Did Jesus exist?

[Dyakovo]

That is false.

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

Various non-trinitarian christians. Among the currently existing sects are the Christadelphans, and Iglesia ni Cristo.

[Benuty]

That is false.

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

Not necessarily.

There are several people who adhere to the idea of a humanized Jesus. Devout former Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong is one of the many among them.

[Dyakovo]

That is false.

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

Nope.

[The Sotoan Union]

It's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person.

The amount of evidence we have to suggest that he existed is comparable to the evidence we have that suggests Plato or Leonidas or Gilgamesh existed. When studying ancient history you won't always have the best sources available, and if historians thought that someone couldn't exist just because they are considered religious and mythical figures than our understanding of history would be very different.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person.

The amount of evidence we have to suggest that he existed is comparable to the evidence we have that suggests Plato or Leonidas or Gilgamesh existed. When studying ancient history you won't always have the best sources available, and if historians thought that someone couldn't exist just because they are considered religious and mythical figures than our understanding of history would be very different.

Yours, maybe.

We should be skeptical about historical stories, in proportion to the quality of their evidence.

But that doesn't make historical stories useless - even if Socrates never existed, and Plato made him up - the stories are still valid... they're just not 'true'.

[The Sotoan Union]

It's generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person.

The amount of evidence we have to suggest that he existed is comparable to the evidence we have that suggests Plato or Leonidas or Gilgamesh existed. When studying ancient history you won't always have the best sources available, and if historians thought that someone couldn't exist just because they are considered religious and mythical figures than our understanding of history would be very different.

Yours, maybe.

We should be skeptical about historical stories, in proportion to the quality of their evidence.

But that doesn't make historical stories useless - even if Socrates never existed, and Plato made him up - the stories are still valid... they're just not 'true'.

Until there is empirical evidence that they existed they aren't considered to definitely have existed. It's just that they aren't automatically assumed to have been made up, because historians don't refuse to accept a source just because it isn't contemporary or is mythical.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yours, maybe.

We should be skeptical about historical stories, in proportion to the quality of their evidence.

But that doesn't make historical stories useless - even if Socrates never existed, and Plato made him up - the stories are still valid... they're just not 'true'.

Until there is empirical evidence that they existed they aren't considered to definitely have existed. It's just that they aren't automatically assumed to have been made up, because historians don't refuse to accept a source just because it isn't contemporary or is mythical.

You're right, in a way - historians do tend to set a ridiculously low bar for evidence.

Which is fair enough - when your trade is largely about stories, it's perfectly acceptable to consider hearsay a valid source.

The mistake comes in assuming that this ridiculously low bar applies in any real way - that the soft standards of evidence historians accept mean that a thing actually happened.

This shouldn't be taken to mean that I think history is a useless subject. It certainly isn't - it can tell us an awful lot about what people thought and felt. But it's only valuable as an objective tool when objective standards are applied.

[Ashmoria]

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?
.

the idea of the Christ may have preceded the idea of jesus.

[Constantinopolis]

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

Various non-trinitarian christians. Among the currently existing sects are the Christadelphans, and Iglesia ni Cristo.

We were specifically talking about ancient Christians, not modern groups. And all ancient non-trinitarian Christians - whether Gnostics or Arians or any of the others - claimed that Jesus was a higher being of some sort. They did not consider him merely a man.

Christadelphians and Iglesia ni Cristo are modern groups, with no relation to ancient non-trinitarian Christianity, and in any case they do consider Jesus to be a special being - a man without sin, the unique "Son of God", and "God's highest creation, foreordained before the foundation of the world" (in the case of Iglesia ni Cristo) - not a "normal" human being like any other.

Coincidentally, what the Arians believed was also that Christ is God's highest creation, and in fact his first creation, made before the universe. Gnostics were divided into myriad groups with all sorts of different views, but the dominant strain of thought was that the "God" of the Old Testament is actually evil and Jesus was a supernatural emissary of the real God.

So no, there really are no such things as Christians who consider Jesus to have been merely a man like any other (unless you count "cultural Christians" in modern times who don't actually believe in God, I suppose).

[Knokkeheist]

Yes off course but if if was the son of god is debatable.

[Novaya Equestria]

Not only he exist historically but he also exist, both physically and spiritually.

[Sun Wukong]

Not only he exist historically but he also exist, both physically and spiritually.

Not sure why you felt like you had to add that second one. Most things that exist historically also exist physically.

[Hjalmarr]

Nope. There's no evidence, and until there is, he never existed.

[Trollgaard]

The Romans sure seemed to think so. They even have descriptions of him.

[Sun Wukong]

The Romans sure seemed to think so. They even have descriptions of him.

Which you will no doubt be able to provide.

Nope. There's no evidence, and until there is, he never existed.

[Menassa]

Not only he exist historically but he also exist, both physically and spiritually.

He exists physically, like, right now?

[Menassa]

The Romans sure seemed to think so. They even have descriptions of him.

Which you will no doubt be able to provide.

White, male, early 30's, 6'2" 140 lbs.... Jim Caviezel really..

[Sun Wukong]

Not only he exist historically but he also exist, both physically and spiritually.

He exists physically, like, right now?

Well matter cannot be created or destroyed, so... you're probably breathing him.

[Trollgaard]

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

The first two quotes.

[Sun Wukong]

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

The first two quotes.

Obviously a reliable source.

[New Grestin]

As a man? Probably.

As the son of god? No.

[Trollgaard]

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

The first two quotes.

Obviously a reliable source.

They're quotes bro, doesn't matter what website they are from. You'll find them all over the place.

[Sun Wukong]

Obviously a reliable source.

They're quotes bro, doesn't matter what website they are from. You'll find them all over the place.

Indeed. Here's what wikipedia says about them:
"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,.[3] However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Also, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him."

"and the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, the descriptions in which were most likely composed in the Middle Ages.[4][5][6]"

Really, it's so obvious these are fake, I didn't even have to look them up to know it.

[Trollgaard]

They're quotes bro, doesn't matter what website they are from. You'll find them all over the place.

Indeed. Here's what wikipedia says about them:
"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,.[3] However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Also, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him."

"and the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, the descriptions in which were most likely composed in the Middle Ages.[4][5][6]"

Interesting. Guess we'll find out when we die then.

[Menassa]

They're quotes bro, doesn't matter what website they are from. You'll find them all over the place.

Indeed. Here's what wikipedia says about them:
"The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal[2] for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented,.[3] However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD).[4] Also, a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him."

"and the letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar, the descriptions in which were most likely composed in the Middle Ages.[4][5][6]"

Really, it's so obvious these are fake, I didn't even have to look them up to know it.

But you did have to look up Wikipedia.