Jesus was a real man. He lived on earth about 2000 years ago. There is a body of evidence that supports his existence. Also, he was married to Mary Magdalene, whom was was of his disciples.

Ah yes! This question. Well, there are dozens of scholars who debate this very topic fiercely in academic and theological circles, so I fear my lowly research wouldn't do this argument justice.

I do however want to share a quote from Christopher Hitchens on the veracity of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure:

"The jumbled 'Old' Testament prophecies indicate that the messiah will be born in ... Bethlehem. However, Jesus's parents were apparently from Nazareth and if they had a child he was most probably delivered in that town. Thus a huge amount of fabrication - concerning Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius - is involved in confecting the census tale and moving the nativity scene to Bethlehem.

But why do this at all, since a much easier fabrication would have had him born in Bethlehem in the first place ... The very attempts to bend and stretch the story may be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born, so that in retrospect, and to fulfill the prophecies, the evidence had to be massaged to some extent."

So are you refering to Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the messiah (or Christ)?

I think Jesus was a real character -- his apostles certainly were. I don't believe in his miracles, that his mother was a virgin, etc.

If we look at our leaders of recent times -- Ghandi, Teresa, King -- they've all be glorified even in this age of photographic and video media. We look at videos of King as a testament to his existence, however we have put King past what he really was. Certainly a great social leader, but not without is own problems [domestic affairs, etc]. Same can be said for Ghandi -- a great social leader, with poor economic choices that kept many Indians in poverty even until modern times with his de-industrialization and concept of "spinning thread for peace".

Jesus, in my eyes, was a regular ordinary guy with an awesome stance on social conservatism and ideas that really helped in that time period. His social and economic philosophies were an oral hit, and his ideology was spread far and wide until it was put into the Bible in about 170AD. In that 170 year time period, his overall being was transformed from "genius" to "our supernatural savior" -- as conceptions that there would be a Messiah had been present for a long time.

In regards to the comment of Mithra and Horus, it's not too much of a stretch to argue that when Jesus' story, keeping in mind it was an oral tradition back then, had it's intricacies changed slightly. That doesn't mean it was "made up", and I don't know why you'd think that.

If you look at the proof -- notarized, official letters from Jesus' apostles to the royalty of the time period, the fact that they died for their beliefs -- strictly looking at the apostles, it appears they have the conviction you would only have from witnessing first-hand a character as powerful as Jesus.

However, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that SINCE the time of the apostles, he's been glorified and edited to fit with the "Old Testaments" version of the messiah.

Regardless, what I imagine is his "original" message -- that of turning the other cheek and helping the poor -- has little to do with religion, and is the political stance of a well-known historical figure.

You wouldn't expect contemporaneous evidence for a guy who had a modest ministry and following for 3 years, and who was killed for what amounts to heresy. If we accept he didn't do any miracles, than he is no more unique than the hundreds of other people with ministries back.

You're making an argument from silence.

There are actually several secular sources believed to be reliable documentation that someone known as "Christ" did exist. The writers that refer to a figure known as Christ outside of any Biblical context include (but aren't limited to) Plinius/Pliny The Younger - Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (A.D. 112), A Roman historian named Suetonius (A.D. 120) and a historian from the first century named Phlegon.

Given the fact that there are secular references to Jesus's existence, Jesus Christ was a real person.

However, whether or not Jesus was a miracle worker or the Son of God remains has not been proven scientifically or historically.

he was real. majikal powers? idk.

Jesus Christ did exist whether it be physically or only psychologically there is no doubt, Jesus Christ existed.

Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John all testify to Christ walking the earth. Luke is the only one who was not an eye witness.

Except that no religion predates the prophesied Jewish Messiah.

Ghebert, this shows you lack of knowledge on history. Zeitgeist has been thoroughly debunked (surprisingly by the YT atheist community) and is lacking in any profound information.

First of all, historians affirm a historical Jesus, not one that did miracles, so if he was just a normal (illiterate) guy that got executed for preaching a philosophy to other illiterates, we would not expect him to be mentioned in contemporary writing. This is an argument from silence.

The only other god that was born of a virgin was a late Mirtha god, and it was trying to fulfill Old Testament prophecy like Jesus was. Horus was not born of a virgin. That's a complete fabrication that originated from a chain e-mail. Horus was born of Isis and Osiris, whose dead body Isis reanimated for the purpose of humping. Clearly not a virgin, Isis was.

No where in the bible does it say Jesus was born on Christmas. This actually does come from the pagan tradition of celebrating the Winter Solstice. Zeitgeist is deceitful for not mentioning this.

Other Gods did have resurrections (upper Egypt Osiris for example) but that's not surprising. Resurrection is everywhere in the Old Testament and where his followers probably got the idea. Again, you're drawing parallels to mythical features of Jesus, not the historical one.

