Did Jesus exist?

[Sun Wukong]

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.

Well yeah. Just because something is obvious doesn't mean you shouldn't source it.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Wrong. Psilanthropism was (and still is) a real thing. If it wasn't, there wouldn't have been any need for the First council of Nicea to have specifically denounced it.

Christadelphians and Iglesia ni Cristo are modern groups,

No Shit Sherlock. That's why I said they were 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.

But still just a man. A man specially created for a specific purpose, yes, but not divine, not a higher being.

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

imo, the evidence points to his existence and murder. his resurrection and messianic purpose i doubt.

[Neutraligon]

imo, the evidence points to his existence and murder. his resurrection and messianic purpose i doubt.

Please provide said evidence.

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

imo, the evidence points to his existence and murder. his resurrection and messianic purpose i doubt.

Please provide said evidence.

no thanks, not here to debate. just giving opinion. have a nice time

[New haven america]

As a human being: Ya, probably.

As a divine being: Well, that depends on your beliefs.

[Dyakovo]

imo, the evidence points to his existence and murder. his resurrection and messianic purpose i doubt.

What evidence?

[Dyakovo]

Please provide said evidence.

no thanks, not here to debate. just giving opinion. have a nice time

General
For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

You appear to be in the wrong place then.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

no thanks, not here to debate. just giving opinion. have a nice time

General
For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

You appear to be in the wrong place then.

Nah, but the person can choose to only discuss and not debate.

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.

Well, and that I think that a belief within Christianity that Jesus did not exist physically will be mostly absurd.

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.

But still just a man. A man specially created for a specific purpose, yes, but not divine, not a higher being.

Point is, no decent (in terms of size and quantity) well-established Christian denomination, at least in modernity believes that Jesus Christ is a literal ordinary human being like you and any other without any special characteristics distinguishing Him from the rest.

[Sophisticated horrors]

First of all, the name "Yeshua" or "Isa" was very common in Palestine those days; there (might) have been even some "Rabbi" with this name (there is some kind of evidence for this in the "scrolls of Qum´ran" as well as in the Thora). But there is no evidence for the "biblical Jesus".
He first appears in the "Codex Vaticanus", a collection of "christian texts", that were "handpicked" and chosen by the church ro "represent the general believes" after "Christianity" was made "national religion for romans" by Constantinus, and rewritten over the centuries uncountable times (we nowadays know about at least 47 other gospells/Apokryphs, and many more of them might have been lost). The oldest "original source" is a little shred of paper which is said to contain a few words of the "gospell of John" from about 135 a.C.
No "trustworthy" source out of "Christianity" does exist, since the few texts, in which "some Jesus/some Chrestos" is recognized rely on the words and statements of christians, not on "witness" or even "eye-witness". And then, they also have been written down decades later.
There is no evidence for "the murder of children under Herodes", nor for the "birth of Christ at Bethlehem", though the first would have been written down for sure by "historians of the time", either Romans or Yewish because of the importance of the event, the latter would have been recognized in the "Roman census".
Paul didn´t know "Jesus" personal, and has seen the "christian believe" as something "metaphorical" and "Jesus" as some kind of idol.
The evangelists contradict themselves in their gospells, there is not clear if "from Nazareth" or "from Bethlehem" (in Judäa or in Galiläa ?) they name different apostles and differ in many other ways and statements.
Almost all of "the miracles of Jesus" are stolen/copied from other, older religions/gods (Mithras, Osiris, etc.), especially the "resurrection".
I would say, that there might have been some "Jesuses", but not "the Jesus", and the "christians/catholic church" have thrown them all together in one "pot", spiced it up with a few "popular miracles", heated it up with lots of myths and unscrupulous fakes and copies, stirred it for two millenia, and bam, there you have your "Jesus".
And "to be called as a prophet" in the "Qur´an" (a few centuries later) is nothing else than a clear showing of "macchiavellism" and a political necessarity, given the presence of the "Bycanthine Empire" in that time as well as some concession useful for "converting/baptising" people of "christian believe" into "muslim".

