Was Jesus an Historical Figure?

Jesus Christ is the most influential figure on the planet, with more than 2 billion worshippers worldwide and many more who fondly study his teachings. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Jesus may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth?

Jesus was much larger than any single person--he was (and is) a spiritual state of mind! It was the Romans who fashioned him as a man and forbade anyone to question the act. This is apparent in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Even the great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer concluded that "There was no Jesus of Nazareth." Further, the Jews claim no history of him.

For the initial Christians, to regard Jesus as "flesh and blood" was considered not only ignorant, but blasphemous! This is apparent in the writings of the Apostle Paul. But Paul was a Gnostic (one who experiences) as opposed to a Pistic (one who accepts on faith).

If you find these comments helpful, I hope you'll pursue them!

- Actual Historian

jesus story was just a myth

We are the best soccer jersey supplier, all the soccer jerseys on jerseybbs.com are REPLICA SOCCER JERSEYS, but their quality are good, because many soccer jersey shopping websites are selling our discount soccer jerseys, espcially the thailand quality cheap soccer jerseys, They are the same as the official jerseys

According to a figure that most of the luxury brands consumer in China range frome 2os to 30s.
wholesale polo shirts are all young Women's love, wearing the designers will attract passerby glance, it make them be in good mood all the day.

With the increase in printing needs all over the world, manufacturers of Ink Cartridges are hard pressed to meet the ever-increasing demand. Consumer satisfaction ranks highest in the quest to fulfill company priorities. Buying printers is relatively cheap nowadays, but unfortunately, the Ecco Key West Mens same thing cannot be said about the CISS or cartridges that require to be replaced often.

The online store to buy replica Louis Vuitton bags, wallets and purse of top most designer

R4 Series,r4i Series,R4DS,R4i SDHC,R4i Gold,R4i Card for NDSi XL/NDSi/DSL/NDS - UseeGames.Com
cocogamer.com is one of most reliable sellers which engage in r4i gold and r4i sdhc , including all the most popular R4i and R4 3DS Cards at favorable price

BrandDream, Top designer apparel supplier, FREE SHIPPING(for orders of 10pcs to US, UK, CA and AU), louboutin shoes, Cheap Ralph Lauren polo shirts, Cheap Ed Hardy Wholesale, juicy couture tracksuits, Cheap Christian Louboutin Shoes, Discount Sheepskin Boots, Wholesale Abercrombie, Christian Audigier Clothing and Shopping
wholesale designer clothing, accept Credit Card and PayPal, Quality Guarantee, Good Discounts and Trusty Business.

Do you know the different between the replica and fake watch? In fact the replica watches is made from the similar material and parts with the orginal one,the more important it is legal, however the fake is illegal.

A wide range of high quality and excellent perfermance wholesale Jerseys, wholesale nike shox, Cheap Nike airmax Shoes wholesale and Cheap Nike airmax Shoes in our shop welcome your visit.wholesale Jerseys, wholesale nike shox, Cheap Nike airmax Shoes, Cheap Nike airmax Shoes wholesale.
cheap soccer jerseys,replica soccer jerseys are very high sales volume, and many people liked to buy it replica soccer jerseyscheap soccer jerseys.

We mainly deal with handbags, shoes, garment, promotions and gifts. wholesale designer handbags, Wholesale shoes from china, wholesale fashion accessories, wholesale designer sunglasses, wholesale products from china. For many years' experience, our companies has been always complying with the contract and attaching great importance to good faith.

Newest styles and brands of hats & caps including baseball caps, new era cap, DC fitteds, fillipino flag hats and sports team caps.

We specialize in shower head andtowel rack of high quality and favorable price .The shower head that we provide has many advantages: 1. They quickly bring water; 2. The handles of environmental protection are in favour of our health;3.The color and style are wonderful. At the same time ,towel rack that we provide is durable and beautiful.We are sure that we will offer you satisfactory products and service
Anviz Biometric manufactures a complete range of biometric products including Fingerprint Time Attendance , fingerprint access control, fingerprint lock, USB fingerprint reader, OEM fingerprint module Fingerprint Access Control etc.

Jesus was real; it is the events surrounding his life that should come into question.. We need religion for culture, I think?lol..