People don't believe in Zeitgeist because it is a piece of inept propaganda.

The authors of the Gospels wrote the gospels as polemical text to combat Jewish rumors that reported Jesus was stolen from the tomb. Each of the 4 gospels is more or less inspired by the one before it, going back to the pre-markan passion narrative which was an oral tradition that evolved over those 30 years you speak of.

There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence which I could get into if you asked.

When I said "historians affirm a historical Jesus" I was explaining to him that the secular historians that affirm Jesus don't include the miracles and resurrection as actual history. The consensus among secular historians is that Jesus probably existed. In fact there are only a handful of historians who deny him out right, Doherty and Price being the most prominent.

Imagine you took part in the civil rights movement. Would you have written down your experience a few years afterwards, or towards the end of your life after you have had time to see the effect and reflect upon what was accomplished?

Also, it is true that Luke was not an eyewitness. It was instead written as a historical account of the life of Jesus, probably commissioned by the man Theophilus. (It was also part 1 of a series, the book of Acts being part 2.) Being a physician (Colossians 4:14), he was a very intellectual man and did not just start writing the account, but instead spent much time researching all of the events that took place, from before Jesus' birth to the years following his death. What makes this source, or any of the gospels for that matter, so much more unreliable than a secular source?

The bible cannot be used as an official source of someone's actual existence. Pure fiction.

Because those sources have a vested interest in people believing them. We've got Joseph Smith Jr.'s word that Jesus set foot in North America, and there are people who swore to it, and became apostles of the Mormon religion, along with great bodies of documentation. Does that make it true?

Should it even be considered evidence?

It's self-serving, therefore highly suspect.

So what would make a secular source less "self-serving"? Would not the writings of a person opposed be just as suspect as those for. Is it not just as possible that a secular source not believing in the miracles of Jesus downplay his ministry, as it is that believers would exaggerate it?

Also, Joseph Smith's writings? Please, that has no relevance to this argument. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses and do not contradict history as Joseph Smith does. The ideas that the lost Jewish tribes came to America and are now the Mormon church, that the garden of Eden resides in Missouri, as well as the many animals of North American spoken of in the Book of Mormon that never existed in its past are all extreme contradictions of known history.

If the argument is whether Jesus Christ is fact or fiction it stand to reason that those character found within the story are not plausible evidence of his existence. That's like me using the testimony of Jimmy Olsen to prove the existence of Superman.

I could say the same about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be just as accurate.

Do not contradict what history?

Hell, the Gospels were written almost half a century after the fact.

That's a pretty large window within which to fill in timeline details as they fit with the story.

The Bible's a pretty good source for any proof you need.

Somethings to think about:

1. If the disciples made this up, why would they make themselves look so bad?

2. Yes, the Bible is contradictory in places. More than one person wrote it, you know.

yes he was alive and well back then.

there is no doubt that he is real, there are a myriad of historical accounts that attest to his existance; more so than attest to the existance of julius ceaser.

for more information on it http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_myth.htm

You should try reading "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

The first century Jewish historian Josephus also talked about Jesus. Here is one version of his testimony found at http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

This debate asks if Jesus was a real historical figure, not if he was the Son of God.

History tells us he was a real historical figure.

Only personal belief can answer the question whether he was something more.

For 2,000 years, billions of people have lived according to the teachings of Christ. How can you prove Christ did NOT exist? For 2,000 years, the institution of Christianity and Christ's teachings have remained uninterrupted. What other institution can equal this fact? The Bible is the most printed and widely distributed book in the world.

Those paragraphs from Antiquities have been considered forgeries (committed by Christians) for centuries.

If you go to the URL I provided above, you will find that I posted the version which excludes the purported forgeries.

The version with the purported forgeries is also available for viewing at that URL but was not included in this argument.

Indeed I did, then I spent all yesterday reading a line-by-line debunking of Zeitgeist. I already knew that the 9/11 theories were ridiculous, but had no idea how inaccurate the religion chapter was. There was just something almost poetic about his explanation for Christianity, it seemed to make so much sense. After some research though, yeah, it's bogus.

Yea, unfortunatly, its all to common for things to sound poetic simply b/c we want it to be that way. Its nice to see someone dig deeper.

The debate over the historicity of Jesus seems to me to be the only debate where primary source documents written by eyewitnesses only a few years after the events are discarded.

We have multiple accounts of the life of Christ. The authors are known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They wrote their accounts very soon after the events on question and used at least one source (Q) which must have been written earlier.

The gospel accounts enjoy far greater textual support in the form of thousands of pieces, fragments and full codices that allow historians to show that the text that we read today is approximately 99% true to th original documents. The remaining 1% could be discarded without changing anything of significance.

The common assumption behind many posters who deny the historicity of Jesus is that we need extra-biblical sources confirming the Gospels. This is simply not true. The Gospels themselves are the kind of first-person accounts that historians seek.

