Historicity of Jesus

[The Valkyrie]

But if jesus didn't exist, his followers have been fucking over the hebrews for 2000 years FOR NOTHING ?!?!?!?!?!?

and your point is?????

Male teabags are the most persecuted drink containers in history.

[robvalue]

Ooooh! My look of befuddlement turned to joy, as I got your joke

I agree, the non-biblical sources that are supposed to be evidence are obscure at best and made up or about something else entirely at worst.

If the NT and all its buddies were put forward as evidence, they wouldn't even be allowed in the courtroom.

"Here, your honour, I present an obvious forgery inserted into an unconnected story, decades after the incident. I rest my case."

[Cyberman]

Don't you mean "Bwian?"

"The little fellow has spiwit!"

"Has what, sir?"

"Spiwit!"

"Oh, yes, he did, sir."

[Minimalist]

If it's not done by sunrise I'll cut your balls off.

[Aractus]

OK most discussions I have read about god and jesus say that god is not real. I have been researching jesus, because with out god, jesus was only a man if he even existed.

For the most part people agree someone, maybe a few people, was named jesus. What can not be clearly proven was his actions, other than his baptism and crucifixion. And of the 3 documents, one being the new testament, Josephus' documents have been scrutinized as being manipulated by christian scholars.

The new testament is the only historical piece that says anything other than these 2 actions. Christians say that the new testament was written by men but breathed by god. If god does not exist then the new testament can not be accepted as evidence.

So we have one document talking about a person referred to as christ from tacitus. I know it is generally accepted that jesus existed, even by fellow atheist's. It does make me question 1. his existence and 2. his actions. It just might be that he made no claim to be the son of god and that everything has been fabricated (as shitty as it is).

As a christian I always accepted the historicity, but when you look deeply at it...it looks suspect at best.

I think you're way off the mark. The NT is a collection of 27 books, of which about 14 are particularly interesting even for sceptical scholars, and those would be the 4 gospels, the book of acts, the undisputed epistles of Paul and the epistles of Jude and James.

There are a number of things we can be fairly certain about, including a number of things Jesus said and did. What you say about the works of Josephus are a moot point since it's still agreed by all scholars that Josephus did write about Jesus and that only a small section was later modified.

[Minimalist]

Glad you're sure because I can't see any evidence that the fucker ever existed.

And don't get me started on the Josephus thing.

[CapnAwesome]

History doesn't give us exact details. If you say that someone or multiple people were named Jesus, than to a certain extent that person was Jesus. If a rabbi from the same period existed, preached to crowds, gathered followers and was killed by the Romans, what makes him Jesus? Or for what matter makes someone not Jesus? It's not as cut and dry of a question as you would imagine. Supernatural element aside what is your minimum qualification for someone being Jesus?

[Minimalist]

There were hundreds of men named Y'shua in first century Judaea. There had to be as it was a very common name. The issue is not, and never was, if there was "a" jesus. The issue is about "the" jesus. Most of the major precepts of the so-called jesus are warmed over Greek concepts which had been floating around the region for centuries. Nothing new there. The xtians insist that their boy came back from the dead. If the cherry-pickers dispute that one then they are no longer xtians. I don't know what the fuck they are. The Fundies insist the story is true and they come across as idiots.

Xtians do not worship the name and they sure as shit do not abide by the principles. Therefore what they worship is the magic tricks. As H. L. Mencken said:

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

And here we sit while the xtians argue among themselves.

Almost humorous, isn't it?

[robvalue]

There was at least one person around then called jesus, therefor supernatural garbage?

That logic needs a bit of work christian "historians".

[Mudhammam]

While there are thousands of historians who accept the historical existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, I believe there about six mythicists... yes, six (or something like that).

That being said, there is no consensus on who Jesus really was or what he actually did, other than his death by crucifixion, which suggests he was charged with a political crime.

More interestingly than the disagreement among modern historians is 1) the lack of concern or knowledge for Jesus' historical life in the early Christian writings, with the exception of Mark's Gospel, which is literary rather than biographical in nature, and 2) the disagreement about who Jesus (or "the Christ) was to the early Christians! And also, 3) the acknowledgment by the Church fathers that Christian theology closely resembled pagan ideas that preceded it.

Considering this, and some other facts, I remain agnostic to the question of Jesus' existence, though I think his character poses a bigger question mark than the insignificant possibility that a person named Jesus inspired a small following and was killed at the hands of the Romans.