Did Jesus Really Exist? (Historically)

[Jack]

...the only story that speaks of anything worth hoping for.

I guess that would depend on what you're hoping for. If you're hoping for the revelations of John to come to pass, if you're hoping for the demise of every human not a Christian, if you're hoping for a global Christian theocracy, then the Bible does indeed offer hope.

I prefer the hope provided by a humanistic ideology. I prefer hope grounded in reality. I have hope for all life on this planet, not just those who agree with me.

[Anguspure]

So in short, you believe because it's a cutesy little story that gives you false hope.

Not false hope, for that wouldn't be hope at all would it? And definately not cutesy, execution by Roman crucifixion isn't really what I would call cute.
The issue is one of trust. If the current evidence throws some doubt on the story of some one you trust, you don't stop beleiving them do you?
For those who have found the author and writers of bible to be trustworthy it doesn't really matter how many angry antis throw crap all over it.
The proof, after all, is in the pudding, where there is smoke there is fire and the fat lady isn't in the room.

[Jack]

Don't forget Fox Mulder's, "I want to believe". That's what it ultimately comes down to.

[Diogenes]

There is no reason to believe Jesus didn't exist. In fact I think those arguing that he didn't likely have a build-up of religious resentment.

Most ' rational ' people do not deny he existed. The area and time was ripe for political and religious dissension. There were probably many ' rebels ' at the time.

Even most ' rational ' atheists who know anything about the subject concede he likely existed, or possibly was a ( the name escapes me at this time ) character based upon several existing people at the time...one of whom may have been a rebel called Jesus.

The only people who seem to deny his existence outright are irrational people who are akin to conspiracy theorists like the kind who love to state we never went to the Moon.

[Anguspure]

I guess that would depend on what you're hoping for. If you're hoping for the revelations of John to come to pass, if you're hoping for the demise of every human not a Christian, if you're hoping for a global Christian theocracy, then the Bible does indeed offer hope.

In terms of the bible we are all destined to die, but the blessed God came down teaching that his death would bring those who mourn hope.
The question is whether we want to be part of the Christian theocracy with Jesus himself in control by the love and will of all on earth (and please don't tell me that the christian religion is an example of this. It is patently not).
Humanism teaches us the hope that this world of peace and love can be attained without first dealing with the problem of sin, without the assistance of a true human and without God.
I personally find that the hope of humanism is fatally flawed in the light of human experience, I mean we can't even take the teachings of Love, humility and peace from Jesus and apply them without turning it into some monstrosity of power and control and to get a picture of a world controlled by pure secularism one only needs to look at Stalin or Mao.
As an example the world is currently freaking out about climate change and it is obvious that the only way for the human component of the phenoma to be dealt with is for all humans to reduce their impact on the enviroment of the earth in a bottom up fashion (its no good blaming the captains of industry they have no control the hearts and minds of individuals and are flawed and broken themselves). How many people do you know walk to work or suffered some other discomfort for the sake of the enviroment, how many people refuse the packaging at the supermarket? We all know we probably havn't got time to dither with this problem and yet very few give a .....
This is fallen humanity in action as has been observed through milenia.
Humanism teaches us that we can fly by pulling on our own boot strings. Jesus offers us a hand of hope and a path by which (if we bother to follow it) we could actually have a world of peace and love.

[Diogenes]

Anguspure...

1. we are all destined to die the moment we are conceived...it has nothing to do with " In terms of the bible"

2. the ' world of peace and love ' that you ascribe to Jesus could equally be applied to Siddhattha Gotama ( the Buddha ), or Socrates, or virtually anyone who is extremely nice and well-mannered...if I was to ascribe to the philosophy of the Dali lama the result would be virtually the same...

so...why should I, or any one else, prefer Jesus' perfect world philosophy over the philosophy of someone like the Dali lama?

Clearly...you must be arguing not from the point of creating a " world of peace and love " but, from a " world of peace and love " that you think can only be achieved through Jesus.