You need to be careful about the words you choose.

Whether or not this Jesus is the "Messiah" or "Christ" is a matter of faith. Jews don't accept that Jesus was the messiah. Christians affirm Jesus is the messiah (but they redefine "messiah" to fit Jesus' ministry). To an atheist the whole discussion is nonsense.

There are references that confirm that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person but very little is known about him. Read the last chapter of Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus".

Dan Brown's fictional "The DaVinci Code" says Jesus was married. I think it would be a good thing if Jesus was married. But there is no reliable evidence of this.

There are too many accounts for Christ not to have existed.

Paintings, writings, et cetera.

Jesus indicated to his followers that he would be returning at some time in the future. Given that the eyewitnesses had seen Jesus in resurrected form, they believed that his return would be soon -- within their lifetimes. Why write about Jesus when he was soon to return and word of mouth was sufficient to successfully spread the word?

However, as time passed and his foretold return did not come about, Jesus' followers changed from first-person sharing about Jesus to writing down the narratives as a more permanent method that could be passed on after they died.

Paul's epistles -- which included content about Jesus -- may have been written as early as 48 AD (Galatians). While not considered part of the gospel accounts, these letters do refer to events related to Jesus' teachings and life/death/resurrection. If Jesus was put to death somewhere between AD 26 and 36, these letters are more contemporary accounts of Jesus than those gospel accounts written later.

This is a spurious argument. What evidence do you have to support the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I don't, that's the point.

What verifies your existence? All that Material, like ID, SS#, bank account... Doesn't seem like evidence to me....

Wait, but we have about 3 metric tons of wood from his cross!?! ;)

Very Parmenides. Jesus did indeed exist because we are talking about him-- whether that existance is physical or simply an invention of the human mind, or both. The concept of Jesus exists, Jesus exists, because we are talking about him and we think about him.

In this same way, the dear Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

The "mythological fiction" advocates can cry "there's no evidence! No evidence!" and they're completely right. They cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The "historical figure" people have to prove that Jesus existed. So if there are secular sources for the existence of Jesus, as were stated at the beginning of this debate, that would be evidence that Jesus existed. That is not evidence that he performed miracles; it also does not mean that those "miracles" were not performed. Jesus could indeed have done great things that were misinterpreted as miracles and expounded upon by oral tradition. He also could have been the son of God and performed the impossible with the power of divinity. Or, he could be a complete fabricated lie.

Sherlock Holmes is a "mythological figure" who is referred to by many other "secular" sources (read: sources other than Arthur Conan Doyle). As somebody else mentioned earlier, Ghandi is a real man who became a myth, and is also referenced in many sources which would be considered secular. I am a real person who, unfortunately, has not ascended to mythology.

I must also wonder if any public person - Jacques Chirac, Bono, Tom Brokaw, Osama bin Laden - does NOT have a sort of mythology.

Do we cite the Brothers Grimm as proof of Hansel and Gretel? :\

Do you mean the late J.C.? I believe his mother was the Mary with the cherry.

Real Person. But not magical.

"almost no historical primary source material"

So, based on your statement, there is some fractional amount of historical primary source material stating that Jesus Christ, in fact, existed.

If there is historical source material pertaining to the existence of Jesus Christ, then how can you even begin to argue that he was some figment of thought?

Either there is no evidence and he does not exist or there is evidence and he does exist. "almost no... material" implies some material, intrinsically discrediting your stance that Christ is a myth.

Then take the close look to start with. Saying "almost" doesn't make you sound less cocky; it makes you sound unsure of your argument at least and unsure of the issue at worst.

If it is fact that Christianity is built on a legend (no questions here, it's highly likely), then why not provide the evidence to start with? Anyone can say that Christianity is simply a fraud - look at the American atheist movement - being able to back that up sets people apart. I would've had more respect for this reply had you opened with it instead of that ever-repeated litany you started with.

But I digress. Enough of that.

Jesus Christ fact ya exist ya will return ya when? try to study the holy quo ran.

to believe in Jesus firstly you should believe in god because : 1- right now no intact evidence you can touch about Jesus e.g where is Noah's ship ,stick of mousse so how will you believe? by ignorance. no; but by measuring lots of recently discovered facts ( formation of fetus, universe, water, did you knew that mecca is the center of earth and mecca timing is the ideal all over the world not Grinch ) are since 1400 years written in quo ran of Muslims. you can measure these facts -you can touch- by their script in quo ran. then look for the script ions toll about Jesus,mousse ,Ibrahim and think.............