It's ludicrous to blame the mass slaughters by communist dictators and Hitler on
belief in evolution. Stalin,Hitler,Mao and the others did not cause so much evil because of their belief in evolution(and Hitler did not by the way),but because they were evil to begin
Did Atilla,Genghis Khan and Tamerlane need Darwin to slaughter vast numbers of people?
Evil individuals will always use any excuse to commit evil acts.
It's neither atheism or religion which cause evil,but evil people.

Jesus is real period. He walked this earth so that people can be saved. He knew all would not except that is why hell is also real. God gave all humans a choice, but its up to you to take it or not.

The answer is yes. You may not belive in it, but if you don't, what do you believe in. Some people have to see it to believe it but if you don't trust in that he is real then why do you think you're on this earth living a healthy life. If he were not to die for us then why would anything change for the old days. We would still be punished for having our own religion. God gave his only son to save us all from a life of doom and hell.

One of the best explanations of the evidentialist objections I've found . For a detailed explanation of the subject see: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philosophy-religion/13789-evidentialist-objection-theistic-belief-rational.html

In reality, the entire argument is nothing more than " atheists " (In quotes, because, obviously, if they don't believe in God, why do they hate Him?), trying to shove their beliefs down everyone elses' throats?

In the thread cited above and quoted below, Augustine thoroughly explains the logical fallacies in the "Atheist's" Evidentialist Objection position.

To add to that, in order to prove the the "non-existance" of an omnipotent God, an " atheist " would have to possess infinite knowledge. In effect, then, the "atheists" argument that God doesn't exist because THEY don't accept the evidence is nothing more than an Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I have no "burden of proof" to prove something to someone who is too irrational to believe the evidence regardless of how persuasive or compelling it is. (See John 20:25)


"The evidentialist objection to theistic belief manifests itself in a multiplicity of forms. Typically, the evidentialist will thrust upon the individual holding theistic beliefs an obligation to qualify those beliefs with certain evidence. Now, this inquiry is not concerned with the veracity of the evidence proffered, nor is it concerned with the degree to which the evidence is, in point of fact, persuasive. However, this inquiry is concerned with the rationality of the evidentialist objection, whether there is sufficient epistemic warrant for the obligation to furnish certain evidence that supports the theistic belief in question."


I suppose you are also going to tell me Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are fake now?

I find it rather offensive to call Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ an "historical figure," as if he is simply some man who was around when important events happened some time ago. By framing your question in this way, you are disrespecting the Christian faith and all Christians , and definitely biasing the outcome of your poll . This is akin to asking, "Is Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation Worthless Because It Written On Cheap Paper?" Shame.

“I find it rather offensive to call Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ an "historical figure," as if he is simply some man who was around when important events happened some time ago.”

Except that a vast majority of the human population does not share your belief.

When you consider that we have at best a second hand record of Jesus’s very existence I find the question to be very valid when considering the truth of Christian claims. Considering the place that Jesus holds in Christian beliefs one would think that proving his existence would be very important.

“By framing your question in this way, you are disrespecting the Christian faith and all Christians , and definitely biasing the outcome of your poll .”

How does it bias the outcome of the poll? If Jesus really existed and was the Son of God then he is a historical figure. The question is framed open to consider the historical evidence for the existence / actions of Jesus

“This is akin to asking, "Is Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation Worthless Because It Written On Cheap Paper?" Shame.”

It is more like asking if Abraham Lincoln really existed, was President of the USA, and gave the Emancipation Proclamation when the only proof offered to date were the recollections of someone of the event written down by their granddaughter years after it occurred.

Maybe, there verry well could have been a Jew named Jesus who walked around preaching his own version of his book of worship and claiming he was the son of god . I like the idea of Jesus and God. Do I beleve in them or their magical powers? No, no more than that Santa's real or that the guy/gal who game me presents had magical powers.

I have a queston for you all though.
If someone walked up to you and told you that they were the son of say Zeus and that you should worship him and build him a house and place to worship him what would you do? Be honest.

In judging whether Jesus was a historic figure you first have to separate Jesus from Christian theology. Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. I don't believe in magic. What appears to be magic is simply a lack of the understanding of natural laws. I believe the Bible. The only thing I can't figure out in the account of Jesus is how he walked on water .

