Was Jesus a real person?

[Mavorpen]

Doesn't there have to be a Jesus for their to be followers of Jesus?

Was there a Zeus? An Athena? Or, more to the point, a Mithra?

I kind of want his point to be true. Then it would make my waifu Eris real.

[Ravenflight]

I believe that he was but he wasn't the son of god. Just my person opinion and I'd be thankful if you didn't criticize it

[Britanania]

Personally I think the Jews were among the Hyksos

Even if there were Hebrews among the Hyksos, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that they became slaves who were later liberated by Moses. Wiki sayeth, just on the logistics:

Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[16] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550 men aged 20 and up.[17] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,[18] compared with an entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE of around 3 to 3.5 million.[19] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[20] No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.[21]

Why are we suddenly talking about the Exodus from Egypt?

I don't believe Moses was a real person, or that there was an Exodus, but I think the Hebrews were related to the Hyksos.

Doesn't there have to be a Jesus for their to be followers of Jesus?

No. What kind of question is that?

I think a good one. How can a person have followers if that person never existed? I highly doubt Saint Paul decided one day to invent a person just to create a religion around him, or other early Christians for that matter.

If there is no Jesus, there are no Christians.

[The Alma Mater]

it is VERY strong evidence that there were Christians. it is not evidence that there was a jesus.

Doesn't there have to be a Jesus for there to be followers of Jesus?

Note how Tacitus used the name "Christos" - which was a popular title to claim - and never uses the word Jesus.
But yes. The passage in question is the best evidence christians have.

[Ashmoria]

Doesn't there have to be a Jesus for their to be followers of Jesus?

...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..

you know that Jesus' name wasn't Christ or christus, right?

[The New Velociraptor Empire]

it is VERY strong evidence that there were Christians. it is not evidence that there was a jesus.

Doesn't there have to be a Jesus for there to be followers of Jesus?

Nope, just the idea is enough. That is why fandoms exist without the stories being real.

[Benuty]

Even if there were Hebrews among the Hyksos, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that they became slaves who were later liberated by Moses. Wiki sayeth, just on the logistics:


Why are we suddenly talking about the Exodus from Egypt?

I don't believe Moses was a real person, or that there was an Exodus, but I think the Hebrews were related to the Hyksos.

No. What kind of question is that?

I think a good one. How can a person have followers if that person never existed? I highly doubt Saint Paul decided one day to invent a person just to create a religion around him, or other early Christians for that matter.

If there is no Jesus, there are no Christians.

Well given the vision that might raise a question or two about what exactly happened.

[Sun Wukong]

Was there a Zeus? An Athena? Or, more to the point, a Mithra?

I kind of want his point to be true. Then it would make my waifu Eris real.

Just use the

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

6.God exists in the mind as an idea.

7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

And replace "God" with "my waifu."

[The Sotoan Union]

If I don't have to follow it, and I haven't been, then all of my evidence is valid in your eyes. What?

"What?" is right. I said you don't have to follow it. Meaning, I can't actively force you to follow it. It's still not valid.

And yes you did argue that those historians didn't exist.

No, I didn't.

That doesn't say what you think it says.

No, the one being circular is you. Your entire "argument" is that historians are a monolith who all agree on an individual historical Jesus existing from a scholarly view[...]

I'm not saying the individual historians who agree with it don't exist. That's absurd.

It is valid. Your position is increasingly invalid, because again all you can do in response to evidence is ask for more evidence. Evidence isn't invalid because you don't like it. Evidence that this "made up" group of historians is the majority.

[Twilight Imperium]

you know that Jesus' name wasn't Christ or christus, right?

Yup. But, it does say that a guy called Christus "suffered the extreme penalty" for his Christian-ness. Did you know that Christians don't say his name was Christ either?

[Mavorpen]

I think a good one. How can a person have followers if that person never existed? I highly doubt Saint Paul decided one day to invent a person just to create a religion around him, or other early Christians for that matter.

If there is no Jesus, there are no Christians.

If there is no Eris, there are no Discordians, right?

[The Alma Mater]

I think a good one. How can a person have followers if that person never existed?

I do not know. How could e.g. Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Osiris and Xenu have followers if they were not real ?

I highly doubt Saint Paul decided one day to invent a person just to create a religion around him, or other early Christians for that matter.

Do note how the article from the OP claims there are indications Paul himself did not believe Jesus was a real person.

[Neutraligon]

Even if there were Hebrews among the Hyksos, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that they became slaves who were later liberated by Moses. Wiki sayeth, just on the logistics:


Why are we suddenly talking about the Exodus from Egypt?

I don't believe Moses was a real person, or that there was an Exodus, but I think the Hebrews were related to the Hyksos.

No. What kind of question is that?

I think a good one. How can a person have followers if that person never existed? I highly doubt Saint Paul decided one day to invent a person just to create a religion around him, or other early Christians for that matter.

If there is no Jesus, there are no Christians.

It's called a legend for a reason. Basically stories of similar deeds already existed, as probably did a rebel named Jesus (hardly a surprise considering the time). As time went on more and more was attributed to Jesus, like what happened to Hercules.

you know that Jesus' name wasn't Christ or christus, right?