2- some things up till now behind your limits (ghosts, Jeni,for casting future, your difficult problem solving without your intervention is it your skills?)

go realistic for all ancient script ions made by human ( friends you know the knowledge 500 years ago Galileo who ever burned because he said "the sun is the center of universe not the earth" - czar said he is the god or son of god or 1 of gods. how you believe such pull chat

Pharaohs had their stories like each other place i am Egyptian i can tell you. good luck for all

Even if you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, he still EXISTED. In fact, Jesus was the most documented person in the history of civilization. Although you can disagree with what he said or did, to believe that Jesus was not a real person is ridiculous.

ok people... he 'j.c.' really existed.he is just like any other preacher that wer the apple of the eye of the higher state of "preachers"before,why maybe hes like ghandi or alexander,too hard to control,too hard to handle.

and the old catholic suppresed hes existency by conspiricing the truth about him,ofcourse its political reason.people 2000 years ago are very superticious that they actually believe in every miracle hearsay,and those times are like a martial law that people are hungry of freedom,hungry of faith.well i think the real question here is about j.c.'s miracles and sermon,his not myth but his magic's are...?is it?..

Although I agree that Yeshua of Nazareth was a real historical figure, your argument is fatally flawed.

What other institution? Islam is but 500 years younger than Christianity, while Buddhism is 400 years older. The earliest Hindu Vedas date to at least 1,100 BC. Judaism goes back maybe 4,000 years. And that's just religions. Other institutions lasting that long? City-scale government has been around for 5,000 years. Agriculture is about 11,000 years old. But then, those are practical applications, so I guess it's unfair to compare them to religion.

But all this is ignoring the fundamental problem here: lots of people believing in something doesn't make it true. Lots of people used to believe the world was flat; and moreover, many people still don't realize that this theory was debunked in the 4th century BC by the Greeks, rather than by Columbus, who in fact merely believed the world was a smaller sphere than was believed at the time (he was dead wrong and would have died if a hitherto-unknown continent hadn't happened to be in his way).

Akiva and Josephus, from opposite sides of the religio-political divide (Akiva was a leading light in rabbinical Judaism around AD 75; Josephus a historian under Rome at the time of the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70), acknowledge a number of contemporary sources that identify Jesus as a historical person. Roman records also show the evidence of the execution of several of this man's disciples. The writings of Akiva and Gamaliel in particular deserve mention here: they were both Jews and rabbis. They were opposed to the Christian sect which had grown out of the Judaic split and would have certainly trumpeted the falsity of the existence of Jesus if in fact that existence was false. That they admit the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is powerful evidence for the historical reality; remember that disciples who claimed to be close to Jesus lived up through the end of the first century AD (John the Revelator was imprisoned at Patmos until then).

I note, however, that all three of the sources I mention either carefully avoid the claims of Messiahship (in the case of Gamaliel) or throw cold water on the claim. What I believe, in this case, is of no moment; the evidence is strong to support a factual man named Jesus of Nazareth.

As a Jew, I do not believe that Christ was of any historical significance, but should anyone look at either the old, or the new testimet, they will see that Christ was a person, and there is even a burial site for him.

For all the good it does to argue the point of Jesus Christ being fact or fiction I cannot quite understand why it would matter in any way, shape or form. Is it not enough to read and comprehend the teachings in the Bible to know whether or not whomever wrote them was indeed real? Indeed, why does it matter if it was the Christ or Schlomo from Ur who wrote those loving words? For me, Jesus Christ is fact and His words tell me that He was indeed a most unusual man.

Fact. I have seen to many miricles and answered prays to not believe in Him.

Jesus Christ was a true historical figure. Not only did He live for 33 years, but He sacrificed Himself for the sins of the world. Then amazingly He rose from the dead having the keys to death and hell and He now sit on the right hand of The Father making intercession for the belivers waiting till He is told to come back for us.

The Bible was not written to keep man kind in check.

He didn't break the law; he got turned on by rumors and the king's fear of loosing his position pressured him to agree with the crowd

But none of the Gospels thought they had to, because they though Jesus would be coming back to save them in their life times. they didn't think it would be centuries later.

and how many people achievements were written about on the spot ? I haven't read a single book about the great achievements of a person that wasn't written until after they died.

also keep in mind that not everyone was literate and mostly passed their history by word of mouth during this time frame.

Arguing that Christ was not real is just ignorant.

The Council of Jerusalem was around the year 50 AD, only 17 years after the death of Christ.

By then, there was real in-fighting among the Christians.

As early as 22 years after the death of Christ, Paul wrote letters to the followers of Christ. Even if you disregard his opinions, it is hard to argue that he is writing to imaginary people.

These earliest letters were to a slave owner named Philemon, the church of the Thessalonians, the saints (believers) in Phillippi, the church in Corinth, the churches in Galatia (more than one), and to the believers in Rome.

These people knew that Christ was real. They all lived during His time, even though Paul never met Him in the flesh.

Greek and Roman mythology was not overcome by another myth. Whole civilisations have left their fairy tales in favor of the living GOD.

