Did Jesus really exist?

[_Rambo]

I was talking to the Bishop today and he asked me if I believe in Jesus. I said I am not sure if he really even existed. He was pretty adimit about it and that there is proof that he is in history. I did tell him that I think some people would argue with him about this but I really don't know enough about the topic.

So what do you think? Was Jesus actually a real person or was he made up?

[_schreech]

see here is the problem...even if a person named jesus did exist, i can't understand the biblical description of the guy....

1 -I can't really wrap my head around the story of some guy who "suffered for my sins"...I really never suffered any physical pain from sin so why would i care if some random guy, somehow, "suffered" because of something i did that god considered a "sin". It makes no sense...

2 - Based on the Bible, the guy was literally half god...why should i be surprised that he did something amazing if he actually existed?...even if my sins somehow caused him physical pain, why do i care? The guy was the biblical equivalent of Kal el so why should i be surprised that he could do something superhuman? He suffered for a while (i can't imagine his pain being worse than what my wife endured for 12 straight hours giving birth to our first child), he knew he was the son of god and and called it quits when he decided he had suffered enough (leaving others to suffer through the entire crucifixion process)...realistically, he was kind of a wimp for someone who was supposedly half god...I would rather worship Hercules - that guy had some style...water to wine...really, that was a "miracle"...really?

3 - Its insanely arrogant to think that only people that believe in the legend of jesus christ are eligible for eternal life (yea, yea, we all get that...) and exaltation. What a sad and exclusive view of religion...

Anyway....I imagine that some guy named jesus (heysus - for those south of the border) existed about 2000 years ago and, if he existed, he was probably the ancient equivalent of Joseph Smith, L. Ron, Mohamed, etc. That said, i am not sure there is really any real world support for the existence of JC beyond the Bible ...so, if you, somehow, can accept the Bible as "truth", then its possible to believe in the legend of Jesus Christ...beyond that, I, personally, don't know of any real world evidence that supports his existence beyond a couple of questionable sources (like josephus)...

[Guest]

I, personally, believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but the most compelling argument that he didn't has been made, in my opinion, by Earl Doherty in his The Jesus Puzzle. It's an interesting read, but his arguments don't quite do it for me. His website is http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

For the most part I agree with schreech.

Ask yourself whether you would still be a nice guy if you did not believe in this Jesus character.

If yes, then good for you and move on with your life.

If no, then please get some help.

[_Inconceivable]

Maybe this will help:

http://mrdeity.com/s1ep2.html

[_emilysmith]

There is some very strong evidence that Jesus never existed, even as a historical figure.

The most obvious is the fact that Nazareth did not exist until after 100 AD. If there was no Nazareth, how could there have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

Most early Christians were completely unaware that Jesus was an actual person, even Bishops.

The most common extra biblical source quoted is Josephus, and the famous sentence is an obvious forgery. Josephus mentions 16 different people named Jesus, and he refers to one as the "messiah of the Jews." Of course, Josephus was a Jew, and his works are quoted in later years, but no one else mentions this reference. As a matter of fact, if you bother to read the whole page, it is clear he is talking about Jesus bar Damneus.

Philo of Alexandria, who lived exactly at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, is completely silent on the subject, even though he would have been one of the most interested parties.

What is worse, is that, despite being raised near Nazareth, and doing a great job of documenting the area, including Sephorah, Nazareth is completely unknown to Josephus.

If you read the earliest works of Christian authors, it becomes clear that they viewed him as a God, and it was only later that all of different views were brought together, which is why the Bible is so convoluted on certain points. It was Tertullian who solidified the concept of the "trinity," and he didn't come on the scene until almost 200 years after Jesus' supposed lifetime.

The more one examines the evidence, the worse it gets for a historical Jesus. If you take into consideration the fact that many aspects of the story are borrowed from other religions, and many aspects of the Jesus myth are allegory for the solar cycle, the historical aspects of Jesus' tale really start to evaporate.

If you take out all of the "miracles" and want to consider Jesus as just a man in history, then you are left with virtually nothing.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com lays out the evidence fairly well, so long as you can handle the harsh tone.

[_Aristotle Smith]

That Jesus of Nazareth existed is about as certain of a historical fact as you can get when it comes to ancient history. Do you doubt that Socrates existed? Probably not, but the historical evidence for Socrates is about as good as it is for Jesus. Both wrote nothing and what we have as proof for their existence are conflicting accounts written by the next generation.

