Did Jesus exist?

[robvalue]

Yeah...

Christians have to believe a historical Jesus existed, simply as a result of their dogma. You can't have superman without Clark Kent. But the fact that the best they can do is cobble together a wholly unremarkable dude who just about existed, pissed off the Romans and got executed, isn't so impressive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course not. Nor does anyone dispute where they came from or who they were disciples of:

-and that contention establishes the historicity of jesus just as much as the passage (and further speculation) below does..... 

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44)

The "Chrestianos" were people who followed "Christ" who was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate.

...which is not at all.

This should be awfully simple. I'm looking for the history of a man, not the history of the beliefs of his followers, or a recitation of fairy tales which include him as a character.

Questions of christianity, in the selected passage above, are the least of the worries the passage has as far as reliability is concerned btw. There's far greater concern that the passage in question editorializes the reign of Nero to a greater extent than it recounts it. Any tidbit of info regarding the history of christian belief that might be gleaned from the passage is a footnote, comparatively.

[Cecelia]

Definitively not. If it's not the Jesus described in the Bible then it's not Jesus, and there definitely was no Jesus described in the Bible.

There's a difference between "Biblical Jesus" and "Jesus, the man whom Christianity was meant to be based upon".  Biblical Jesus did not exist.  There was no man who fed hundreds with a few loaves of fish, who walked on water, or who cast a bunch of pigs into a body of water.  There may have been a man who claimed to do these things, however.  That, we can't be sure of.  We have no idea if any of the stories had any kernels of truth in them.  That is to say, we have no idea if he was a Charlatan Faith Healer like we have today, who made it appear as if he healed people but never actually healed anybody.  

"Jesus, the man whom Christianity was meant to be based upon" is not Jesus in a meaningful sense, but experts tend to agree that such a man probably existed.  He's far from historical fact-- so it's certainly a debate worth having-- but he's also not quite a "myth' in the same way that Moses and Abraham are (and experts agree that they are myth, not historical). 

Identifying the man whom Christianity is based upon is difficult because we have little concrete information about him.  He was Crucified by Rome, and he probably had followers.  Not much information to go on at all.  Essentially he was the Harold Camping of his time.  He wouldn't really be worth looking for/into if one of the world's major religions wasn't (supposedly) based upon him.  Like Camping, he probably wouldn't be worth mentioning by most people until his followers became too numerous to ignore.

[The Grand Nudger]

Crucified by rome and had followers? How did you determine that this, even this little bit, wasn't part of the myth?

That boats exist or people believe in vampires isn't much info with regards to any "dracula-the-man". This must be different, tell me how this is different?

[robvalue]

This is the problem. Loads of people got executed. Loads of them were probably called Yeshua. Big deal. They are no more the Jesus in the story than I am, really.

Mythicism isn't about saying no one could possibly have existed with any resemblance to this character; it's about (IMO) any sort of really strong correlation between a single individual and the text being near-impossible to establish with any degree of confidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and further, that neither the narrative nor the history of belief surrounding the narrative depend upon there ever being a "jesus-the-man", not even in the aggregate "jesus-the-men".

[robvalue]

Right. People believe all kinds of crazy shit, often in large numbers. That proves nothing. Clearly, the belief is all it takes, because as I said the religions can't all be true. Some people are fooling themselves. They will still be swearing blind it's all real, though.

How this doesn't concern religious people more, I don't know. I think it would be a crowbar to the ear for me had I been raised religious.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, some folks are just fine with it.  Things don't have to be historically true, to be facts.  The christ narrative expresses a deeper and more meaningful fact than any nagging historical details could hope to approach, let alone impeach.

[Cephus]

Do you believe that George Washington existed?

We do not have to "believe" that George Washington existed.  The evidence is overwhelming.

Even his enemies talked about him.

“If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Said King George III about George Washington:

But it isn't just that his enemies talked about him, it's that people who were demonstrable direct eyewitnesses, who were in a position to know him personally wrote about him.  There isn't a single contemporary account of Jesus anywhere.  Not one person who could have possibly ever known Jesus ever mentioned him.  Not one. It's all, at best, second and third hand accounts by people who lived long after Jesus supposedly died.  That's not evidence.  That's heresay.

[athrock]

Of course not. Nor does anyone dispute where they came from or who they were disciples of:

-and that contention establishes the historicity of jesus just as much as the passage (and further speculation) below does..... 

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called 'Chrestians.' The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer's clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44)

The "Chrestianos" were people who followed "Christ" who was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate.

...which is not at all.

This should be awfully simple.   I'm looking for the history of a man, not the history of the beliefs of his followers, or a recitation of fairy tales which include him as a character.

Questions of christianity, in the selected passage above, are the least of the worries the passage has as far as reliability is concerned btw.  There's far greater concern that the passage in question editorializes the reign of Nero to a greater extent than it recounts it.  Any tidbit of info regarding the history of christian belief that might be gleaned from the passage is a footnote, comparatively.

The history of a man named Jesus? There are several, as you know. 

However, Tacitus tells that a man put to death by Pontius Pilate had followers who were called "Chrxstianos".

What a coincidence. The Book of Acts tells us pretty much the same thing.