It is ridiculous to say that, just because a particular document was chosen to be a part of the Bible makes that document an unreliable source. Should the King James compilers left some documents out, so that you would deem them credible?

They weren't stenographers. They didn't have email. They probably didn't even know how to write.

Yet, they changed the world with their bold proclamations. Not of a prophet, but of the Messiah !! How would those fishermen even dream that up ?? They weren't religious leaders.

i believe that jesus might have been real but i do not heink that he could heal just by touching people or that he came back from the dead. he could've been just some guy that everyone liked and over the years he became the son of god and could perform all these different things.

There is sufficient evidence that Jesus actually was a historical man. Aside from the Gospels, which were written within a generation of Jesus' death, he is mentioned in Roman records and by other authors. The gospels certainly do not contain the only mention of Jesus. There is no doubt that he truly did walk on this earth.

As for Jesus being the son of God, I believe it to be true. I believe he died and rose again.

Jesus really did come to earth and he will come soon just like the bible says. Ive seen the promises that God has made in word come true in my life and the prophecies of the last days are coming about, so with no doubt. My lord jesus exists.

I'm sure he was a real person, who preached love and had a large following and was probably a really, really great guy...

Who probably didn't walk on water, but did inspire many people.

Jesus Christ did exist and thats not fiction. He was a holy child born from Mary and he did perform miracles by God's leave. I do believe in Jesus christ as prophet of GOD

I didn't know this was debatable. He was definitely a real guy; whether or not he walked on water, well, that doesn't exactly see eye-to-eye with my beliefs.

The reason why there is so much reference even in a secular world is that Jesus performed and talked to and was seen by tens of thousands of people. It almost impossible for a person to not have real existence and stories being made up if that fact alone where not true.

Nobody thought the City of Troy was real just another mythological story made up out of the bible.

jump all over you for tyring to give them the facts. We can see it all coming together and you know exactly what I mean when I say that.

When you are a person who has been seen in front of millions of people for his time even a hundred years later those records of him are not gone. They had record keeping back in that day. When millions of people whether it is today or 2,000 years ago have personally witnessed you it's hard to say that he was just a made up person.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only-begotten Son of God,

begotten of His Father before all worlds,

God of Gods, Light of Lights,

very God of very God,

begotten, not made,

being of one substance with the Father,

by whom all things were made;

who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven

and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the the virgin Mary

and was made man;

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried.

And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures

and ascended into heaven

and sits at the right hand of the Father.

And He will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead,

whose kingdom will have no end.

There is so much emphasis on the genealogy of the descendent's leading to Christ not only in the bible but also in the scribes of the day when they where keeping record. Dead Sea scrolls validates this even further even if you don't believe in the chronological order of the bible there is also outside reference to his existence from Roman scribes as well. You would have to dispute several countries writings to disprove his life, not very likely.

There is almost no historical primary source material to believe that this man was anything other than an amalgamation of similar beliefs and deities.

This will probably be a touchy subject. But, without a source outside of the Bible to validate the historicity of Jesus the Christ, the most safe and accurate conclusion would be that Jesus is a historically fictional character (think: vietnam war novels with fake characters at real battles).

It is highly "coincidental" that Jesus has all the markings of Mithra and Horus, and several other deities that preceded the Jesus folklore.

Yes, obviously there is a lot of material about his supposed life, however there is almost zero from contemporaries which verify this existence.

You would think, if he was so renown and performed such great miracles, and spoke with multitudes, we'd see this corroborated by others in his day. Yet history is virtually silent.

All we've got are Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius as first-century sources, and they only refer to christians themselves or to a figure referred to as Chrestus/Christus (meaning "Anointed one").

That doesn't seem like a very large body of anything even close to evidence.

Theres really no real evidence that proves that he actually existed at the time being, so for right now I will say no.

That's an intersting contention; one that I'm unaware of and would like to investigate more thoroughly. However, for the sake of simplification (and because this would only be circumstantial evidence at best), I think it would be better to view them as one and the same, and save splitting that hair for another debate.

Well, if we stick to the modern mythical version of Jesus, then this blindness-curing, demon-casting, fish-multiplying, half-man half-deity would require an extraordinary amount of corroborating evidence to support his historical existence; evidence which does not exist, as we all know.

Arguments from silence are illogical.

An objective archaeological analysis not citing biblical tests finds that the likelihood of "Jesus Christ" to be very low. The name Yeshuah was common in that time period among Jews, as were the names Miriam and Yosef. Tracking down the right Yeshuah is like finding a particular John Smith today. The specific important life events and attributes mentioned in the gospels all correspond to previous cultures, religions, deities, and myths. Even if we could figure out which Yeshuah ben Yosef we were looking for, there is no way to verify the association of those events or abilities with that person.

The earliest of which, was written at least 30 years after his death.

