Did Jesus exist?

[Rhyfelnydd]

Do we have historical documents claiming that Loki lived as a man in the human world a few decades before these documents were written, and that he was quite famous in his human form at the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

Him existing historicaly is usually not denied. His divinity is.

[Toubourlouki]

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.

Him existing historicaly is usually not denied. His divinity is.

Of cource. Loki, as mentioned before, wasn't a God so he couldn't have the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Barboneia]

I think he existed. A bit out of it with the whole "thinking he's the son of God" thing, but he existed. In fact, he seemed like a swell guy, if you ask me.

[Anollasia]

I personally think so, yes.

[The Conez Imperium]

Yes.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Him existing historicaly is usually not denied. His divinity is.

I do not claim to know he did not exist, what I ask for is evidence that he actually existed historically. We do not have evidence from a Roman census. We do not have contemporary accounts of him. We do not have a grave or any writings by him. Except the bible there is no physical or written evidence of his existence until well after he supposedly died, so to those scholars who claim he existed historically, on what do you base that claim?

[Dyakovo]

Where's your proof it wasn't?

So here we have the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, weird shit, full of obviously untrue things but Christians claim it's allegorical. Fair enough. Then we get to the New Testament. Raising the dead, turning water into wine, walking on water, healing the infirm, more weird shit. So same deal as OT, right? Nope, it's true, Jesus did miracles literally, nothing metaphorical about them.

Sure thing, bub. It's not a double standard at all.

And the Catholic Church isn't the supreme authority on belief.

you are avoiding the issue. I never made those claims about the old testament being allegorical. Someone did, but not me,

You however claimed that they were.

back to Jesus's powers being allegorical,

You accuse me of having no proof. I do. "It is the teachings of the catholic church." Let me expound it since you appear to have missed it.

The first pope, St. Peter, was supposedly there to personally witness all of them.

You're free to cross examine my proof now.

You on the other hand have none.

Ftfy.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Number of legitimate historians who think that Jesus didn't exist: 0.
It's just a dumb conspiracy theory.

[Neutraligon]

Number of legitimate historians who think that Jesus didn't exist: 0.
It's just a dumb conspiracy theory.

Then I am sure those historians who think he did exist historically can provide evidence that he did so.

[Dyakovo]

Do the christian gospels, Pauline letters, and the Koran prove jesus existence?

These sources claim of jesus existence. They seem quite truthful because these sources were written at diffent places at different times by different people.

Or are these sources fallacious? If they are, how so?

edit:
Also there's the Jewish Talmud.

He most definitely did exist. Whether he was divine or not can't be proven yet

Actually, no, it isn't definite that he existed.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Number of legitimate historians who think that Jesus didn't exist: 0.
It's just a dumb conspiracy theory.

Then I am sure those historians who think he did exist historically can provide evidence that he did so.

Yes, that's why they're called historians.

[Amuaplye]

Jesus is real but, he isn't the Son of God, as God is not real.

[Neutraligon]

Then I am sure those historians who think he did exist historically can provide evidence that he did so.

Yes, that's why they're called historians.

So where is the evidence?

[We-a Are-a Very-a Close-a To Italia]

As a human being yes, as Christ I believe so, but that cannot be proven.

[Dyakovo]

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

No.

[Dyakovo]

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.

And you base this certainty on what?

[Jaxukuk]

Yes, Jesus did exist and still does.

But in all seriousness, no, I don't believe he did. I'm an atheist, so I certainly don't think that he was the son of God. But I don't even believe that he existed. My opinion is that he was just wishful thinking in a time of oppression and unfairness.

These 'sources' that you cite all evolved from the same beliefs about a man that, if he existed, would bring strife at the time to an end, so it's no wonder that they all say the same thing about a prophet. People only started to write down their beliefs after their cultures had altered them in their respective ways to create the Abrahamic religions we see today. That explains the different accounts of him.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do the christian gospels, Pauline letters, and the Koran prove jesus existence?

