Did Jesus exist?

[Elijah John]

Did Jesus exist?

If not, please make the case that he did not exist, even as a completely human first century Jew.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Lots of guys named Joshua existed.
No one named Jesus who performs miracles or saves souls did or does.

There is only one data point that says he does, and it is unsubstantiated by anything else.
Thusa reasonable person concludes it is a sham. The ultimate pet rock.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Lots of guys named Joshua existed.
No one named Jesus who performs miracles or saves souls did or does.

There is only one data point that says he does, and it is unsubstantiated by anything else.
Thusa reasonable person concludes it is a sham. The ultimate pet rock.

Where do you think the words attributed to Jesus came from? Who put them on the "fictional"? character Jesus lips?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Well, they are banally good, and essentially new to Jerusalem, but not that impressive to Hellenic culture.

They came from the conflation of Pharisee culture and Hellenic culture.
Which was Rome's MO when it conquered a people.

Usurp their culture in such a way that Rome was directed by the local god to rule.

[Divine Insight]

Did Jesus exist?

If not, please make the case that he did not exist, even as a completely human first century Jew.

Every time someone asks this question we need to ask, "Which Jesus are you talking about?"

Was there an actual person who sparked the rumors told in the New Testament Gospels? My guess is yes, there probably was. I even accept that this historical Jesus did indeed argue with the religious leaders of his own culture, publicly insulted them and called them fools as the later rumors suggest, and was potentially crucified by some sort of non-official mob crucifixion (again in harmony with many of the gospel rumors later told about him).

So in this sense I believe that it is very likely that some rebel self-appointed preacher did indeed exist, cause trouble, and may have been brutally crucified by an unruly mob.

Now, what about the "Jesus" that's actually described in the gospel rumors? Did he exist as described in those rumors. I think not. The rumors are too filled with absurd claims that aren't backed up by historical evidence. Not the least of which are claims of a God speaking from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son.

So did some religious rebel Jew named Jesus exist? Probably.

Did the Jesus described in the Gospel rumors exist? Not likely. In order for that to be true our creator God would need to be an extreme moron. How likely is that? It would be far more likely that there simply doesn't exist any God at all.

So a historical Jesus who served as fodder for outrageous and unlikely rumors? Yes.

A Jesus who is precisely as the Gospels describe? Definitely not.

[Zzyzx]

.

Did Jesus exist?

There was likely a wandering preacher identified with that name (perhaps more than one). Itinerant preachers were evidently not uncommon two thousand years ago (as well as in more recent times).

[Tart]

I think i have a pretty dang strong case for the historical Jesus, if anyone is interested... So far i havent found anyone to deny a historical Jesus by it...

[Divine Insight]

I think i have a pretty dang strong case for the historical Jesus, if anyone is interested... So far i havent found anyone to deny a historical Jesus by it...

The problem is that a historical Jesus is meaningless. A historical Jesus doesn't even loan support for the Gospel Jesus must less verify the Gospel Jesus.

If we had guaranteed proof that some guy named Jesus lived, argued with and belittled his religious leaders, blasphemed himself, was crucified, and was even see to be alive after the botched crucifixion that still wouldn't convince me of the claims made by the Gospel rumors.

So the existence of a "historical Jesus" does absolutely nothing to support this religion. It would be totally meaningless even if we had overwhelming evidence for it.

I have a severe problem with this religion that goes far beyond the potential existence of Jesus. The problem is that the God of this religion would need to be a complete moron to have designed and orchestrated this entire scenario to begin with. And it makes no sense that a supposedly all-wise, all-intelligent, trustworthy God would orchestrate such an asinine scenario.

So the probability of the Gospel theology being true verbatim is nil.

At best, some rebel preacher became the fodder for this religious mythological theology. At worst (and certainly possible) the Gospel Jesus was purposefully created intentionally by dishonest authors, or editors of rumors, who fraudulently created this religion intentionally knowing full well that they were telling lies.

[otseng]

Here's a good debate between two atheist scholars on the existence of Jesus:

Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate - Did Jesus Exist?
[youtube][/youtube]
A good summary of both sides start at 1:35. Price admits mythicism is speculative and he's only offering an alternative view. As for arguments to support mythicism, I feel it is quite weak. But, I do appreciate his civility and that he takes the issue seriously, unlike other mythicists that attack primarily by mocking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

[Tart]

I think i have a pretty dang strong case for the historical Jesus, if anyone is interested... So far i havent found anyone to deny a historical Jesus by it...

The problem is that a historical Jesus is meaningless. A historical Jesus doesn't even loan support for the Gospel Jesus must less verify the Gospel Jesus.

If we had guaranteed proof that some guy named Jesus lived, argued with and belittled his religious leaders, blasphemed himself, was crucified, and was even see to be alive after the botched crucifixion that still wouldn't convince me of the claims made by the Gospel rumors.

So the existence of a "historical Jesus" does absolutely nothing to support this religion. It would be totally meaningless even if we had overwhelming evidence for it.

I have a severe problem with this religion that goes far beyond the potential existence of Jesus. The problem is that the God of this religion would need to be a complete moron to have designed and orchestrated this entire scenario to begin with. And it makes no sense that a supposedly all-wise, all-intelligent, trustworthy God would orchestrate such an asinine scenario.

So the probability of the Gospel theology being true verbatim is nil.

At best, some rebel preacher became the fodder for this religious mythological theology. At worst (and certainly possible) the Gospel Jesus was purposefully created intentionally by dishonest authors, or editors of rumors, who fraudulently created this religion intentionally knowing full well that they were telling lies.

"So the probability of the Gospel theology being true verbatim is nil."

Its still nil... could be true? who knows? Personally i think nil is good enough to establish that Jesus could be my personal savior... Maybe a nil chance, but its possible