You'd think such eyewitnesses would've been more prompt about recording such miraculous events.

To be honest, I hold no clear position but I tend towards that the story is mythological to an extent; obviously at the time there where many "sons of god" going around. There is to little concrete evidence for the Jesus Christ figure to be considered a real historical figure, and there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility; therefore, the answer cannot be clear.

There is no conclusive proof that he existed as a man.

However the miracles were definitely fiction

Outside of the bible there is no evidence of his existence. Although there were known historians living in that era and although Jesus supposedly performed miracles and resurrected from death none of this those historians for some odd reason didn't include something of such high importance in any sort of historic record? Jesus is a mythological figure...a story.

You may or may not have seen the movie "Zeitgeist" which shows us many pre-christian gods and messiahs that share the exact same characteristics as Jesus ie: Born of a virgin on the 25th of December, announced by a star in the east, performed miracles such as healing, died and resurrected in 3 days. Most people don't believe what is presented in Zeitgeist for the simple reason that it contradicts their faith. Here is a video on youtube from someone who was used as a resource for the movie Zeitgeist explaining how evidence for this was censored and destroyed long ago.

lol. I knew zeitgeist wasn't going to help this debate, too bad it turned up. Good thing we've dipsnsed with it now though.

but you said: "First of all, historians affirm a historical Jesus, not one that did miracles, so if he was just a normal (illiterate) guy that got executed for preaching a philosophy to other illiterates, we would not expect him to be mentioned in contemporary writing. This is an argument from silence."

ALL historians? Now that's quite deceitful itself. Almost no historians confirm anything about Jesus. They confirm groups of people who claimed to be followers of "Chestus", but that could be anyone, as it was a common title.

Whether or not current historians believe it or not is irrelevant, and an appeal to authority.

If we look at what historians have to look at, primary source material, Jesus vanishes into thin air.

The story of Jesus Christ can largely be solidified as mythology when, as made famous by Zeitgeist, the relationship between Christ and the celestial cycle is considered. His rise from the dead during the vernal equinox is a clear metaphor for the coming of spring.

Someone writing about Jesus nearly 100 years after the fact is hardly first-hand knowledge. Anyone that would have known Jesus (if he existed) would have been long dead, and anything the author wrote would have been hearsay at that point.

"Christ" or "Anointed one" or "messiah" was a common claim (just like people today sometimes claim or think themselves to be Jesus). So, in other words, there are no historical references which verify the existence of this guy who was born in a stable in Bethlehem (or Nazareth), who came to do and say all these things which are claimed.

And usually correct.

As a matter of fact, He was fiction. Ok, surely I jest. He was a historical figure.

mmm, historically, it seems to me that little of Christianity is original, but then, the best ideas are always recirculated. The video starts 'zeitgeist part 1' from 1.30 Thought I might post it up to compare to the antirefutal zeitgeist posted by ghebert, and the Jewish dude's rebuttal. However, I will note now that it is not the strongest, actually, probably one of the weaker arguements and is riddled with propagandist falacies and both audio and visual techniques I've not seen outside of government propaganda runs, and may some corporate propaganda too, except in this it's really obvious... but yeah, thought it might be interesting to compare.

Jesus may have lived, but the stories told of him passed by word of mouth through the decades before he was written about most likely altered anything "true".

The majority of your comment is pure conjecture, until you put forth your only concrete evidence: "official letters from Jesus' apostles of the time period". Could you perhaps post a link or two detailing the nature of these letters, when they were written, what they said, who they were addressed to, etc.?

Also, there have been plenty of people who willingly die for their beliefs - doesn't make their convictions any more tangible than anyone else's. Suicide bombers do this on a daily basis. Is that proof that their god is real? No. Same goes for Jesus' apostles.

And finally... do you think it's appropriate to explain what Jesus was to you when you haven't even proven his existence yet? You kind of have to do the argumentation first, then your opinion second.

Interesting thought. Why?

You actually posted this AFTER someone posted about how zeitgeist is a joke.

Everything we know about Jesus comes from the bible. The books of the bible could easily have been written by colluding fantasists. Maybe he existed as a man but the supernatural powers attributed to him are completely without foundation.

The picture says it all.

If you're going to believe in Jesus, then there is no evidence that you shouldn't believe in Zeus, Amun-ra, Poseidon, Dagda, Budda, or Zelda.

Whats more probable, ancient people at the early beginning of civilization believed in spirits and made a bunch of stories about it, or that there was son of God that came to earth and did so many impossible things...hmmm

There is absolutely NO first hand account of this supposed prophet or his acts in the time they were said to have happened even though many well known historians lived in the time. Most historical references are to "the christ" which simply means "anointed one" and is not a name and were written well after the supposed death of christ. The Josephus passage has been sent through the wringer many times and has been absolutely been proven a forgery by many well known scholars as well. If you understand the history of the bible and the circumstances in which it was compiled the evidence seems pretty clear the there was indeed no singular person that all the passages, in the bible or otherwise, could be attributed to. There was no historical Jesus.