You are promoting Jesus...not the concept of a " world of peace and love "...because that ' concept ' can come from a variety of sources.

[Jack]

How many people do you know walk to work or suffered some other discomfort for the sake of the enviroment, how many people refuse the packaging at the supermarket? We all know we probably havn't got time to dither with this problem and yet very few give a .....

Not many, I admit, be they religious or not. Christians are taught that they are "not of this world" and a better life awaits them after death, so I'm not surprised at their lack of concern. Humanists should be more concerned, but they are human with all the common human weaknesses. Not wanting to sacrifice present and personal comfort for the sake of future benefit is one of them.

This is fallen humanity in action as has been observed through milenia.

Fallen? From what ideal position has mankind fallen from? Where we ever perfect? I don't think so. Humans have a very short history compared to other living things on this planet. We're still learning. There's hope that we'll turn things around through more awareness and better education. Superstitions offer no real hope at all.

[Anguspure]

Anguspure...

1. we are all destined to die the moment we are conceived...it has nothing to do with " In terms of the bible".

In the context of what I am contending it has everything to do with the Bible.
The Bible agrees with human experience in the regard but it wasn't the way mankind was created to exist (or rather cease to exist).

2. the ' world of peace and love ' that you ascribe to Jesus could equally be applied to Siddhattha Gotama ( the Buddha ), or Socrates, or virtually anyone who is extremely nice and well-mannered...if I was to ascribe to the philosophy of the Dali lama the result would be virtually the same...

so...why should I, or any one else, prefer Jesus' perfect world philosophy over the philosophy of someone like the Dali lama?

It is your preference, who you choose to trust, but with due respect, and recognition for the truth found in these paths, the purpose and method of acting out peace and love are quite different between philosophies.

As far as I am aware the equivilent concept of Agape cannot be found in other philosophies.

In the case of Budha peace and love are stepping stones on the way to enlightenment and Nirvana, not an objective in itself. Furthermore it is not the concern of Budha as to the path that each finds to enlightenment, the concept of karma deals with issues of justice.

As a consequence the Budha teaches us that we should not do anything to others that we would not wish done to ourselves. A passive form.
The Budha also teaches us to pull ourselves up by our boot straps.

In contrast, Jesus teaches us that perfect Agape love is the objective of life itself. He demonstrates the way to carry this out by giving his life for all of us. The slate is wiped clean, he has taken the karma upon himself and we have a new beginning and there is no need to act as a consequence of the wrongs of the past, if you can beleive and accept it.

So Jesus teaches us to: Mark 12:30-31 (NIV) Love (Agape) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love (Agape) your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

Matthew 5:43-45 (NIV) "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love (agape) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

We are to have a self sacrificial and personal concern for the well being of all people we encounter for no other reason than that is the way that we are created to live and that the act itself is an act of love towards our Creator.

Jesus also teaches us that he sends 'the helper' to acheive the objective of perfect Agape love.

I have to admit that examples of people who have actually lived according to his teachings very few, if any can be found at all.

As Jesus is reported to have said:Mark 10:18 (NIV) "Why do you call me good?"..."No one is good--except God alone.

You are promoting Jesus...not the concept of a " world of peace and love "...because that ' concept ' can come from a variety of sources.

In a sense you are correct however the object of Jesus' teaching is itself peace and love. In the case of Jesus the two are inextricably linked.

I beleive that a world of peace and love can only be acheived when:
1. Justice has been served for the wrongs that have been committed.
2. The basic human 'selfish gene' is dealt with in every living individual.
3. We are all as individuals committed to acting only out of sacrificial love for everybody.
4. Agape love becomes itself our highest objective to the point of death.

Jesus provides this teaching, provides the clearest example of the way to get the job done and then he himself becomes the way.

[Anguspure]

Not wanting to sacrifice present and personal comfort for the sake of future benefit is one of them.

In the Biblical context its called sin and also relates to the way we treat the people we live with and meet.

Fallen? From what ideal position has mankind fallen from? Where we ever perfect?

