The short answer is "no."

The somewhat longer answer is that there is no reference among first century Greco-Roman or Jewish writers even to a rumor of a dead criminal coming back to life.

The fact that later xtian writers (Eusebius) tried to create such historical references with forgeries into other works is evidence that there were no authentic references to begin with.

(March 31, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The short answer is "no."

The somewhat longer answer is that there is no reference among first century Greco-Roman or Jewish writers even to a rumor of a dead criminal coming back to life.

The fact that later xtian writers (Eusebius) tried to create such historical references with forgeries into other works is evidence that there were no authentic references to begin with.

How do you view the fact that the oft quoted consensus is in favor of a historic jesus (whatever that means)

It would not matter if we literally found the bones of a man named Jesus, (he did not exist) but it still would not matter. No such thing as a magic baby born of a virgin, and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. If he existed he would have been a mere man who managed to successfully market a cult that went on to become a religion.

Here is recent thread where the historicity of Jesus was discussed:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31832.html

This website lists many of the theories about who Jesus was (myth, holy man, etc.)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Quote:How do you view the fact that the oft quoted consensus is in favor of a historic jesus (whatever that means)

Ask them what they mean by a historic jesus and watch that consensus vanish.

My own view is what Caesar stated:  "Men willingly believe what they wish to be true."

Because being a non-historian makes you an authority on the matter. Honestly, you wouldn't take this kind of hair splitting reasoning seriously from an evolution denier.

(March 31, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Because being a non-historian makes you an authority on the matter. Honestly, you wouldn't take this kind of hair splitting  reasoning seriously from an evolution denier.

Who/which statement are you responding to?

It depends on what you mean by Jesus.  Are you talking about a regular guy upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped?  Maybe, although we have absolutely no contemporary eyewitness accounts.  Are you talking about some man-god with magical powers?  Absolutely not.  Unfortunately, this is a game that Christians play all the time, they try to get people to admit that maybe, just maybe, the regular guy might have been real, then they leap to the conclusion that it proves the man-god must have really existed.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

(March 31, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Delysid Wrote: I would really like to hear from fellow atheists about this. Is there any objective evidence for the existence of JC? By objective I mean evidence that is NOT from sources that have anything to gain or lose from proving or disproving the existence of JC. The research I have done all brings up... well.. nothing. Any evidence that IS out there comes from church websites or Christian "scientists" or something of the sort. I have HEARD of evidence for Jesus but have been told the evidence is shaky or there are multiple reports of Jesus' existence throughout history but the chronology of such reports does not match up. I still have not even seen this evidence. 

221 CE is the first non-biblical record of Nazareth, made by Sextus Julius Africanus.

(March 31, 2015 at 4:37 pm)Cephus Wrote: It depends on what you mean by Jesus.  Are you talking about a regular guy upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped?  Maybe, although we have absolutely no contemporary eyewitness accounts.  Are you talking about some man-god with magical powers?  Absolutely not.  Unfortunately, this is a game that Christians play all the time, they try to get people to admit that maybe, just maybe, the regular guy might have been real, then they leap to the conclusion that it proves the man-god must have really existed.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yep, and Christians do the same thing with God. They make a plausible argument for a deist God, and then they claim to have proven Yahweh.

We could ask the same question about the inspiration for the Biblical flood story
- flood that covered the whole Earth
- flood like the Black Sea being filled
- once in a lifetime flood in Mesopotamia
- ordinary experience with flooding that many cultures experienced

Where do you draw the line between history and myth? I think that is what Alex K was saying in regards to Jesus?