Blind can see in the literal sense.. Magic right?
He never claimed to be the son of god ? Really.. Dosen't sound right at all.

Ok, any time I say never it gets me in trouble. It is hinted at a couple of times in John, but the point is Jesus was not going around saying, "I am the Son of God, so follow me"

The teachings of Christ are the most inspirational, pacifistic, quotable words ever said.

Organized religion destroys everything?.. really? Any harm that is cited as the result of Christianity is the result of a lack of following the teachings. People have killed in the name of everything. and often in the name of nothing at all.

What type of smear campaign must you people run to suggest that a man who taught us to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, and died at OUR hands is somehow an instigator of violence.

Both Christians and Atheists alike are sinful beings. so many people go on some sort of strange delusion that once a person becomes a Christian this immediately changes..

All of the people who are so angry at religion need to seriously ask themselves. where does this anger come from? They launch into vicious assaults and make insulting remarks or blasphemous images.. for what reason? They devote tremendous amounts of time arguing against what they don't believe in!.. such a strange habit to pursue. I believe I know what's at the root of it.. how do I know? I was an atheist. I spent my days arguing against it to see if I could acquire enough reason TO believe it. There's one problem with such a path. words won't prove it. Belief comes from personal experience.

Yes Jesus was real.. that has been documented by witnesses who both believed in him and also secular sources.

Those who don't believe are often the types who fear that they will look foolish believing something that they feel isn't true..

Isn't it ironic then. that the most foolish I ever looked was when God found me..talk about embarrassed.

While there may have been a real man that "Jesus" was based upon, the myth would be unrecognizable to the people who actually knew the real man. It is similar to the real person of Saint Nicholas versus "Santa Claus". Paul probably is mostly to blame for embellishing (lying) to create the character he needed for his new religion . A reading of Paul's New Testament writings shows him to be a bitter, perverted little man.

Jesus most probably was just a myth, which has been blown out of proportion and made false tales into "truth".

Most of the gospels written about Jesus were written much later after he "died". One of the gospels, the gospel of Mark, mentions the destruction of the temple, which came about in the year 70 CE. Jesus is supposed to have died around the year 30 CE. There is at least a 40 year gap in the writing of the gospels and the life of Jesus. A 40 year memory gap might not neccessarily hold up as a valid interpretation of an actual event that happened, if such an event took place. Also, there are passages in scripture that make statements saying that Jesus was not a real person. In Hebrews 8:4, it says: "If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." The church ITSELF discounts the idea that Jesus was an actual human being.

I'm not sure what that tells you, but I'm pretty sure it means something.

..definitely not who he said he was. I think he was either mentally ill or just enjoyed the attention he got from claiming to be the son of the divine. I think he was a liar, an idiot, or both perhaps, but I definitely believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

Also, this whole "Virgin Birth" thing has got to go. Although it is possible given the right circumstances (even in mammals, which include the human race), "parthenogenesis" as it is called would only produce female offspring, and as such there is no confirmed case of human parthenogenesis.

Of course Jesus was a real man and a historical figure. Whether he was the Messiah or not is the real question that should be asked.

Is there really any downfall to believing in jesus? If he for a fact is not real then youll end up goin the same place everyone else does. If hes real and you believed in him, congratulations youre goin to heaven. If hes real and you dont.. enjoy eternal damnation

the dishonest and selfish people do not like the idea that people who are honest and giving are viewed as better, after all we're talkign about selifsh dishonest people. That's what they do. They defy logic. IT's a very powerful religious movement today being sponsored by the rich. IT's an old religion . Baal, Ishtar. Baal Astheroth. THese athiests or spiritualists, are the most religious of religions. Lies upon lies. Not a substance of truth in them. You don't build a house by throwing mud in the air, but these people do.

I am a person who went through my searching. I have also been subjected to some very venal and intense proselytizing by Christians (to no avail - I will never convert). Here is my perspective:
1. An all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, Supreme Being has positive, absolutely no need for an assistant or son. Jesus was a man, conceived by a man and a woman.
2. A true Messiah will get it right the first time. There is no need for second chances.
3. I don't need anyone to take responsibility for my sins. I'll take responsibility for those, thank you.
4. I don't go around trying to sell my religion as a part of my ticket to the afterlife.
5. Jesus provided many examples in his life. For me, the most positive one was the FACT that he was born a Jew and died a Jew. I'll follow that one.

