If they fail then the search for a HJ is a trip to nowhere.

And fail they do in spectacular fashion.

HansMustermann had an excellent comment in the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread which goes over all the issues with Jesus.