This is a dead and old argument.

Most non apologists historians with no horse in the race, say NO. It is likely that the movement that became modern Christianity was centered around a splinter sect of competing Jews who had successfully parted themselves from the Canaanite polytheism prior, were looking  to usher in their own super hero to save them in their lifetime, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN.

And it still would not matter if tomorrow we found DNA evidence of a man named Jesus, which was back then a common name like Smith or Jones, it would still not make virgin births real or surviving rigor mortis real.

We can prove that George Washington was a real person, but no sane person believes the "Cherry tree" story as anything more than a myth. Nor would any sane human claim that George Washington could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass.

Jesus, like Thor and Allah, are nothing more than the wishful thinking of humans. What makes the sale of superstition in all of human history successful is the the fact that people will take real humans and real events and pepper their politics with the grandiose, not because they have facts, but because they want power.

there are serious doubts about the existence of Jesus, to wit that the earliest writings relating to him from Paul, instead of drawing on real historical events, rely on visions, speaking in tongues and interpretations of the OT for their knowledge. This is all pure cult.

Another issue for me is the fact Paul is consumed with his christian opponents who all espouse different variations of the messiah concept, none of which are bound into a shared doctrine by their reliance on identical factual events. And while his work is already an apologetic, Paul fails to reveal any details of the life of Jesus as corroborating evidence as part of fierce argument. Instead his letters are full of fallacy and really rather whiny at times.

Another curiosity is that Paul does not tell the receivers of his letters exactly what Jesus said in the way he would if Jesus was an actual person. It's very odd. Instead Paul speaks as if Christ was inside him. It's a hagiography with a fringe of god-channeling. Assuming the voice of god oneself is typical of personality-based cult leaders.   

I think Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle is well worth a read and expounds on these ideas, all of which I first read in Puzzle. Carrier believes Doherty's overall case succeeds as an argument of best explanation more viably than the arguments of those contending the historicity of the NT. Having read the book I tend to agree. 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

BUMP!

Come on guys! Let's add to this thread!

Yes, there is historical evidence that Jesus existed.  To quote the renowned historian and atheist Bart Ehrman, "Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being.  When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously.  Of course Jesus existed.  Everyone knows he existed (The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth)."  This is pretty much the consensus throughout the historical community.  Ehrman also states:

"Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine." 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

The historical, non-biblical evidence (not that the Bible isn't a historical document--it is) for the existence of Jesus includes the writings of Tacitus (Annals 15.44), Julius Africanus (Extant Writings, 18) and Pliny the Younger (Letters 10:96).  Attestation of the reality of Jesus is also confirmed via the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), and the writings of Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion and the Gnostics (Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection). 

Some atheists (mainly on the internet, like at this website) have tried to argue that none of the above documents were written when Jesus existed and/or that the aforementioned individuals were born after Jesus died.  However, contemporaneity has never been a requirement of history.  You can peruse almost any historical standard and be hard-pressed to find contemporaneity as a legitimate standard.  It should be noted that the following is true for almost any generally-accepted piece of ancient history:  (1) We do not have the originals of any ancient document--they are all copies; (2) No historical account of the mid-1st century events was contemporaneous, because (as far as I know) no such historians existed at that time in that particular area.  Moreover, the Roman sources of Jesus's time hardly mention anybody from that time period, and historians such as Ehrman will be happy to point out that you cannot discount the writings of Paul, who knew Peter and James; no credible, modern historian will deny Paul's authorship, nor will they claim that writings biased towards Jesus are such that their bias vitiates their historical viability. 

You can argue all night that Jesus wasn't really God in the flesh, but please don't embarrass yourselves by trying to claim that he didn't exist.  

Does it matter?

(The first quote is from his book; the second quote is from the Huffington Post.)  

It's quite amusing when atheists try to supplant real historians.  Here is a hilarious Youtube clip of Ehrman undercutting the Infidel Guy; you can hear Infidel Guy's world crashing down as someone on his atheist team undercuts his own preposterous beliefs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

If you are willing to use "text" interchangeably with cuneiform, then yes.  But your point is taken.

That's a different topic.

I'm confused.  

Are you saying that he didn't really write that article for the Huffington Post, but rather someone else wrote the article on his behalf and falsely claimed it to be his words?  

If there are multiple other venues in which he says things, how is that not "first hand knowledge" of his position?

I wish not to belabor the semantic issues, so I'll revise my statement as such:  There are no original documents from antiquity written on paper; they are all copies.

I hardly consider off-the-cuff comments to be topic-openers.  Shall we also get into the topic of Egyptian papyrus, since you happened to mention it earlier?

WRONG! Ehrman is the one embarassing himself by citing bible mythology as evidence for Jesus! There is NO objective historical evidence outside the bible of Jesus! Ehrman is hardly an atheist since he is NOT objective and he is hellbent on proving Jesus exists! Plus Ehrman is a MORON for not knowing all the historical figures who were contemporaries of Jesus yet never mentioned him!

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion―nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence

 1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias

"Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

 Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the disciples or apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information of the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

 ^{LOOK at all those historical figures who lived at the SAME time and SAME place as the alleged Jesus yet NEVER mentioned him!! Bart Ehrman is THOROUGHLY OWNED!!}

Banned for being a scumbag.

You aren't missing anything. Everywhere else he just said "I want to stick my dick up your ass" and other similair stuff.

In this thread he was pretty civil.  I just would love to see his reaction when I totally OWNED his ass! I bet he still read it even though he can't post!

Ehrman is an ignorant MORON! He totally ignores the historical characters who wrote about the world who lived at the same time and place and Jesus yet NEVER mentioned any Jesus!  Ehrman says he is "not aware of any" historical figures at the time of Jesus!  What a MORON!!