An actor playing the character Harry Potter is a real person, but who the hell believes that a boy can actually fly around on a broom?

Irrelivent issue to me. Proving that an actuall person named Jesus existing doesnt mean his mommy got pregnant via a "spirit" or that he got knocked off only to dance the jig after 3 days of death.

The city of New York is used as the backdrp of Superman movies but no rational person believes a man in red underwear with a cape can reverse the spin of the earth.

So, although I might have cut the fun out of this thread, which I hope I didnt for some. But it is people like Doublebleu who wont face direct questions about these magical claims and is why I avoid distracting issues.

Saying "Jesus" existed in no way proves any of the magical claims of the Bible.

But, if people want to argue this point, if it will help deconstruct an indoctrinated mind, please do so. 

"when clearly, Jesus never existed." 

I've always had a problem with both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar - I think from now on, I'm just going to deny that they ever existed too.!!

The reason I believe he never existed is a combination of there being NO evidence for it, and how much of the story is copied from earlier myths (almost all of it.) Also, there are plenty of things wrong historically with the bible story - There's no mention of the slaughter of the innocents outside the Bible (you'd think people would take note of such an atrocity!), and the trial of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is VERY inconsistant with Roman Law at the time.

If the Bible story is true, God is a pedophile. Damn, Christians, your God is sooo good. I'm so glad he doesn't exist.

Y'all seem to be getting off topic, so if I may.  I don't think being able to narrow it down to a specific day is realistic.  Maybe a month and year, maybe.  So, just for the sake of argument, let's say Jesus did exist.  For the question of when was he born, I've heard, and I can't remember where, that all one needs to do is read the story, and look at the societal structure of the time and place.  Since the story claims that he was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn, it stands to reason that he was born in April or March.  The reason behind this is simple, in the winter months inns where virtually vacant, it wasn't untill spring that all the travellers came out, the merchants started setting up shop, and trade routes bustled.  If anyone can give me more info, or perhaps enlighten me of any mis-information contained in this post, I beg you, please do!  I am on an eternal and honest search for fact and truth!

And I'm not close to you guys in scholarship, so this may be ridiculous, but what if instead of there being no Jesus of Nazareth there were really several of them.  Maybe one of them was all loving and all forgiving, another was nasty to the Pharisees, one was peaceful while another one threw the money changers out of the temple, and another just had it in for fig trees, etc.  The various stories came together when people were reminiscing and writing Q (Quelle, not the guy on Star Trek).  Then Jesus could have multiple birthdays.  You atheists might have to go to war on six or eight Christmases a year! 

Thandarr 

I think it's safe to assume that most of us know why December 25 was choosen to be Jesus's birthday.  My question is, why was the year 0 decided for his birth?

Well, I feel that's not too far from what happened. Just take some ideas from those crazy prophets from a long time ago, then take some ideas from other religions. Make a tall tale from it.

Gee, I think I'll stop believing in rockets and submarines - after all, the ideas were "lifted" from a work of fiction by a writer who lived in the 1800's (Jules Verne).

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between mechanical things (which fiction can inspire, and people can subsequently create), and people who can't be created from fiction.

Thandarr, did you mean multiple versions of a mythological Jesus?  Or multiple messiahs (mythological or otherwise) named Jesus?

I have reason to doubt your claim on John here.  John has no real mention anywhere outside the Gospels.  Not even in Josephus is the story so clear.

Also it's important to note that in both times John appears in Josephus he isn't called John the Baptiser but "John the Essene" which is a distrintly different thing all together. A lot of jewish sects probably practiced baptising as an initiation rite, but that doesn't mean they were all Essenes. I suspect this is not the same John from the Gospels.

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." Book 18, Chapter 5, Paragraph (It's interesting to note, that his is the same book as the TF).

Ok, thanks. I think I should probably start learning Greek

As I was reading this thread I see two different questions: Did Jesus exist and (2) if he did exist, when was he born.

 As far as the second question we all know that his birthday was not December 25th.  The day is simply those who do believe in him celebrate it.  Think of it in terms if your birthday was on Monday so you decided to celebrate it on Sunday instead so it would be easier for family and friends to all get together.  I think everyone should be in agreement of that...

 As far as if Jesus actually lived...I started wondering what about the other historical figures discussed in the gospels?  Did Pontius Pilate?  What about the brothers of Jesus?  The Herods?  Caiaphas?  All these have proof that they have in fact existed so its interesting how many of you dismiss it so easily.  Of course the biggest source of external proof was the book "Antiquities of the Jews".  I looked up a few things from the William Whiston translation (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/josephus/).  Book 20, Chapter 9, section 1 discusses one of Jesus' brothers, James.  I was reading elsewhere on the net about an archaeological find of James' burial box, concerning the findings of Pilate and Roman documents that prove he was around, and of course the additional Jewish information of a man they condemed.  So with all these signs pointing to the most probable existence of Jesus, are you guys basing your thought of he didn't exist only because you don't believe in God?  I don't believe in Islam but I don't deny that Muhammad existed.  I find it interesting that those who value science won't accept good scientific evidence.

But we aren't talking about every character, only one.  Now I made reference to those around Jesus at the time because if the surrounding evidence supports that Jesus existed, why is it that you won't accept the evidence of Jesus himself OUTSIDE THE BIBLE as a source?  Know what I mean? 

If I told you that Charles Darwin never existed and the man in the picture was actually someone else and Darwin was really a nom de plume from someone who just made the whole thing up, would you show me the evidence to prove that I was wrong?  And I told you that I didn't like that evidence because it was against my belief....what would you say?  Would you be confused how I cannot accept actual scienctific proof?  Would it be even more ignorant of me to selectively select what science I believe and which I don't?