We should also remember that Yeshua or Yehoshua was a very common name in the first century. And insofar as that name reaches, we can be certain that a Jesus really did exist. But did Jesus the Christ - bringer of miracles, savior of the sinful and son of god/god itself - exist?

Some of Caesar's military conquests were miraculous, and even these very "of the earth" miracles were documented in multiple, primary and secondary source texts. We can't find anything about Jesus outside of the Bible that is a primary source. Everything we know of the pseudo-deity, Jesus the Christ comes decades after his death.

While Jesus the Christ may have existed, one would be dumbfounded in any attempt to discover extracanonical and evidence in favor of his existence.

If that is what existence means then black is white, apples are bananas and smoking is good for you.

Neither of those point speak to proof of anything. To the best of my knowledge no disciple of Jesus (I assume that's who you're talking about when you say "disciples") is credited as being a historian living during the time of Jesus. So you could easily argue that these disciples are simply a part of the fable.

Yes, the Bible is contradictory in places, eh? This is part of what I find so infuriating about arguing religion, because those who argue for Christianity change their views to suit their argument. On one hand they'll tell you the bible is the divine word of God, and is infallible, and then turn around as proclaim the Bible is written by men, and therefore is not perfect.

Numbers do not equal legitimacy. Like your mother probably told you, "If all the kids in town jumped off a cliff, would you follow?"

"A few years" is pretty disingenuous. Try 30. That's three decades for peole to write about someone who supposedly persuaded masses, fed them all from a picnic basket, riled up the establishment of the day, and whose life ended iwth public execution. And apparantly no other historian of the day, whose works survive, can corroborate any of this.

Yes, we have testimony that people followed a person they referred to as Christ, but everything boils down to the word of mouth of one or two authors. It is no more legitimate than the writings of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, who claimed Jesus visited North America after his Mesopotamian tour.

You call those good sources?

Books that were written thousands of years ago, all of them over a hundred years after Christ's death of which there are NO originals still in existence and the fact that most of those were translated from Greek to Arabic to Latin to English. Talk about lost in translation.

Sounds like some shaky "evidence" there brother...

mm no. The only primary source material talks about people worshipping a person referred to as Chrestus (which is merely a title, meaning Anointed One). The best evidence anyone can postulate as evidence are the writings of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), which was not only based on Christian writings itself, but proven to have been the victim of forgery by Christians in order to insert text bolstering the historicity of their myth.

That means we're about as close to zero evidence as you can get, I only say almost so that I don't sound too cocky. Fact is, Christianity is built on a legend that doesn't have a historical leg to stand on. All this evidence evaporates as soon as we take a close look.

Maybe you would've had more respect for me, but you probably wouldn't have responded had I done that. There's something to be said for making controversial statements. It increases participation. Just baiting the debators ;)

Now, come here and let me pull that hook out of your lip. :P

Well, I've got to concede that much. I really am a sucker for controversy; semantics are usually what get me. You using the phrase "almost no evidence" in a question of definite existence or non-existence - especially without thoroughly backing yourself up - is like holding up a bright neon sign saying "HAVE AT ME!"

But again, enough of that. Damned hooks...

Pics or it didnt happen! XD

But really, I think this is like the King Arthur story.

There's no way the person we think of as Jesus Christ was real.

He might have been a real person but as the stories were told over time more fiction was told than facts.

Seriously, when you find a real person who can turn water into wine let me know, i might hire him for personal services

Jesus Christ is a mythical figure plain and simple. First of all, the basis of Jesus Christ being a human being came from the Bible. How can we prove anything that the Bible says is true. Just because every single minister, preist, religious fanatic says that the Bible is undoubtedly true doesn't make it so. Along with this basis, there have been a total of about 1,000 different versions of the Bible (including the Quran and its variations.) Now prove to me that the Bible is completely and undoubtedly fact. But more importantly, prove to me that all of these different versions of the Bible are accurate. Now as for my next point, Jesus is depicted as a man. The Roman Catholics in the fourteenth century depicted Christ as a raggedy man with a beard wearing a robe and sandals. Now I personally do not believe that God was ever on this Earth as a human, much less a scruffy looking human being. Now don't get me wrong. I believe in God with all of my heart and spirit, however Jesus is depicted to show that human beings are capable of being perfect like Jesus if we do good deeds. This is what the Catholics believe. Over the ten thousand years of human existence, wars and confusion have arisen and have distorted the true Bible (yes there used to be a true Word of God), and the Catholic Church has edited their Bible to include Mythological fiction for a number of reasons. One of the reasons include the fact that Catholics had lost the true word of God and made up most of the Bible. Soon everybody came to believe that the Catholic bilble was true. Even the Lutherans, Protestants, and Baptists derived parts of the Catholic church's into their own bibles, including the story of Jesus Christ. Another point I would like to make is that the only true reasons why people praise Jesus Christ is that either people are idiotic enough t think that the Bible is completely true and accurate so they believe this myth. People are also inspired by what Jesus did for us in the Bible so people are given personal hope and inspiration through Jesus Christ, which is fine but people need to know that this is a myth. The third reason is that people have a desire to be all powerful. People want to be as powerful so they (meaning religious and political powers) create God as a huiman being and show that people can be as powerful as God. In conclusion, God is all-powerful iand Jesus Christ is a myth.

