I don't believe he ever existed - see the Jesus Mythicist forum for reasons why.

I ask the same question about the most famous Buddha. It actually makes no difference to many of us atheists / pantheists etc, regarding their personal existence. The stories exist, written by many, which is simply a look into how we think and interact. I don't see a first person source of the icons of religious texts.

The historical existence of the ancient icons of religious texts is debated a lot here at RRS and else where, but I find it personally meaningless. So what if there was a jesus dude? ... There was certainly  no jesus as described in the bible summary nor any found in history.  

Was there a Nietzsche, Sartre, Einstein, Russell, Sagan, so on and so on, yes, but back in time, a jesus dude ? Will we ever know? I doubt it, but hey yeah, there were wise ones in the ancient past. That much is obvious.

Yeah, people invent myth folklore, but it's all connected with a few seemingly newish "seeds" along the path of our human history.

 Welcome to the school of RRS .... thanks for posting. Check out Rook , RRS Author, etc,  in left list.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/rrs_authors

I find the evidence for a historical Jesus very uncompelling.  That's not to say I believe there wasn't one, but that given the evidence, it doesn't seem likely.

We must also ask a very pointed question.  Supposing there was a historical person on which the myth was based, what possible place in history can this person fill?  There's no mention of anything approaching a messianic Jesus-like figure for twenty to thirty years after he supposedly lived.  At best, what could he have been?  A rogue cleric?  A crazy homeless guy?

For comparison, would you say that Wonder Woman is a historical character?

By biblical scholar standards, apparently she is.  The thing is, the Wonder Woman comic was based on Elizabeth Holloway Marston.  She was the wife of William Moulton Marston, the comic's creator.  The thing is, Elizabeth didn't have a magic lasso, nor did she have an invisible jet.  She did not come from a magical island of goddesses.  She was a housewife with a pretty strong personality.  That's it.  He liked her personality and strong will, and decided to make a superhero with super doses of that personality.

Let's say that a thousand years from now, people are debating whether Wonder Woman was an actual person, or whether she was just a figment of someone's imagination, made into a neat story.  Based on what we know to be factual right now, would you say that Wonder Woman is a historical figure or a legend?

So, I have to ask, particularly of those who are enamored of modernist theologians who admit the fallability of the Gospels but insist that there must have been someone, no matter how insignificant, behind the myth -- assuming that the stories of magic and godhood are legendary, what's so damned amazing and significant about finding a historical Jesus?

God, def. a single parent who sent his son to earth on a suicide mission.

It is indeterminate. If he existed he was clearly not as described in the gospels as there would have be contemporary mention of a miracle worker who included raising from the dead in his bag of tricks.

To my mind a more interesting question is if he had any connection with Christianity. I say the answer is no. Whether he lived or not he is clearly no more than a hood ornament for a religion unrelated to him. And if he did not exist then we would expect a religion based upon the gospels and epistles but we do not.

Even if the early mentions of the Chrestos refers to Christians they are clearly not Jesusites. Christ only means anointed. Anointing was a common custom in the pagan world. It has no necessary connection to Christianity.

If he were the person in the gospels the religion is clearly not based upon what he said. One has to assume that with a limited amount of time he prioritized what he said, the most important first. If he had wanted priests and a hierarchy he would have said so. The most important teachings of his followers would derive from what he did say and everything he did not say would not be part of the religion.

An obvious example is the admonition to pray in private. Joining the community in church on Sunday is hardly private.

I choose to not believe in anyone or anything until I am presented with compelling evidence to provide support for the claim of its existence.  This evidence in regards to jesus has not as yet presented itself.

The same masterminds who brought you every piece of ancient literature.  Nothing more.

Yes, profound words the authors took from old myths.

Which is taken from earlier literature.

That's classic.  Seriously.