Your comment raises good points

The downfall is that if it turns out the Christian religion is a hoax (which it is), you've wasted your life living by the stupid rules of the Holey Babble.

If it's not, well, I'd rather suffer eternal damnation than live with the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully you call "God."

The religion that bears his name, however, bears no relationship to his purported beliefs.
Christianity, in all its manifestations are primarily the directives of Paul, who was building the religion to resemble the Roman Guard.
Paul infiltrated this cult after the death of Jesus by pretending to have had a visitation from Jesus' Ghost.
This appearance as a ghost, Jesus acquired from his father, (according to his mother)

I realize that there is almost no evidence (and certainly no indisputable evidence) for his existence outside of the Bible itself. However, I do think it likely that there was a Jewish prophet named Jesus in the Jerusalem area in the neighborhood of a hundred or so years to one side or the other of 1 C.E. I think his message was likely a great deal different from that which was eventually distilled, over the course of the next 300 or so years, into what we know as the New Testament.

I have close to zero doubt that someone named "Jesus" was alive and well 2,000 or so years ago, but to the extent of what he did, I cannot say for sure. Thus, I think I could best describe my religious views as "agnosto-protestant."

The problem with assuming that the bible cannot serve as historical evidence because it is religious in nature is that you have to assume the same with all other historical books that are religious in nature. It would be like saying that Hammurabi (the sixth king of Babylon) never existed because people thought that he was sent by the gods to deliver law to his people. Then you would have to refute the Code of Hammurabi as a source of evidence for his existence because obviously his followers thought he was one of the gods. While there are those who date the gospels more than 100 years after Jesus’, still many non-Christian scholars grant that some of the epistles of Paul were written not later than 40 years after Jesus’ death, which is not drastic at all considering the man was supposed to have spent most of his later years imprisoned. You also have to concede that around 70 A.D. the Romans were going around to places in Israel and to Jerusalem and burning whole cities to the ground. I don’t imagine they would have treated historical documents of the cities they were ransacking too kindly.

There are non biblical writings that describe his existence as well. While it can’t be proven one way or the other I can’t believe that so much would be written if he was made up. Logic tells me he existed. What I don’t understand is why people like yourself have created a virtual Religion out of Atheism which is based as much on unprovable Faith as any Religion. Let people believe what they want. I actually believe that religion serves a useful purpose in that it keeps many people in line from an otherwise immoral path. You are no different in pushing your beliefs than any believer.

I agree there are a wide variety of non-biblical sources to verify his existence, but this next paragraph I agree with even more:

"What I don’t understand is why people like yourself have created a virtual Religion out of Atheism which is based as much on unprovable Faith as any Religion. Let people believe what they want. I actually believe that religion serves a useful purpose in that it keeps many people in line from an otherwise immoral path. You are no different in pushing your beliefs than any believer."

No kidding! It's amazing that less than 1% of the population (1% of Americans being atheist according to this survey: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm ) spends so much time flooding the internet with notions about how "rational" they are to whine about something they supposedly don't care about.

I'd call them cyber-mormons for those reasons but that comparison would be an insult....to the Mormons.

. which is the heart of the matter. They don't even use logic, they bludgeon their ego in an unscientific way. IT's really core to them, that honesty is irrelevant. Love and knowledge being superficial, they see no harm in empty arguments so long as weak minded chortle and coo along with their empty expressions.

These "super atheists" must have severe emotional problems. It all started with that wacko Madeline Murray O'Hair. Since atheism is a non belief then any normal atheist just wouldn't care about others beliefs. They would rather just be left alone.


What a clear and convincing bit of writing you have put together for this ‘debate’. My hat’s off to you. I agree with your argument, that Jesus was not significant, historically.

The issue of whether Jesus was real or not is in the largest sense almost irrelevant. Clearly the very idea of Jesus, and what he represents, has shaped history in a way no other person (real or imagined) can compare with.

