Did Jesus exist?

[Aegon]

(Directed at Min)

If you read my latest post, your 5th point means Plato didn't exist. Please respond to that post. Besides, Jesus was a physical person. Zeus not so much. Also you must see the irony in telling me to "start learning what scholars have been doing for the last two centuries," because all those scholars disagree with you. On top of all that, stop referring to the Christian God as "your god." I'm an atheist.

The problem here is you thinking any historian who agrees that Jesus existed is a Christian trying to prove their religion. That's not true at all. There are plenty of agnostic and atheist historians who believe Jesus existed. But you do see the irony in you dismissing the MAJORITY OF THE HISTORIAN COMMUNITY as theologians with agendas, when the only guy you seem willing to listen to, Carrier, clearly has an agenda himself? You're so wrapped up in trying to discredit Christianity as much as possible that you're just seeing things that will help prove that point. Anyone who says Jesus possibly existed? Fucking stupid Christians. But that's not true at all. You're debating with an atheist here, and there are plenty of atheist historians who'd disagree with you.

There are things that must be understood by everyone arguing with me before going forward. Please read this for No God's sake.

1. History is not a hard science. We very rarely have concrete evidence of anyone from ancient times existing. Josephus, Tacticus, etc. are good evidence by historical standards. Being written decades later does not discredit them. This is THE NORM with ancient history! You want to dismiss his existence because there are no contemporary sources? Welp, looks like Plato never existed. Welp, looks like Hannibal never existed. Can we be totally sure that the events of the Second Punic War even fucking happen? Who knows, there are no contemporary sources on it! I guess it didn't! Could I make this any clearer?

2. If one is to assert there was no historical Jesus, one must make a well-researched, well-argued reason for how the stories of a Jesus-like figure arose and how an entire religion came to be. Doubters of historical Jesus have yet to do that.

3. I just reeealllyyy want to reiterate that if this were another figure from ancient times with little evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since you all seem to want to discredit Christianity as much as possible, you don't even want him to exist at all. There is as much evidence for him as some prominent ancient figures. Is that understood? This is how an historian thinks.

In the end it's just logical; the religion didn't spring out of nowhere. Something had to have started it. A monk whose name escapes me (I'll be willing to expand on this when I have more time to research it) wrote an entire thing about how Jesus was not divine. Nowhere does he doubt his existence. It's assumed he was real. If there was no evidence of Jesus to these people, wouldn't it be easier to say, "This Jesus guy wasn't even real, of course this new religion is full of shit"? But he doesn't. He never doubts Jesus' existence, only his divinity. Again, put on your thinking cap...there's a reason he doesn't doubt his existence.

I mean, really. How could Christianity take off without a central prophet figure? What stops someone from the time saying to his followers, "No man, you're full of shit," and going to where Jesus allegedly lived and preached and saying, "See!? No Jesus! You guys are crazy!" Without Jesus, the rise of Christianity is missing a big puzzle piece. What would you put in his place to explain it all?