Do you think jesus christ existed

[ShinobiAtheist]

I'm atheist and i like the character Jesus Christ but i'm not too sure he existed.

[Minimalist]

No more than Osiris, Zeus and Quetzlcoatl.

[BrokenQuill92]

I think there were probably a lot of magicians and fakirs and things like that that all formed into the character of Jesus but historically speaking as an actual person no I don't think he exist

[rexbeccarox]

He might have, he might not have. It doesn't really matter either way.

[Cinjin]

It seems reasonable that there was an actual man who got the ball rolling, but I highly doubt that there was some ancient emo-hipster walking around with the name jesus christ.


More likely some dude named Herman who figured out that the teacher/guru con game was a lot easier than back breaking labor under the middle eastern sun.

[Clueless Morgan]

Undecided.

I've read David Fitzgerald's Nailed and Richard Carrier's Proving History where he talks about some of the methods historians use to determine historicity in preparation for his book on Jesus, and I'm in the middle of the chapter on the historicity of Jesus in Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted and frankly am finding the case Ehrman presents to be complete nonsense. It sounds an awful lot like he's assuming his conclusion and not taking into account other possible explanations of the texts he using to base his arguments on.

I am leaning toward Jesus not being real very strongly, but seeing as how the only book I've read on the mythicist viewpoint (Nailed; Proving History is about the historical method more than Jesus historicity) dwelt heavily on the miracle claims in the bible and what a load they are, I'm not sure whether the case as been 100% made for me to say that there was no regular guy who became a popular cult leader who went on to become legendary with magical stories made up about him. To be honest, I don't know if that's something that we even could know unless some amazing new archeological evidence is found.

I'm still in learning mode on this one.

[-z-]

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

*Some people hate Wikipedia almost as much as the Bible, but it's not a bad place to start. The quote is 10 years old, and I haven't yet tracked down what constitutes "nearly all" modern scholars in this case.

As Morgan pointed out, not all scholars agree on the statement above. Even if there were consensus on only those two points (baptism and crucifixion), that still leaves a world of doubt about what might have happened before and after crucifixion -- kinda the important bits.

As someone elsewhere on the web put it: you don't need to know whether or not L. Ron Hubbard existed to conclude that Scientology is a load of crap. (My tolerance only goes so far.)

I think the possibility of a historical man who who lived and was crucified (most likely framed) is certainly there. The possibility of his existence and any future evidence that he merely existed does not change my conviction as an atheist. That would take much more.

[Cyberman]

No, I don't think the character existed in any true sense outside of the mythological one. What nails it for me (pun accidental but pleasing) is the combination of: zero contemporary non-scriptural references, scriptural failure to mention known historical events, scriptural references which are anachronistic to the political and cultural era in which they are supposed to have occurred, and so on. The claims of magic and the sheer mountain range of blatant lies that have been deemed necessary - and useful - to prop up the story of the character's basic existence are merely the cherry on top.

[NoraBrimstone]

Nope.

[Aractus]

I'm atheist and i like the character Jesus Christ but i'm not too sure he existed.

Okay, let's start with the Ehrman arguing against some ignorant atheist (Reginald Finley) who thinks Jesus didn't exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE

Ehrman does have some wild and crazy ideas that fall well outside of modern scholarly thought (even within his sceptics/atheists group), however he is on the money when he says: 1. there's no serious historian who doubts that Jesus was an historical figure and 2. that many of Paul's writings (over half) are reliably attributed to him even by sceptics. He asks Finley how he knows that Cicero wrote his letters (and stumps him). 3. It's the wrong assumption to make that Paul would invent Jesus or invent stories (he writes mainly about contemporary events and theology issues). He mentions "off the cuff"/"disinterested" comments - ie comments made that the author may assume the audience can fill in the gaps, etc, these are indeed important to Historians and Paul is not the only one who makes them FYI. He also mentions that we're sure Paul knew Jesus' relatives and disciples and this is also true. 4. If you doubt the existence of Jesus why not deny the Holocaust or deny the existence of any historical figures. 5. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

In the longer version of the interview, the Finley eventually asks if Ehram knows Robert M. Price. Ehram responds by saying he knows all the top Biblical scholars in the world today, that Price isn't one of them, and among all the top scholars none of them doubt that Paul wrote Galations and none of them doubt that Jesus existed as an historical figure. He then asks Finley to name a scholar who doubts that Paul knew James saying he isn't aware of anyone (among serious scholars) who doubts it. Finley asks "how do I know what the original text says, has anybody tried to keep the original text and where can I get it?" And, finally, Ehram says "well that's what all the translations tries to do" and then he makes an off the cuff remark about how the translators do practise textual criticism and are all aware of the issues involved.