human beings can't get their history right from one day to the next, how in the world can you believe that the story of jesus is an accurate account?

the current catholic rulers just went ahead and added more sins to their list, for pete's sake! right there, change has been made that from now on will be taken as gospel, the word of god.

of COURSE jesus is a mythological fiction we have better recordkeeping options now then at any other time in history and WE mess things up. think about it people.

With the amount of information we have available to us today, all the history we have managed to uncover and still no mention of this character jesus christ..the only reference of this man is in the bible. A book that was wrote to control man and keep them in check. Therefore its my position this man did not live.

If he sacrificed himself for the world's sins, then how come he was crucified unwillingly by the Romans? I'm sorry but your reasoning is lacking. History clearly states that the Romans crucified Jesus because he broke Roman law. He didn't sacrifice himself.

WOW...they seen you coming

try praying to a milk jug for a while. See how that goes.

Total, unabashed fiction. People feel they need to believe in something, and what better "idea" to believe in than life after death or eternal grace or any of that other nonsensical jargon.

I believe in a lot of the tenets of Christianity- the "do unto others..." and "turn the other cheek" but in NO way do I believe that a man (the son of god) was born to a virgin and died on a cross.

There is no hard fact to suggest jesus ever existed, and the miracles are definitely not true,

The bible cannot be used as a source as it has no backing whatsoever.

Jesus christ is an absolutely mythological fiction, his presense totally contradicts the workings of karma and karmic relationship

not the same at all

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

fiction i think.

i've never seen any evidence.

and the bible..well wouldn't you say that it could just be a story written by some guys making up something that may make sense in how the universe and earth and all of the things that live on earth were created?

i think they were desperate to find out and made up some ridiculous stories.

Look at how many cities and stories like Troy for example that have been discovered,many non believers thought only to be pure fiction. Only to be true

You will be amazed at how many archaeologist whether believers or not have referenced the Bible for digging locations.

Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls if you know anything about them they expose many of Old Testament scribes and the record keeping of the time, originally before their discovery many thought to be just fable. The story of them is quite amazing.

Even if you go into other facts King Ebeneser not only have we uncovered that actual building but all of the references of the Bible where able to help with location and it's character. I can keep going on with one after the other on just facts alone, it's only yourself that can either chose to ignore it or accept it.

You know the biggest bible prophecy in our times. Was when Israel got their state back in 1948. Prior to 1948, Israel last existed as an independent nation in 606 B.C. when the first captives of Israel were taken by Nebuchadnezzar. This was to be the last generation. So if this is true then you take the youngest person at that time to what their oldest age could be and according to final testament. I think that we are living in time of Christ return.

there was no alphabet 2000 years ago that had the symbols to produce the sounds of any of the names in the bible or book of mormon. We do not change or translate names in history. our alphabet of english is less then 500 years old sense 1630. see missing letter J part one & two. most likey shakespear wrote it. there is no item or situation of the bible that was available during that time period. same with the book of mormon. the camels are from austraila, the donkeys are from new mexico they were taken to the middle east in 1583. We do not or should not need the bible or Jesus or the name christ which is not 2000 years old to get an education and treat others well if they deserve it. thank you John cunningham johncunningham1956@netzero.com

Pliny the Younger was talking, specifically, about the beliefs of Christians of his time and was asking Trajan for advice on what to do with them. His letter to Trajan does not provide any evidence for the historicity of Jesus. In Suetonius we see a reference to the "instigation of Chrestus", which cannot be a reference to Jesus since he had been supposedly dead for nearly 50 years with respect to the reference and couldn't have been "instigating" anything. There are two likely references here: the Jewish-Christian proclamation that Jesus was god, or a person named Chrestus (a formal name at the time) antagonizing, playing a role in Claudius' edict. AND, Suetonius never, ever mentions "Christus". That's a pretty big deal if he's talking about "Christ". And Phlegon is largely cited as an interpolation.

Given the fact that there are secular references to Jesus's existence, Jesus Christ was a real person.

When you look at the supposed secular sources and place them in their proper context, neither Josephus, Pliny, Soutonius or any other secular source becomes legitimate. At best, they are questionable.