Did Jesus Really Exist? (Historically)

[grandpa]

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.

I see Maosim and Stalinism as dogmatic religions that worshipped the state -- not atheism. In fact, I'm sure plenty of atheists died because of Stalin.

The point remains, though, that religions have their share of brutal and/or stupid policies. Look at the catholic church:
"Following the U.S. Civil War, the papacy continued to defend
the institution
of slavery, even when it had fallen into disfavor most everywhere else.
The papacy also continued the practice of creating castratos (boys castrated
before puberty to keep their singing voices high-pitched) for their own
entertainment, long after it had fallen in disfavor throughout Italy.
Neither is Catholicism alone in being responsible for such atrocity..."
Christianity has Pagan DNA

Grandpa h.

[Diogenes]

Chris the Chees and notthecheatr...sorry but you both really need to practice your reading or ' comprehension ' skills...

I was not comparing the ' evidence ' of Jesus' existence to the ' evidence ' we have about the Moon landing...I was commenting on the character of those who insist upon an ' irrational ' negative ( he didn't - we didn't ).

Grogybear...what you don't understand is that billions of people ( and events ) have lived that we will not be able to prove they ever existed. The fact that there are no records of Jesus outside of Christian writings is not a strange occurrence. It only becomes strange when you include the ' miracles ' into the equation.

But this isn't an argument about whether or not the miracles are true or a fabrication...this isn't even an argument about whether or not he was or wasn't what he, or others, claimed him to be...

this is an argument about whether or not a rebel called Jesus lived.

It's a pity this debate is even necessary.

I agree...we shouldn't have to waste our time explaining a rational outlook to someone who insists on an irrational one...because of some embedded resentment or other personal issue they might have to insist upon an irrational negative.

[Chris the Chees]

Chris the Chees and notthecheatr...sorry but you both really need to practice your reading or ' comprehension ' skills...

I was not comparing the ' evidence ' of Jesus' existence to the ' evidence ' we have about the Moon landing...I was commenting on the character of those who insist upon an ' irrational ' negative ( he didn't - we didn't ).

Well thanks for that, but I understood what you wrote, at least in my opinion, and the fact that someone else took the exact same thing from your comment should perhaps inform you that maybe it isn't our comprehension/reading which is at fault but rather the standard of your articulation which left such an obvious conclusion to be drawn from it?

Just saying. But to address the point; to accept the moon landing conspiricy theory requires a fundermentally irrational perspective be taken to the volumous evidence, from multiple sources, that suggest that the moon landings did indeed not occur. The state of the actual evidence for a historical Jesus does not require that the sceptical individual be remotely irrational. In fact give the actual paucity of evidence for a historical Jesus, the position of the sceptics is actually perfectly rational.

It isn't my favoured conclusion, but it is a valid one given the evidence to hand and the people who hold it are by no means necessarily irrational and they are not necessarily akin to moon landing conspiricy theorists, birthers, truthers, etc.

[Diogenes]

at least in my opinion, and the fact that someone else took the exact same thing from your comment should perhaps inform you that maybe it isn't our comprehension/reading which is at fault but rather the standard of your articulation which left such an obvious conclusion to be drawn from it?

Just saying.

I'll consider that a compliment

[Grogybear]

Dio

I'm not saying jesus definitely didn't exist but what I'm saying is that there is insufficient evidence to be able to say he did.

Because there is so little evidence we don't know whether jesus existed as one man, was an amalgamation of different people or a complete fabrication.

Until adequate historical evidence comes forth jesus cannot really be considered as an historical character.

[Anguspure]

Dio
Until adequate historical evidence comes forth jesus cannot really be considered as an historical character.

The evidence of effect alone is compelling.
Where there's smoke there's fire. No person historic or not has had more impact on the world of mankind than the person of Jesus.
To assert that this was simply made up by a group of people, who then went on to ignore almost every major theme they supposedly concocted, is patently absurd.

[Grogybear]

The evidence of effect alone is compelling.
Where there's smoke there's fire.

There is NO evidence. There may have once been a human called jesus but it's hardly relevant if his life was nothing like that of the biblical one.
Maybe he wasn't a carpenter. Maybe he wasn't actually from nazereth. Maybe he didn't even have any followers. The point is we don't know.
There may have been a man called Jesus once but the evidence is scant and there's even less evidence that he was anything like the biblical one.
I'm not even talking about the virgin birth and the whole son of god part.

