Did Jesus exist?

[pocaracas]

So much ink is used on these discussions and yet... One only scratches the surface...

Why do you guys use the bible as the only source of information?
The bible is a simple compilation of books that were in circulation concerning the life of this Christ character. But there were many more books in circulation than the ones that made it into the bible.
Some are lost forever, some have been found in pieces, some are remarkably complete.

Based on those, it is interesting to note some striking similarities between the Christ figure and the Teacher of righteousness. This Teacher was an Essene, a particular branch of Judaism present, at the time, between Jerusalem and Damascus. Preaching poverty,  help your fellow man, and denouncing the dominant Jewish faction, the Pharisees, as bearers of a false view of God, or something...

It is my opinion that many of Jesus' religious and political views that ended up in the bible stem from this Essene group.
Couple that with some young upstart wannabe Teacher of righteousness who goes into Jerusalem to preach his message and actually gets strung up for going against the ruling class...and you have the makings of a historical Jesus.

Is there any evidence for this, beyond the coincidences? No.
Is this more plausible than magic son of a god? Yes.... But, then again, most alternatives are more plausible than magic.

The Essenes didn't believe in physical resurrections and they didn't take craps on the Sabbath.

Riiight... all of them?
Like all protestants agree with every detail of the interpretation of the book...

Maybe you missed the finer point of my speculation:
"It is my opinion that many of Jesus' religious and political views that ended up in the bible stem from this Essene group."

Just because some features of Jesus' religiosity don't match match the Essenes, it doesn't mean that the person (or the ideas attached to the character in the stories) didn't have some basis on that group.
It was certainly the closest to what is claimed about Jesus... it would make sense that the early christians would try to add their own twists and features based on their own lives and customs.
"The early christians", as Min has suggested, were not based on Jerusalem... Paul's church was remarkably far from there... Tarsus, in Southern Turkey. It is perfectly plausible that he incorporated some of his own culture into his view of what Jesus was... no matter how much christians would want to claim that he only reported verbatim what he got from actual eye-witnesses and friends of Jesus... that is just not how humans work.
Thus, you get the Sabbath ignored.

Physical resurrection must have come forth at a somewhat later time.
The earliest gospel, Mark, in it's original penning, is missing the actual resurrection... as time goes on, the story gets filled and details are added.
It's no surprise that it would not feature in the Essene view.

[GrandizerII]

What is the evidence those events happened?

And even if they did, those criteria could apply to a hundred people for all we know.

As far as I know, the only event that can be supported outside the bible is the crucifixion, and even that doesn't seem like a slam dunk. What other sources back the remaining points? I may have forgotten something, I'd be interested to be reminded.

What is the evidence those could apply to a hundred people?

Many books in the New Testament would be considered evidence for historical Jesus, by the way. To say it's not evidence at all is just bias speaking. Also remember, the Bible is not one book written by the same author (or same group of authors with identical views). There was no unified Bible anyway until way later on.

[robvalue]

The evidence is that those aren't very specific statements. They aren't enough to identify an individual, in my opinion. If you think they are, that's cool. I wouldn't be satisfied that this narrows things down enough to one person with any degree of confidence. How can we be sure it's the same person for each criteria, too, and not five stories rolled into one?

So, I take it there is nothing extra-biblical? OK, that's all I need to know. I'm aware the bible is a compilation of works, but to call those works independent is not something I'd agree with. Calling them at all reliable is also something I wouldn't do.

But this is just my opinion, of course.

[GrandizerII]

The evidence is that those aren't very specific statements. They aren't enough to identify an individual.

So, I take it there is nothing extra-biblical? OK, that's all I need to know. I'm aware the bible is a compilation of works, but to call those works independent is not something I'd agree with.

Aren't enough to identify an individual? What more do you want? That's just a sublist.

Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, but doesn't seem like they depend on each other. There's also Q as well. So the works are not all dependent on one another.

[robvalue]

They are not independent though. They are also non-eye witness reproductions of stories.

Again, if you find them viable as sources of evidence, that's fine. I won't argue with you. Personally, I think they are next to worthless, except where they can be independently verified. And even then, I wouldn't trust their version of events to be accurate.

[Homeless Nutter]

Many books in the New Testament would be considered evidence for historical Jesus, by the way.[...]

Incredibly poor evidence. Those books have been massaged by maaaany people and organizations with vested interest in establishing the existence of Jeezles. In few centuries Batman comics may be considered "evidence" for the existence of Bruce Wayne, but most people with a brain will - hopefully - demand independent sources.

[...]Also remember, the Bible is not one book written by the same author (or same group of authors with identical views). [...]

No, of course not. The bible is a compilation of texts, chosen from a wide variety of sources available at the time - many of them obvious mystical fiction, or convenient forgeries of letters - by a committee dedicated to creating a compelling and consistent narrative. What of it?

[robvalue]

Indeed. Several non-eye witness retellings do not add up to a credible narrative. They don't even add up to anything real, necessarily.

They are based on each other and/or share sources, and then more shit has been made up by someone or other. (John is very, very different of course. So different as to bring into question whether it's even the same person.)

Apologist arguments were worked into the text as it went, such as John and his "lance" (if I remember right) to combat the swoon hypothesis.

[GrandizerII]

Many books in the New Testament would be considered evidence for historical Jesus, by the way.[...]

Incredibly poor evidence. Those books have been massaged by maaaany people and organizations with vested interest in establishing the existence of Jeezles. In few centuries Batman comics may be considered "evidence" for the existence of Bruce Wayne, but most people with a brain will - hopefully - demand independent sources.

Poor, relative to today, yes. Not incredibly poor, though. And certainly, relatively good evidence for those times.

And why compare to Batman? Why not to Sai Baba? I would think the latter would be a better comparison. But even so, all this means is that it could go one way or another. Still, the Synoptic Gospels and many of the Epistles are evidence, like it or not.

No, of course not. The bible is a compilation of texts, chosen from a wide variety of sources available at the time - many of them obvious mystical fiction, or convenient forgeries of letters - by a committee dedicated to create a compelling and consistent narrative. What of it?

But the books of the Bible weren't brought together from day one of being written, were they? So each should be treated by default as an independent work unless shown to be otherwise.

Now what are the ones from the NT you are classifying as mystical fiction or forgeries of letters? And what scholars back you up on whatever the answer is? Because while it's true that some of the Epistles are pseudepigraphic (not forgeries as that term is a little misleading), others are considered legit by NT scholars.

[GrandizerII]

They are not independent though. They are also non-eye witness reproductions of stories.

Again, if you find them viable as sources of evidence, that's fine. I won't argue with you. Personally, I think they are next to worthless, except where they can be independently verified. And even then, I wouldn't trust their version of events to be accurate.

No, sorry, but Mark is independent. Q is independent. Paul is independent. James is independent. Otherwise, what do you mean by "independent" then?

Yes, they're not first-hand testimonies, but they regardless all treat Jesus as historical, not as a comic book figure or a mythology hero. Some even provide historical context for him. And no evidence that his existence was disputed.

Add to that other points for historicity of Jesus, such as criterion of embarrassment, of dissimilarity, and historical Jesus would seem more likely than pure myth Jesus.

[robvalue]

I don't know how the gospels can be considered to be written historically when they contain obviously fake, made up elements that any sceptic atheist would instantly dismiss.

And I don't find it convincing that because it's written in a certain style (if I conceded the point), it's probably true.