Yup. But, it does say that a guy called Christus "suffered the extreme penalty" for his Christian-ness. Did you know that Christians don't say his name was Christ either?

All that says is that at the time there were Christians there who believed that, it does not say that Jesus actually existed.

[Mavorpen]

It is valid. Your position is increasingly invalid, because again all you can do in response to evidence is ask for more evidence. Evidence isn't invalid because you don't like it. Evidence that this "made up" group of historians is the majority.

And I'll continue to await statistics to verify this. You can chant it as a mantra all you want until then.

[Draica]

Yes, he's a historical figure. Son of God? We can debate that. Historical figure? That's a no-brainer.

[Neutraligon]

I am still waiting for someone to define real. At what point does the person portrayed in the bible stop being the person who possibly existed.

[Benuty]

Will people start another thread about the claim of Jesus as "Messiah" instead of repeating it?

[Britanania]

I don't believe Moses was a real person, or that there was an Exodus, but I think the Hebrews were related to the Hyksos.


I think a good one. How can a person have followers if that person never existed? I highly doubt Saint Paul decided one day to invent a person just to create a religion around him, or other early Christians for that matter.

If there is no Jesus, there are no Christians.

Well given the vision that might raise a question or two about what exactly happened.

Saint Paul never actually mentions his sighting of Jesus on the road to Damascus. I'm willing to concede Luke made that up. Plus, if someone is going to invent a person to build a religion around, there are quite a few problems with Jesus that leads me to believe he lived.

First, the fact he was executed as a criminal. Being crucified is the ultimate humiliation and one of the worst ways to die. The early Christians would not have made that up because it would have been damaging to them.

Two, Jesus wasn't a military figure, whom the Jews thought the Messiah would be. If they wanted to make up a false messiah, they would have constructed a character who would have fit in with their idea of what the Messiah would be like.

Three, the Christ Myth Theory has little to no support in the academic world. Many academics are agnostics or atheists. If none Christians, many of whom are critical of the authenticity of the Gospels (I'm looking at you, Crossan) accept Jesus was real, that is good enough for me

[Sun Wukong]

Will people start another thread about the claim of Jesus as "Messiah" instead of repeating it?

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

[The Sotoan Union]

It is valid. Your position is increasingly invalid, because again all you can do in response to evidence is ask for more evidence. Evidence isn't invalid because you don't like it. Evidence that this "made up" group of historians is the majority.

And I'll continue to await statistics to verify this. You can chant it as a mantra all you want until then.

You are just denying now. You could do this with anything. Unless you can provide me statistics that most historians belive the holocaust happened, than you can't prove most historians believe that. Countless articles and historians that acknowledge the holocaust don't count. Only statsictics count.

We have countless articles and sources acknowledging the existence of Jesus as a mainstream historical view. We even have a historian named Robert M Prince who denies the existence of Jesus, admitting that most historians think that he existed. He's not saying that they are right, he's saying that most of them think that.

And you have nothing.

[Twilight Imperium]

All that says is that at the time there were Christians there who believed that, it does not say that Jesus actually existed.

It says that a specific guy, called Christos, was punished "severely" for the "sins" of all Christians. It would be kind of weird to write about it if Tacitus didn't believe it happened.

Tacitus was a preeminent Roman historian, he wouldn't just take people's word for it, and he would be in a position to know, too, being on the council of scholar-priests charged with overseeing the worship of foreign deities. And this was in 116 AD, too! Saying he wouldn't be able to find info on this is like saying people these days couldn't find info about Theodore Roosevelt.

-snip-

Bro, he's trolling you. Let it go.

[Draica]

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-n ... dor-people

http://carm.org/jesus-exist

http://carm.org/proof-that-jesus-existed

[Sun Wukong]

Yes, he's a historical figure. Son of God? We can debate that. Historical figure? That's a no-brainer.

There are some good reasons to think that he was, but it is hardly a proven fact. Calling it a "no-brainer" is appropriate. Shows how much thought you put into it.

[Neutraligon]

Well given the vision that might raise a question or two about what exactly happened.

Saint Paul never actually mentions his sighting of Jesus on the road to Damascus. I'm willing to concede Luke made that up. Plus, if someone is going to invent a person to build a religion around, there are quite a few problems with Jesus that leads me to believe he lived.

First, the fact he was executed as a criminal. Being crucified is the ultimate humiliation and one of the worst ways to die. The early Christians would not have made that up because it would have been damaging to them.

Two, Jesus wasn't a military figure, whom the Jews thought the Messiah would be. If they wanted to make up a false messiah, they would have constructed a character who would have fit in with their idea of what the Messiah would be like.

Three, the Christ Myth Theory has little to no support in the academic world. Many academics are agnostics or atheists. If none Christians, many of whom are critical of the authenticity of the Gospels (I'm looking at you, Crossan) accept Jesus was real, that is goof enough for me

...Why do you think the Messiah was a military figure? Considering Jesus failed to fulfill every prophecy to be the messiah, and that his predictions failed to come true, he is pretty much the definition of a false prophet.

[Dyakovo]

No matter what you believe about his divinity, you can't deny the Roman census data that proves that there was a Jesus born in Bethlehem at the time described in the Bible to a couple named Joseph and Mary.

Until said census data is provided, yes, i most certainly can.