I'd trust a contemporary source much more than one 150 yrs later.

But it's not that Jesus existed, but the facts about him have been badly twisted, mostly by Paul, another whom Jesus was never seen by.

Odd that Paul was brought before the early church made up of Jesus' brother James and surviving disciples for lying about Jesus 3x's, the third they almost killed him, No? Yet he is the real founder of Christianity? Doesn't that make one wonder why a liar according to Jesus' brother; started it?

The facts are Jesus was a Jew and followed that belief. Doesn't that make anyone really believing in Jesus have to be Jewish? Christianity started up after Jesus was dead for yrs based on lies Paul made up against the will of the early church.

Now add to that Jesus was killed for overturning the Money changer's tables because he didn't think anyone should make money off of God, No?

Yet it was Paul that introduced money changing back into the church and most churches now are headed by moneychangers wanting 10% just like Jesus fought against? To me it seems that Christianity is therefore based on lies for the money changing priests, clergy that now claim to follow Jesus when they do just what Jesus was against, No?

Another lie is the light brown haired Jesus who almost had to be black or close to it, certainly had kinky black hair, not the light brown, blue eyed one most 'churches' use.

I like Jesus, he was a radical who was for the church not stealing money from it's members which is really why he was killed, No?. Jesus meant for followers to personally find those in need and help them directly, not pay some preacher, a vocation Jesus meant was to be done for free. Jesus worked for a living and thought preachers should do the same, not leach off the followers.

Of course Christianity ignores why Jesus was obscure for his first 30 yrs of life working as a carpenter, not as the son of God?

As far as I can tell most of the new testament Bible was made up or changed to make a few people rich, powerful and everything Jesus hated, is just a bunch of money changers.

It's not Jesus I disagree with, it's his followers!! Jesus seemed to love, care for everyone yet most "Christians" use his name to hate, hurt others. Why? This is all in the bible if one looks realistically instead of the distortion Preachers say.

It's only been 10 yrs since the Southern Baptist finally was able to get enough votes to rule that blacks were human instead of only 3/5's human thus could enslave them. Now it's their pogroms against gays, Jews, other religions, people ect. Not something Jesus would have tolerated. He'd be infuriated against the church done in his name just as he was against the priests in the Temple.

And it's these facts that have made me an atheist. It seems people will believe anything even 2000 yr old stories to be part of a group. They'll hurt, even kill those whom, even family, don't believe as they do. Notice they pick the weak, not so bright people who are too lazy to or not able to think for themselves just so they can belong to a group.

Despite most women until recently died from having too many children the church is still against birth control for their selfish gain of having more sheep to shear. Rather than the women whom they considered man's property, not free people. Not something Jesus would have let happen.

Christianity was made to control people, take their money and power, not about Jesus at all.


I would advise people to look at the information on www.messiahtruth.com It contains great analysis and good interpretations of Judaism v. Christianity. I especially like the part where it tells how the family of Jesus was concerned about his mental health . A mentally healthy Jesus would have denied his divinity. Further, it shows where the Tanakh (Old Testament to Christians ) states that the messiah would be biologically created and born to human parents.

That's kind of funny. Not many people got rich or powerful from the early documents that eventually became the current Bibles (with/without various levels of apocrypha). The re-interpretation and degree of strictness in applying certain teachings in the Biblical documents may have benefitted some more than others. For most of the first three hundred years, however, getting involved in Christianity was dangerous. Anyone attempting to change the documents for power or prestige or money - how would he gain that? By the time it became relatively safe to be Christian - in fact, long before that -, there were enough copies of the documents that anyone attempting to change something ran the risk of being run out of town on four horses, drawn and quartered.

That is not to say that different documents did not show differences. They surely did. For the most part, the differences are inconsequential in terms of doctrine (there are a couple of exceptions).

It is possible to project backwards from today to get a false view. Today, some people do get wealthy from preaching. The President-elect's pastor is finishing a one and a half million dollar home for himself. So maybe the early Christian pastors made a killing like that? There seems to be less evidence for that than there is for the existence of Jesus, so I'd have to disbelieve it.


