Just some rubbish, but this is MY God's gospel, so READ or you will be d---ned

[ABierman1986]

The existence of Jesus may be true, but it is quite seriously debated and little evidence does exist that I know of to substantiate his living. The origins of Christianity are easily explained as an offshoot belief of already extant Judaism and don't require a messiah anymore than the methodists required a different messiah than the mormons. Please come back when you've backed up your arguments, or prove me wrong and tell me who you are referencing and what evidence serious scholars present. I've never said I was a Christian and you fail to convince me that the resurrection occurred with that argument. You didn't answer any of my points, just told me I was wrong. This is the wrong place to present that kind of response.

Just wait, you are telling me, that the very exclusive Jews became so inclusive, that they accepted anyone (Even women) because they were just an off shoot of Judaism?

Why is the Bible not considered a reliable? The four gospels were written decades after Jesus went to heaven?

Although the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians,[156][157][158][159][160] a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity was Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Non-historicity was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity then were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shared with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[161]

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by authors such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of works presenting the non-historical hypothesis.

Classicist Michael Grant stated that standard historical criteria prevent one from rejecting the existence of an historical Jesus.[162] The New Testament scholar, James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chris...ical_views

The creation of Christianity was not overnight, it was NOT all inclusive for sure. The FOUR gospels? Of how many written? By men who had what goal in mind? The wikipedia article you cite has no logical arguments contained within it. Perhaps Jesus did live, but the evidence for it is certainly not conclusive and that Jesus was anything more than any of a number of charlatans at the time is completely unsupported as well. Meaning that saying someone by the name Jesus lived and called himself the messiah is not saying the Jesus you are referring to ever lived.