Did Jesus exist?

[Constantinopolis]

In some form or another. I find it probable that it may have been a name attributed to the actions of many different people, and later come to be identified with a single individual. Regardless, I don't think it matters terribly much. The message and legacy of Yeshua (and Paul to an arguably even greater extent) is what has left a lasting impact on the world.

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

[Menassa]

In some form or another. I find it probable that it may have been a name attributed to the actions of many different people, and later come to be identified with a single individual. Regardless, I don't think it matters terribly much. The message and legacy of Yeshua (and Paul to an arguably even greater extent) is what has left a lasting impact on the world.

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

I think that's more based off the fact that a lot of Jesus's 'catchy content' can be found in earlier Jewish society and many other societies as well.

[Wallenburg]

Aren't there Roman census records of a Jesus of Nazareth at the same time as described in the Bible?

[Constantinopolis]

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

I think that's more based off the fact that a lot of Jesus's 'catchy content' can be found in earlier Jewish society and many other societies as well.

Pick any religious leader living today. Chances are, he's repeating a lot of stuff that was said by earlier religious leaders, too.

That's something all religious leaders do. In general, religion is a traditionalist phenomenon - the principles of earlier generations of religious leaders are always held in high regard and repeated. It's not unusual that Jesus would do this too.

[Ashmoria]

In some form or another. I find it probable that it may have been a name attributed to the actions of many different people, and later come to be identified with a single individual. Regardless, I don't think it matters terribly much. The message and legacy of Yeshua (and Paul to an arguably even greater extent) is what has left a lasting impact on the world.

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

it is far more diverse than is suggested by the gospels of the new testament. look over the stuff in "early Christian writings" and youll see all sorts of ideas expressed.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

.... im not sure I know what point you are making with this post.

[Ashmoria]

Aren't there Roman census records of a Jesus of Nazareth at the same time as described in the Bible?

no

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Aren't there Roman census records of a Jesus of Nazareth at the same time as described in the Bible?

The earliest we have is an account by Josephus, written about 90 CE. That's about 60 years after Jesus was said to die, and unfortunately Josephus' account was tampered with by medieval copyists, so we don't know what was actually said.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Aren't there Roman census records of a Jesus of Nazareth at the same time as described in the Bible?

No, none that we know of... but that's not a shocker in-and-of itself given that most ancient documents of that time have entirely perished. I would say that given all that we DO know, however, it is more than likely there was one.

[Toubourlouki]

Of cource he did, otherwise how could he have walked on the water or perform all these events that the Bible recounts. It's simple math. Think people.

[Constantinopolis]

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

it is far more diverse than is suggested by the gospels of the new testament. look over the stuff in "early Christian writings" and youll see all sorts of ideas expressed.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Sure. But they all agree that Jesus existed, and that he was one person (as opposed to several people)...

.... im not sure I know what point you are making with this post.

My point is: Since the Gospels of the New Testament were written so close to the time of the events they describe (a few decades later), it is not plausible to treat them as folk tales or legends of some distant imaginary past. They were tales of events that (supposedly) happened within the lifetime of the people reading them, or at least within the lifetime of their parents. This limits the level of inaccuracy they may contain. You could not get away with telling people that dragons roamed the Earth in the lifetime of their parents, for example, or that a famous preacher existed 30-40 years ago when he did not in fact exist. You could get away with exaggerating the actions of such a preacher, sure, but completely making him up? No way. You can make up characters who supposedly lived centuries ago (i.e. King Arthur, Robin Hood). You can't make up entirely fictional characters who supposedly lived 30 years ago (and supposedly had a large following at that time!), and expect to get away with it.

[The Alma Mater]

Of cource he did, otherwise how could he have walked on the water or perform all these events that the Bible recounts. It's simple math. Think people.

Indeed. That is also how we know that Hercules, Hanuman, Loki and indeed the flying spaghetti monster are real.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

In some form or another. I find it probable that it may have been a name attributed to the actions of many different people, and later come to be identified with a single individual. Regardless, I don't think it matters terribly much. The message and legacy of Yeshua (and Paul to an arguably even greater extent) is what has left a lasting impact on the world.

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

We should be careful not to assume that the copies of the Gospels that we have represent their original form, though. The earliest copies or fragments we have date back to the 2nd century, after all. It's entirely possible that changes were made between the 'original' works and what we have.

We should also consider the possibility that the gospels were not written by who Christian traditions say they were, especially considering the degree of borrowing between the different accounts. It's entirely likely that the gospels represent oral or separate written traditions that were edited and harmonized by early Christians to produce a more uniform narrative.

[Toubourlouki]

Of cource he did, otherwise how could he have walked on the water or perform all these events that the Bible recounts. It's simple math. Think people.

Indeed. That is also how we know that Hercules, Hanuman, Loki and indeed the flying spaghetti monster are real.

Don't be ridiculous Alma. Of cource Loki wasn't a real god.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Indeed. That is also how we know that Hercules, Hanuman, Loki and indeed the flying spaghetti monster are real.

Don't be ridiculous Alma. Of cource Loki wasn't a real god.

Stop. I haven't seen Thor yet.

[Toubourlouki]

Don't be ridiculous Alma. Of cource Loki wasn't a real god.

Stop. I haven't seen Thor yet.

Sorry for the spoiler then...

[Constantinopolis]

While that is a phenomenon that happens sometimes (attributing the actions of several different people to a single individual), it's not something that happens so quickly, just 30-40 years after the events in question.

