Where is Jesus?

[tackattack]

---

Well firstly IrH9 is a Muslim, therefore I do presume he acknowledges Jesus' existence, it's a matter of tautology whether he's the son of God or simply a man. At the very basest he is presumed to be at least a man with insight into God's nature, from a theist standpoint. From the atheist standpoint you're talking about he is purely fictional, and I can understand that. That is the very reason why, if you are looking for Jesus, it's illogical that you don't at least start your search with theism, because some atheists don't even believe he existed. I have been to a Muslim country and can envision the other 2 scenarios quite easily. But I see no flaw in the logic that to find something you must start looking where that thing is, not where it isn't. If you disagree then please explain so I can understand your views better.

Atheists do not believe that Jesus did not exist. They accept evidence for or against something. Believing is accepting something as factual without evidence, which is irrational in itself.

It is irrational to ask people who believe in ghosts whether or not ghosts exist. At the very least it is redundant. The answer is yes by definition. Likewise if you ask a theist if Jesus/god exists, or existed, you are asking them a rhetorical question.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. There are plenty of historical records of how the emperor Constantine, followed by Augustine, and the other fathers of Christianity created and shaped Christianity as it largely exists today regardless of sect. Jerome created the Vulgate (the first bible). They set the time of Jesus 3 centuries before their time and the setting in a remote village of Palestine both in an effort to add mystery and create the false impression of veracity.

Information at the time was a privilege that few enjoyed and those contemporaries can be forgiven for believing the silly stories. Especially, when declaring oneself a non-believer meant a sure death sentence. Today on the other hand, information is the easiest thing to obtain. That is why religious groups spend so much money in misinformation in order to protect their investment. The opinions in this forum can be used as catalysts for research, but they are not on themselves nearly adequate to learn anything in depth.

Any person with an open mind and average intelligence can easily find out any factual information available. Anyone who starts with the premise that every thing he/she thinks he/she knows may be false will learn at an ever increasing rate. Anyone who starts researching with an assumption will have limited success in research. Believing that Jesus existed and then looking for evidence that it existed is a laughable research strategy in research circles. The question is who says that Jesus existed? Then ask is the name fitting to the setting? In this case it is not. What is the evidence? When you think you found the answer, then you need to ask, “what was my biggest mistake in my research? What have I overlooked?” and further investigate any thing that is remotely suspicious, unsound, or not plausible.

Theists fool themselves into the following logic: There is no strong evidence that Jesus did not exist. Therefore, he must have existed.

I hope this helps.

---

I did not say atheists don't believe Jesus existed, I thought you were speaking specifically of those that don't. There are some who do and some who don't, agreed. Believing is not accepting something as factual without evidence, belief is accepting something as true. It commonly is accepted that truth requires objective evidence therefore belief would have objective evidence supporting it. Faith is accepting something as true without objective evidence. Blind faith would then be accepting something as true despite of evidence or with zero evidence.

While I agree on your researching guidelines the rest of the post smacks of just as much bias as asking a theist if Jesus exists. Comments like "silly" , "of course", "fool" are not as unbiased as you're attempting to appear to be. Your generalizations of all theists also are a detriment to any objective thinking. I accept religious documents as indicative evidence, without a body or burial site or effigies to great men. I claim it's likely that a man named Jesus existed, if he did there are stories about his life. I hope this helps