That is a common distortion of history. Nobody ever held that blacks (actually, slaves, not blacks) were 3/5 human. They were always considered fully human, save by a few hyper-racists who considered them sub-human. The 3/5 related to the apportionment of delegates to Congress. Since slaves could not vote, non-slave states did not want them included in the head count. To continue the faulty reasoning of slaves being 3/5 human, we would have to recognize that abolitionists didn't consider them human at all! Because abolitionists didn't want them counted as citizens unless they could vote. Which is an absurd slander to place on abolitionists who in fact considered slaves more human than did those people counting them as 3/5 MORE of a person than the abolitionists were doing.

The Southern Baptists were not slavers. Slavery was in place when the Southern Baptists came into separate existence. If I am not mistaken, by that time, importation of slaves was forbidden. If that is accurate, then they could not legally have been importing slaves.

When the controversy over slavery heated up, many denominations split into northern abolitionist sub-denominations, and southern pro-slave sub-denominations. The division was based on contemporary social reality and evolving philosophical leaning. They did not count them as 3/5 human SO they could enslave them. They didn't count them as 3/5 human at all. It was the U.S. Constitution, not a church definition. The Democratic Party insisted on counting slaves somehow, regardless of the fraction. The Whigs and lesser parties were, apparently, either not morally strong enough, or not personally concerned enough (they were an early form of Libertarian) to fight hard enough against either the 3/5 clause or slavery generally.

Btw, I have never read that any denomination had voted to declare blacks (slaves) to be non-human (3/5 human), or that they had even voted to declare them to be human. This is a very significant factor, if true. However, at first glance it sounds like an urban legend. If you have citations for this, I hope you will share them.


The existence and behavior of modern churches would seem to be irrelevant in regards to whether Jesus existed or not. People in all religions, and with no religion at all, commit crimes and atrocities. Churches have no monopoly on that. Nor do they have a monopoly on hypocrisy or arrogance. Those vices are part of the common human condition; we've all got 'em. The one monopoly that religion or churches and their advocates may have today is that they are a favorite target of calumny and organized hatred.

Did or did not Jesus die because he went after the moneychangers tables in the Temple where the priests got 10% of everyone's money for blessing the other 90%? So no matter what happened afterward, Jesus was killed because he didn't think anyone should make money off of god especially off the poor.

Nor did I say those whom came afterward early did though Paul/Saul did introduce it back into the early church.

However in about 300AD 'Christians' when they codified the NT certainly starting taking tithing from the flocks against what the only real thing we know about Jesus, why he was killed. And now almost all pastors, preachers, ect leach off the flocks. So now all the Christian churches are run by moneychangers what Jesus killed for to stop. Yet they call themselves Christians!! g

Of course if you want to con people out of money, 'Christian's' are a good starting group as you know they'll believe anything to belong to a group, even old wives tales like the Bible.

As for the Southern Baptist not believing blacks were fully human, it was Jimmy Carter's sect that he quit over it about 10 yrs ago. And then it was barely a majority for them being fully human!!. I live in the South and such bull is still believed as fact among too many.

Religion, Race is only around so people can be a member of a group and rallied to attack others, power, money for the few leaders. All 'race' is is the adaptation of the skin to tropical climates to keep them from getting v. D poisoning from too much sun or other local adaptation. And the very white which I am from northern climates are so the skin makes enough D. Notice all around the world people living near the equator have dark skin even though different 'Races'.

A joke, What's wrong with baptist is they don't hold them underwater long enough ;^D

The only reasonable conclusion to this argument is that the state of the evidence precludes and will probably always preclude drawing any conclusions about whether there was a real man named Jesus who had something to do with the origin of Christianity. The historical Jesus is unrecoverable, and his mere existence is one of the many things we don't know and aren't going to find out.

Suspending judgment on this issue is not much of a problem for nonbelievers interested in understanding Christianity as a historical phenomenon because, contrary to a well-nigh universal prejudice, knowing the origin of a tradition isn't very important—its the elaboration that creates the significance. The funny thing is, the question is also not particularly important for old-school believers either since establishing the historicity of Jesus is the least of their problems. The authenticity of a paragraph in Josephus isn't going to make the notion that a god-man died for our sins and rose from the dead more or less plausible to anyone who isn't already one of the faithful.