[Qandaristania]

Yes.

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

no thanks, not here to debate. just giving opinion. have a nice time

General
For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

You appear to be in the wrong place then.

speaking of appearances u dont appear to be a moderator and since i havent been booted in the few weeks ive been here ill keep posting my opinions like i see many other people doing. u appear also a bully telling people where they do and dont belong especially when its an open forum.

ps. the evidence i was referring to is common knowledge found in more than 10 sources, the bible, the koran, roman writings, all containing first hand accounts by jesus' contemporaries and mentioned by the op so i shouldnt have to repeat that. its pretty clear i thought.

[The Alma Mater]

ps. the evidence i was referring to is common knowledge found in more than 10 sources, the bible, the koran, roman writings, all containing first hand accounts by jesus' contemporaries and mentioned by the op so i shouldnt have to repeat that. its pretty clear i thought.

Had you bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would have found out there exist NO firsthand sources on Jesus. None whatsoever.
As often is the case, "common knowledge" means "bullshit".

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

ps. the evidence i was referring to is common knowledge found in more than 10 sources, the bible, the koran, roman writings, all containing first hand accounts by jesus' contemporaries and mentioned by the op so i shouldnt have to repeat that. its pretty clear i thought.

Had you bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would have found out there exist NO firsthand sources on Jesus. None whatsoever.
As often is the case, "common knowledge" means "bullshit".

The Gospels are examples of a "firsthand sources" on Jesus.

[The Alma Mater]

Had you bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would have found out there exist NO firsthand sources on Jesus. None whatsoever.
As often is the case, "common knowledge" means "bullshit".

The Gospels are examples of a "firsthand sources" on Jesus.

How exactly are they firsthand ? Mark, Luke etc. did not write the gospels carrying their name. Heck, they were long dead when those were written (assuming they existed in the first place )

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

The Gospels are examples of a "firsthand sources" on Jesus.

How exactly are they firsthand ? Mark, Luke etc. did not write the gospels carrying their name. Heck, they were long dead when those were written (assuming they existed in the first place )

Mark, Luke and et cetera does not have to write their name for them to be identified as the authors of the Gospels. Accounts, like that of Papias passed on to Eusebius point out Mark as the author, the book with the same name as him.

The Gospels are also written when the original eyewitnesses of Christ are still alive, the lack of a mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in all the 4 Gospels points out to a writing date before 70 AD. If the Gospels are written after 70 AD, they could have mentioned the destruction of the Temple since it would strongly reinforce and verify Jesus's prophecies.

[Lordieth]

Probably. Walked on water, or rose from the dead? Probably not.

[Dyakovo]

You appear to be in the wrong place then.

ps. the evidence i was referring to is common knowledge found in more than 10 sources, the bible, the koran, roman writings, all containing first hand accounts by jesus' contemporaries and mentioned by the op so i shouldnt have to repeat that. its pretty clear i thought.

Then you should have no trouble providing sources showing this evidence because I've never seen any evidence of first hand accounts.
The Quran was written ~600 years after Yeshua was supposed to have died. The Bible is not a reliable source and the only evidence that the authors were Yeshua's contemporaries is the Bible itself. There are no contemporary Roman accounts of Yeshua having lived.
Basically, the OP's evidence has already been debunked, so if that's the only evidence you have, you've got nothing.

[Ava Ire]

Do I believe he existed as a person? Yes.
As a divine figure? Yes, as well.

[The Serbian Empire]

Jesus existed historically. His divinity is what is challenged.

His ability to walk on water is highly questionable at best.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

As a man, possibly. As the son of God, possibly not.

[United States of White America]

Of course. So does God.

[Vassenor]

Of course. So does God.

[citation needed]

[The Alma Mater]

Of course. So does God.

How about Hercules, Vishnu or Thor ?
Oh - and Harry Potter ? I mean - Sirius died for him. He would not have done that if Harry Potter were not real, right ?

[Uxupox]

Yea he existed historically. The thing that is being questioned is his divinity and powers.