In 1961, archaeologists discovered a plaque fragment at Caesarea Maritima, an ancient Roman city along the Mediterranean coast of Israel. The plaque was written in Latin and imbedded in a section of steps leading to Caesarea’s Amphitheatre. The inscription includes the following: “Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius.” 
 Also, Cornelius Tacitus, a well-known first century Roman historian, also mentioned Pontius Pilate in one if his well-known texts: “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…”
 Not only does Tacitus mention Pontius Pilate outside the biblical record, but he mentions him in the historical context of Christ (Christus). So the way I see it is like this...why would the Romans allow the early Christians to feature one of their leaders in their books about Christ if they were telling a fake story? Another note I believe is worth typing: I suspect Jesus was very hated by the Romans and Jewish leaders so I think most of the things that would may have been written about him were destoryed and/or were never written because they may have made it illegal to write anything about him. Also keep in mind that the early Christians used to have to have their meetings in private for fear of being killed, and many of them who were caught were tortured and killed.

I hate arguing Christian history, because it is nothing but an attempt to bog the skeptic down in a distraction, when there still would be no evidence of "POOF" an adult human magically coming from dirt. There is no evidence of how a "spirit" knocks up a girl or how human flesh survives rigor mortis. These are merely ancient myths based on naked assertions people want to believe.

Saying that this place, or that person existed, is irrelevent. George Washington can be proven to exist, but no sane person would claim that he could, in reality, fart a full sized Lamborginni out of his ass. No sane person would believe, because they see the city of New York, in a Superman movie, no sane person would believe that a man can fly like that.

SO, was there a Jesus? Probibly not. It is most likely that a person, or a group of disinfranchised jews decided to make a new myth out of older myths in order to create a new club.

Then again, if we found Jesus, and he had normal DNA, there might be a problem.  Does God have DNA?  If not, shouldn't Jesus only have half a genome?

But I suppose people who believe in talking snakes wouldn't have any problem reconciling that.  They'd just say, "God made Jesus with a magical full genome because um... he knew we'd discover DNA, and he wanted us to know that Jesus was all man as well as all God."

True to the agnostic I am, I don't know if there was a historical Jesus, but I know that Paul didn't need one. Not having met a historical Jesus he proceeded to convert people to his new religion.

As to the reports found in classical sources such as Josephus and Tacitus, would you take anything on face value written in a history book produced under the Soviet regime? Tacitus and Josephus were preserved by christian scribes for many centuries. Would you believe that no nuggets of christian faith crept into any of those books copied by those zealous scribes?

Apologetic zeal has reclaimed some of the Testamonium Flavianum, which was earlier thought to have been a complete interpolation, but now one can pick and choose which bits of the passage one can leave out.

The Tacitus witness is tacked onto a long attack on Nero, who was suspected of having started the fire which destroyed much of Rome: this addition shifts the focus off Nero's responsibility for the fire onto the christians who Nero is supposed to have used as scapegoats for the fire. As these christians crispen and crackle into the night having been set on fire, Nero fades and we are left to feel sorry for the naughty christians. Boo-hoo. The only reason why it hasn't been declared a fake is that scholars treat it as sacrosanct, rather than maintain critical aloofness.

The only classical testimony that isn't transparently problematical is the exchange of letters between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan, which deals with how Pliny should treat christians in his province.

The classical testimonies were never useful for modern historical analysis as they are not in any sense primary source materials. Their interest to us lies in the insecurity they display by the necessity writers had to augment the texts to include these testimonies to their faith.

As to the gospels, they were written long after the authentic Pauline letters, so they indicate a christianity long after the time of Paul. He was the first proselytizer spreading the word of his crucified saviour, whose death could justify the faithful. But if this Paul, who received his gospel not from men but through revelation from Jesus, didn't need a historical Jesus, why should anyone else?

spin

This can be debated until the cows come home, so I will just type (posting for me only) that I still stand by my first statement. I don't know the details, but I think the whole idea of Jesus had to be based off of some real person(s) or event(s).

We'll very unlikely ever know the truth. If Jesus was real and he was killed, I suspect that his body was probably left for the dogs and crows to eat cause those Romans were sicko's and did stuff like that.

Based on what evidence?

Hint: The word "jesus" didn't exist until around 1200 ce and people were not given 'names' per se, most people were called (identified) by a cognomen.

There was found an old bowl with a reference to Christ. See the whole message here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26972493/

Now, the question is, did somoene scrape that writing onto the bowl much later? I hope they checked it.

spin