Elijah John wrote:
For debate, please address any of the following.
Has it indeed been "proven" that Jesus did not exist?
Did Jesus exist as a real, historical human being?
And if not,
would it have been necessary to invent him?, If so, why so?
I personally see this as an extremely ambiguous question. The simple reason is because it is unclear of what is meant by "
Jesus".
If by "
Jesus" we are asking whether a person actually existed who did and said all of the things claimed by the New Testament Gospels. Then my answer is that this Gospel "
Jesus" most likely never existed as a real historical human.
However, if by "
Jesus" we are asking whether a person "
named Jesus" might have lived and done
some of the things that were later then grossly exaggerated upon in the Gospel rumors, then I suspect that some guy named Jesus who sparked these rumors may very well have existed.
In fact, I can easily accept that some "
Real Person" actually did play a role in sparking the Gospel rumors.
This says absolutely nothing at all about the "
Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors themselves other than to suggest that there may have been some truth to some of the claims. But that's no reason to suspect that the "
Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors was a "
real person" in terms of what the Gospels actually have to say about him.
~~~~~
Consider this in the following way. Both Elvis Presley and Micheal Jackson were real humans. Both were famous rock stars. They actually existed historically.
Does it then follow that every claim rumored about either of these persons represents the real person? I think not.
The same thing applies when asking whether "
Jesus" existed as a "
real person".
If you mean the "
Jesus" described in the Gospel Rumors, then my answer is, no, that person most likely never existed.
But if you are asking whether the Gospel Rumors could have been grossly exaggerated rumors about a real person who might have actually lived. Then sure, I not only think that's possible, but I highly suspect that this was indeed the case.
~~~~~~
Finally, just to be complete, the Gospel Rumors include what I consider to be utterly absurd and outrageous claims, such as a God speaking from the clouds to announce that Jesus is his Son. I personally see extreme problems with this.
My first thought is that if there is a God who can simply speak to us directly anytime he so desires, in private via a burning bush, or publicly via a cloud, then this God could have just told us what he wants us to know directly. No need for Jesus at all.
So since these kinds of claims are included in the Gospel rumors of "
Jesus" I see this as a serious red flag that exposes the Gospel rumors to be fraudulent.
I hope this additional objections to the Gospel rumors isn't seen as being "
off-topic", because from my perspective it's directly related to whether I accept the "
Gospel's Jesus" to be realistic.
I don't. So in that sense I am convinced that the "
Gospel's Jesus" never existed.
But could there have been a real person named
Jesus who argued against orthodox Judaism with the Jewish Chief priests and eventually ended up being crucified?
Sure, considering the barbaric nature of era in question that not only seems reasonable, but it's actually quite easy to believe.
And because of this, even if we had concrete undeniable historical evidence that a man named Jesus was indeed crucified at the request of angry priests I wouldn't find that to be evidence for the Gospel rumors at all. I would just see it as part of what sparked those rumors. That's all.
Same is true if there was historical evidence for confusion over what might have happened to the body after the crucifixion. Once again, I would just see that as part of what sparked the Gospel rumors. Certainly not evidence that they are true in every claim they make.
Conclusion:
Did a historical mortal Jesus exist? Perhaps so.
Did the Son-of-God Gospel Jesus exist? I see no compelling reason to think so.