These sources claim of jesus existence. They seem quite truthful because these sources were written at diffent places at different times by different people.

Or are these sources fallacious? If they are, how so?

edit:
Also there's the Jewish Talmud.

'Prove' is a very problematic word to use.

No, none of those texts 'prove' Jesus existed. The best you could argue is that they provide 'evidence' that he did.

Objectively, of course - it's not very good evidence. It was mostly provided by non-objective authors, writing at some remove from the alleged articles - and a lot of the stuff they describe is either meaningless or obviously false.

The New Testament story probably has some germ of truth - but it's unlikely that any of it's claims about a historical 'Jesus' are true, and it's more likely it's just a local retelling of already existing myth.

[Grave_n_idle]

Number of legitimate historians who think that Jesus didn't exist: 0.
It's just a dumb conspiracy theory.

And how many of them think Odin is a real god?

It's not a conspiracy theory - it's confirmation bias.

[Constantinopolis]

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.

The various Christian groups were actively debating and arguing with each other. You don't think someone would have noticed if they were talking about different people? You don't think at some point someone would have said "oh, you've been talking about THAT Jesus? We meant this OTHER Jesus all along!"

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.

That's not quite true. None of the various Christian factions claimed that Jesus was merely human. They all agreed that he was some kind of higher being, the dispute was over the question of whether he was God, or an angel, or some other kind of higher being.

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)

...wait, what? How did Christianity start, then? Someone must have existed. Someone must have started Christianity. I mean, Christians exist, right? We're not all imaginary, are we?

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.

People will believe it... until someone comes forward from the geographical region where the fictional character is supposed to have lived just a few decades ago, and says "wait a minute, we never heard of this guy."

And, as far as we're aware, no one in the ancient world came forward to say that Jesus never existed. You'd think that if the story of the famous preacher in Galilee and Judea was completely made up, someone from those places would have said something.

Of course, plenty of people from those places did in fact deny the divinity of Jesus, but no one ever denied his existence. The opponents of the Christians said that Jesus was a liar, or deluded - not that Jesus was fictional.

[Grave_n_idle]

And, as far as we're aware, no one in the ancient world came forward to say that Jesus never existed. You'd think that if the story of the famous preacher in Galilee and Judea was completely made up, someone from those places would have said something.

Why? It's hardly a unique story. Famous preachers - and even messiah-claimants - are ten a penny.

[Constantinopolis]

I do not claim to know he did not exist, what I ask for is evidence that he actually existed historically. We do not have evidence from a Roman census. We do not have contemporary accounts of him. We do not have a grave or any writings by him.

No contemporary accounts and no writings by the person in question = the status of MOST historical figures from the ancient world

Yet no one questions the existence of Hannibal.

Except the bible there is no physical or written evidence of his existence until well after he supposedly died, so to those scholars who claim he existed historically, on what do you base that claim?

The fact that a bunch of people claimed he existed and no one denied it.

This is literally the EXACT same basis we have for affirming the existence of hundreds of important historical figures from the ancient world: Some authors some time later claimed they existed, and no one denied it. If you don't think it's good enough to accept the existence of Jesus, then you should also deny the existence of Khufu, Sargon of Akkad, Hannibal, Socrates, and numerous Roman Emperors that are known to us only from chronicles written decades or centuries after their rule.

[Dyakovo]

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.

That's not quite true. None of the various Christian factions claimed that Jesus was merely human. They all agreed that he was some kind of higher being.

That is false.

[Constantinopolis]

That's not quite true. None of the various Christian factions claimed that Jesus was merely human. They all agreed that he was some kind of higher being.

That is false.

Who, other than opponents of Christianity, claimed that Jesus was merely a man and nothing else?

[We-a Are-a Very-a Close-a To Italia]

That's not quite true. None of the various Christian factions claimed that Jesus was merely human. They all agreed that he was some kind of higher being.

That is false.

Doesn't one have to believe jesus is more than human to be christian?