Now, what you believe about Jesus of Nazareth is outside the realm of historical fact, but his existence is not.

To be perfectly honest, Earl Doherty and his ilk are conspiracy theorists or pretty close to being conspiracy theorists.

[_Redefined]

The man vs. the legend here. Jesus may have been a real person, but the legends we hear are just sensationalized stories. . . the virgin-birth, walking on water, etc. All of this had to come after his death to pimp it out and appeal to people as "unexplained miracles". Who would follow him if he were just some ordinary person like all the rest of us.

[_Aristotle Smith]

There is some very strong evidence that Jesus never existed, even as a historical figure.

Then why do the vast majority of all ancient historians disagree with this.

The most obvious is the fact that Nazareth did not exist until after 100 AD. If there was no Nazareth, how could there have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

Wrong, check Wikipedia.

Most early Christians were completely unaware that Jesus was an actual person, even Bishops.

Yes, Paul was completely unaware that Jesus was a real person.

The most common extra biblical source quoted is Josephus, and the famous sentence is an obvious forgery. Josephus mentions 16 different people named Jesus, and he refers to one as the "messiah of the Jews." Of course, Josephus was a Jew, and his works are quoted in later years, but no one else mentions this reference. As a matter of fact, if you bother to read the whole page, it is clear he is talking about Jesus bar Damneus.

No, it's clear that there has been tampering with the passage, but most scholars are satisfied that once you take out the later revisions, it still mentions Jesus, though not in the glowing terms the original passage does.

Philo of Alexandria, who lived exactly at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, is completely silent on the subject, even though he would have been one of the most interested parties.

No, he would not have been even remotely interested in Jesus. Why would an erudite and artistocratic Jew living in the one of the largest cities in the empire, a city with the best academics bar none, be interested in a Galilean peasant? More to the point how would he even know about him? How many Galilean peasants other than Jesus can you name?

What is worse, is that, despite being raised near Nazareth, and doing a great job of documenting the area, including Sephorah, Nazareth is completely unknown to Josephus.

And the gospel writers fail to mention Sepphoris, a huge city in Galilee. Does that mean Sepphoris did not exist? They managed to name lots of other towns that have archaeological remains.

If you read the earliest works of Christian authors, it becomes clear that they viewed him as a God, and it was only later that all of different views were brought together, which is why the Bible is so convoluted on certain points. It was Tertullian who solidified the concept of the "trinity," and he didn't come on the scene until almost 200 years after Jesus' supposed lifetime.

You've got it backwards. The Bible is contradictory on some points, that's why they later had to get together to make sense of it.

The more one examines the evidence, the worse it gets for a historical Jesus. If you take into consideration the fact that many aspects of the story are borrowed from other religions, and many aspects of the Jesus myth are allegory for the solar cycle, the historical aspects of Jesus' tale really start to evaporate.

If you take out all of the "miracles" and want to consider Jesus as just a man in history, then you are left with virtually nothing.

You just negated your point of Jesus not existing by admitting that he was a man in history. There are basic non-miraculous facts about his life that the vast majority of all scholars of all belief systems are agreed upon. Now, how you interpret his life is going to be more difficult and controversial. But, you can say that about any figure in the ancient world.

[_Some Schmo]

To be perfectly honest, Earl Doherty and his ilk are conspiracy theorists or pretty close to being conspiracy theorists.

Have you ever noticed that the term "conspiracy theorist" has become as pejorative as "Sarah Palin fan" (or something equally outrageous and detestable)? One would think, listening to people who say that expecting to communicate the loaded baggage the term carries that conspiracies never happen. Every crime in the world, therefore, must be done by a lone nut. Or cultural phenomenon that happen is pure chance and is never consciously orchestrated, or even directed/influenced/nudged.

Don't get me wrong; most conspiracy theories really are outrageous. I just think it's a mistake (albeit, an understandable one) to dismiss everything ever said if it happens to come from someone who believes in certain conspiracies.

And by the way, I don't consider the historical Jesus to be a conspiracy. I think it's a myth that's been taken too far (personified), and there are obvious economic and political reasons why that would have been a motivated outcome.