If you were to beleive the Bible you might consider that humanity was created perfect in this sense. But YHWH was wrong, we would not die if we ate from the tree but rather become like him......

[Chris the Chees]

There is no reason to believe Jesus didn't exist. In fact I think those arguing that he didn't likely have a build-up of religious resentment.

Most ' rational ' people do not deny he existed. The area and time was ripe for political and religious dissension. There were probably many ' rebels ' at the time.

Even most ' rational ' atheists who know anything about the subject concede he likely existed, or possibly was a ( the name escapes me at this time ) character based upon several existing people at the time...one of whom may have been a rebel called Jesus.

The only people who seem to deny his existence outright are irrational people who are akin to conspiracy theorists like the kind who love to state we never went to the Moon.

Except of course there is plenty of evidence that man went to the moon, there is no contemporary evidence to actually answer the Jesus question in definative terms.

[notthecheatr]

There is no reason to believe Jesus didn't exist.

No reason to believe he did, except the say-so of a book written decades after the alleged fact by people who had a very strong motive for believing that he did exist.

In fact I think those arguing that he didn't likely have a build-up of religious resentment.

Actually, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. While I personally think he probably did exist (even in spite of the above-mentioned facts, it still seems a little improbable that the whole New Testament was written about a completely fictional character), good skepticism requires one to admit that the evidence we have is sparse and based on what people want to believe, rather than any direct physical evidence. We don't really have primary sources; even the books which purport to have been written by people who knew Jesus were written decades after the fact.

Most ' rational ' people do not deny he existed.

I don't deny that he existed, or could have existed. But it is worth pointing out we don't really have good evidence that he did, either.

The area and time was ripe for political and religious dissension. There were probably many ' rebels ' at the time.

Of course. And the Jesus story was probably compelling to the early Christians because of this notion - that a man who fought against "The Man" was actually God himself, and came back to life! It would certainly bring hope to the otherwise meaningless existence of a slave, toiling away his life in darkness or fighting against the oppression only to die a painful and gruesome death on a cross or in the arena. That would bring hope to anyone.

Even most ' rational ' atheists who know anything about the subject concede he likely existed, or possibly was a ( the name escapes me at this time ) character based upon several existing people at the time...one of whom may have been a rebel called Jesus.

Entirely possible, but again, with no direct access to the historical events or any primary sources or evidence, it's just conjecture. Similar to trying to figure out whether there was a real Trojan Horse or Atlantis, or who Robin Hood was.

The only people who seem to deny his existence outright are irrational people who are akin to conspiracy theorists like the kind who love to state we never went to the Moon.

Hardly a fair comparison. The moon trip took place in very recent history, and we have TONS of primary sources, including video, photographs, schematics and diagrams, manuals, some of the original equipment that was used, and I could go on. To make the comparison between the moon exploration and the existence of Jesus is ludicrous. While I grant, as I said before, that Jesus seems to have likely existed, there is no comparison between him and the moon.

[Grogybear]

and to get a picture of a world controlled by pure secularism one only needs to look at Stalin or Mao.

Again another person missing the point about the atheism of Stalin and Mao. Unlike crusaders and other "holy" butchers throughout history Stalin and Mao didn't do what they did to further the cause of atheism. Atheism isn't really a cause. All it means is not believing in God. After that an atheist can believe any number of things.
Granted, secularism is a kind of agenda but what it means is to separate church and state so that everybody has the freedom of and from religion. If you replace religion with a personality cult like Mao, Stalin and Kim Yong Il have done thats not really secularism but just another kind of theocracy.

I tell myself that if i fight this stupid argument every time it rears its head eventually it'll stay down.

Anyway.. enough off topic

There is no reason to believe Jesus didn't exist. In fact I think those arguing that he didn't likely have a build-up of religious resentment.

Incorrect. You don't seem to understand that someone must be proven to exist in the first place before the question whether he didn't exist can even be asked.

It's a pity this debate is even necessary. Skeptics should have to go to absolutely no effort to debunk something (jesus' existence) that has never even been proved in the first place.