If the accounts of the life of Jesus were written centuries after the events they describe, your hypothesis may be plausible. But they were written decades after. That's far too short a time span to get away with combining several different historical figures into one. It would be like people today confusing Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, or thinking that the Beatles were one person. Even if we didn't have any written records of WW2 or the Beatles, it's implausible that people would get things that wrong so quickly.

We should be careful not to assume that the copies of the Gospels that we have represent their original form, though. The earliest copies or fragments we have date back to the 2nd century, after all. It's entirely possible that changes were made between the 'original' works and what we have.

We should also consider the possibility that the gospels were not written by who Christian traditions say they were, especially considering the degree of borrowing between the different accounts. It's entirely likely that the gospels represent oral or separate written traditions that were edited and harmonized by early Christians to produce a more uniform narrative.

Sure, but these are reasons to dispute the accuracy of the events described in the Gospels, not reasons to dispute the very basic fact that the preacher named Jesus existed.

Whatever changes may or may not have been made to the Gospels in later times, they certainly did not add the main character of Jesus where he was not present before.

Don't be ridiculous Alma. Of cource Loki wasn't a real god.

Do we have historical documents claiming that Loki lived as a man in the human world a few decades before these documents were written, and that he was quite famous in his human form at the time?

If we had such writings (which we do not), we ought to conclude that, god or not, a man named Loki certainly existed, and probably did things at least vaguely similar to those attributed to him.

I mean, seriously, do you understand the difference between disputing the miracles of Jesus and disputing the existence of Jesus? The first is a reasonable stance. The second isn't.

[Immoren]

Indeed. That is also how we know that Hercules, Hanuman, Loki and indeed the flying spaghetti monster are real.

Don't be ridiculous Alma. Of cource Loki wasn't a real god.

That's racism.

[Toubourlouki]

Don't be ridiculous Alma. Of cource Loki wasn't a real god.

Do we have historical documents claiming that Loki lived as a man in the human world a few decades before these documents were written, and that he was quite famous in his human form at the time?

If we had such writings (which we do not), we ought to conclude that, god or not, a man named Loki certainly existed, and probably did things at least vaguely similar to those attributed to him.

I mean, seriously, do you understand the difference between disputing the miracles of Jesus and disputing the existence of Jesus? The first is a reasonable stance. The second isn't.

Loki wasn't a man. He was a Jötunn. There is a pretty big difference.

Also, you can't deny the existance of Jesus when he performed all those miracles as the Bible documents.

[Ashmoria]

it is far more diverse than is suggested by the gospels of the new testament. look over the stuff in "early Christian writings" and youll see all sorts of ideas expressed.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Sure. But they all agree that Jesus existed, and that he was one person (as opposed to several people)...

.... im not sure I know what point you are making with this post.

My point is: Since the Gospels of the New Testament were written so close to the time of the events they describe (a few decades later), it is not plausible to treat them as folk tales or legends of some distant imaginary past. They were tales of events that (supposedly) happened within the lifetime of the people reading them, or at least within the lifetime of their parents. This limits the level of inaccuracy they may contain. You could not get away with telling people that dragons roamed the Earth in the lifetime of their parents, for example, or that a famous preacher existed 30-40 years ago when he did not in fact exist. You could get away with exaggerating the actions of such a preacher, sure, but completely making him up? No way. You can make up characters who supposedly lived centuries ago (i.e. King Arthur, Robin Hood). You can't make up entirely fictional characters who supposedly lived 30 years ago (and supposedly had a large following at that time!), and expect to get away with it.

yeah but what he said and what he did varies enough that, to me, it is quite possible that the different writings are mostly about different people. there was at least a big dispute about the humanity vs divinity of Christ that means that it certainly wasn't developed and settled when Christianity first spread. I would think that the friends of jesus would have gotten the details down pat from the beginning so that there would be little room for diversity. (the need for the friends of jesus to be outrageous liars argues to me that neither he nor they really existed)

[Aurum Reich]

Of course Jesus Christ existed. Who else could senor Trump be the second coming of?

[The Alma Mater]

it is far more diverse than is suggested by the gospels of the new testament. look over the stuff in "early Christian writings" and youll see all sorts of ideas expressed.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Sure. But they all agree that Jesus existed, and that he was one person (as opposed to several people)...

.... im not sure I know what point you are making with this post.

My point is: Since the Gospels of the New Testament were written so close to the time of the events they describe (a few decades later), it is not plausible to treat them as folk tales or legends of some distant imaginary past. They were tales of events that (supposedly) happened within the lifetime of the people reading them, or at least within the lifetime of their parents. This limits the level of inaccuracy they may contain. You could not get away with telling people that dragons roamed the Earth in the lifetime of their parents, for example, or that a famous preacher existed 30-40 years ago when he did not in fact exist. You could get away with exaggerating the actions of such a preacher, sure, but completely making him up? No way. You can make up characters who supposedly lived centuries ago (i.e. King Arthur, Robin Hood). You can't make up entirely fictional characters who supposedly lived 30 years ago (and supposedly had a large following at that time!), and expect to get away with it.

Do not be silly. You can even claim someone exists NOW - and people will believe it. Not all people, certainly, but the more people believe, the less people will be inclined to disbelieve.

[Rhyfelnydd]

Most likely. Could also be an amalgamation of several historical figures. But was he a diety's child? No.

[Ysoldia]

Absolutely believe he existed and was very kind and caring about his fellow man, but I think the story has grown a little out of proportion over the centuries and perhaps even out of context of what he stood for at the time. Perhaps he was crucified for a very legitimate reason.

[Democratic Socialist States of Africa]

Jesus existed historically. His divinity is what is challenged.

This pretty much.

[The Nuclear Fist]

He existed historically, but he was just a regular deluded loon in a long line of them. The difference is he got traction.