No person historic or not has had more impact on the world of mankind than the person of Jesus.

That's up for debate. Had Constantine not jumped on the jesus bandwagon would christianity have taken hold?

To assert that this was simply made up by a group of people, who then went on to ignore almost every major theme they supposedly concocted, is patently absurd.

What do you mean by theme?

[notthecheatr]

Chris the Chees and notthecheatr...sorry but you both really need to practice your reading or ' comprehension ' skills...

I was not comparing the ' evidence ' of Jesus' existence to the ' evidence ' we have about the Moon landing...I was commenting on the character of those who insist upon an ' irrational ' negative ( he didn't - we didn't ).

Indeed. But to be able to compare two different points of view, you have to be able to show that they are indeed similar on some points. People who do not believe in the moon landings are clearly unable to accept any evidence presented. You could probably take them to the moon yourself and they'd still swear it was a hoax. On the other hand, people who are skeptical that Jesus existed are expressing nothing more than healthy skepticism about an event/person that admittedly we don't have much evidence for.

[Diogenes]

People who do not believe in the moon landings are clearly unable to accept any evidence presented. You could probably take them to the moon yourself and they'd still swear it was a hoax. On the other hand, people who are skeptical that Jesus existed are expressing nothing more than healthy skepticism about an event/person that admittedly we don't have much evidence for

True...with the one lone exception being the inclusion of the word ' healthy '...I think it's more likely, in the vast majority of cases, not skepticism, and certainly not healthy skepticism, but rather resentful prejudice toward religion and religious icons.

It's actually quite interesting that you rarely ever read a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or Jain or Taoist ( etc ) questioning whether or not Jesus existed...it almost always is an atheist.

[Anguspure]

There is NO evidence. There may have once been a human called jesus but it's hardly relevant if his life was nothing like that of the biblical one.
Maybe he wasn't a carpenter. Maybe he wasn't actually from nazereth. Maybe he didn't even have any followers. The point is we don't know.
There may have been a man called Jesus once but the evidence is scant and there's even less evidence that he was anything like the biblical one.
I'm not even talking about the virgin birth and the whole son of god part.

Thousands upon thousands of Christians crucified and otherwise executed in the first century after Jesus walked the earth didn't do so because of some legend that was made up. The effect that this Jesus of Nazereth, who ever you think he was, definitely points to a real person, not some mystical being that may or may not have existed. In any other historic study this alone would suffice as evidence of a person existing and having an effect on a population. But we have to change the rules for Jesus don't we?

That's up for debate. Had Constantine not jumped on the jesus bandwagon would christianity have taken hold?

Constantine and his RC church pretty much did more to undermine and demolish the teachings of JC than almost any other intitution or power existant. This is why we ended up with the dark ages.
The religion that has evolved from their power and control games was and is so far seperated from what may be read in the gospels, melted together with all sorts of Greek philosophy and pagan tradition as it is, that for many years knowledge of the Bible by the man on the street was all but forbidden.

True Christianity as taught by JC only flourishes under persecution and hardship but generally becomes fat and useless when it is pandered to. This was observed by John when he penned the book of Revelation in the letters to the churches.

Revelation 3:15-17 (NIV) I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.


Witness the underground church of China and Russia under the communist regime or almost any church found in impoverished parts of the world as opposed to what can be observed from Christianity in parts of the world that regard themselves as 'good' and 'Christian'.

What do you mean by theme?

Theme = doctrine, teaching or dogma.

[Cruella]

In any other historic study this alone would suffice as evidence of a person existing and having an effect on a population. But we have to change the rules for Jesus don't we?

Nope. Actually, we're using the same rules for Jesus as we would for, say ... Cesar. Writings, contemporary histories, artefacts, etc. We have evidence of historical beings from both before and after Jesus' time, yet ... nothing for Jesus Christ. That's all. You believe, and that's fine, it's your choice. But it's ... interesting, from another point of view. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Peter]

Thousands upon thousands of Christians crucified and otherwise executed in the first century after Jesus walked the earth didn't do so because of some legend that was made up.

You've got a good point there because we all know that people 2000 years ago were so much more critical of myths and generally more sophisticated and sceptical than your typical theist today who will readily sacrifice themselves to board a spaceship following a comet or to enjoy the tender flesh of 72 virgins. NOT!