By the way, is anybody considering that there is a third possibility besides the existence or nonexistence of a historical Jesus? It seems perfectly plausible to me that there may have been two or more Jesuses who got melded together as the Jesus of the NT.

Vardish Fisher, in his "Testament of Man" series, which seems curiously difficult to locate now, included one volume titled (if memory is right) "Jesus Walked Again". He follows a prophet-character, describes others. The main character is sort of a cross between saint, fanatic, doubting Thomas, and crucified savior/criminal. The story is intriguing and the material he presents, supported with references, makes your tertium quid believable. It would not be surprising were we to learn that the story of the real Jesus did get embellished with tales from other figures; in fact, I'm positive it did.

If the Apocalypse gives no support for the historicity of Jesus, whether or not it is ”an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from which Christianity sprang”, to describe it as such is irrelevant and quarrelsome Lamb, anointed one, savior, and other terms occur frequently in both OT and NT. The terms when appearing in the NT are obviously used most of the time in connection with Jesus. I don’t know how many times ”Lamb” is mentioned in the NT, but ”astral being” occurs none. It is easier to connect Enuma Elish and the OT, perhaps, to ancient astrology. Unfortunately, to attempt a connection of the New Testament and references to the Lamb with ancient astrology seems a stretch. I hope someone will list the presumed astrological references, as I find that aspect of ancient religions particularly interesting, and believe astrological beliefs have served at times as a bridge from one set of religious beliefs to another. nnMuch of what was said in so-called :) refutation of the reality of a Jesus could be said even more convincingly of earlier figures such as Adam, Moses, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Tarquin, Socrates, and Julius Caesar. nnIf evidence is reasonable, we should accept it. If some of the evidence is unreasonable, we still should accept the part that is reasonable. Whether or not Jesus raised his physical body from death seems unreasonable, and suffers from a paucity of evidence. There are reasonable alternative explanations to how or why several people claimed to have seen him after his death. However, the fact that Jesus did walk the earth is reasonable, and has sufficient corroboration from a number of primary and secondary sources. I may be mistaken, but I think for Adam, Moses, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Tarquin, Socrates, and Julius Caesar, we have only secondary sources. Some of the heat in arguments about whether Jesus actually existed is due to [many] Christians teaching that Jesus is God. Since I don’t believe Jesus was God, I don’t have a problem with admitting he existed. Those unconfident or uncomfortable with their atheist faith feel called to deny his existence in order to shut another door to the existence of God. In this case, there’s no one behind the door, so time is wasted on a non-issue, and relevant evidence is ignored or quibbled. ”So-called” seems a redundant description for any label. Some say that the gospels are ”the good news”. “So-called” gospels and “so-called” good news; that’s what people do call them. We could as easily call arguments against the existence of Jesus: ”so-called arguments”. That’s what people call them. When such otherwise redundant caveats as “so-called” are used, a due explanation should be given for their use. The word often only reflects a writer’s unsubstantiated opinion.)

”I believe it’s quite possible someone like Jesus walked the Earth or maybe it was actually someone named Jesus who was a man of great word and honor….But that ”Virgin Birth” deal, that’s the one that really throws it ”Out of the Ball Park”, so to speak…..Give me a break….Would this then mean that the ”Blessed Virgin Mary” is the FIRST female to encounter Artificial Insemenation? Just asking….Organized Religion destroys everything….It IS ”The Root of All Evil”...Happy Holidays!!!

People - People
Most of you probably never even read the Bible to consider the message in the life of Jesus.
Keep pushing your own agenda (or the devil's - your father's agenda)
Just a bunch of people who worship science or self proclamation or ..

Any Way YOU look at it - IS Twisted!
This should be called TwistedViews.com

PS. Anyone found the origin of matter and energy yet? Maybe someone has created life from nothing?
Oh - you were there through science - I forgot - your idol of self understanding!
How can miracles exist I ask? - why by their own definition it would be an all powerful God entering in to man's limited understanding - but you just right it off by you own big head, saying miracles don't exist - which proves how little you truely know.

Did Jesus exist then? - ask the people who knew him - his witnesses
Does Jesus exist today? - ask the people who LOVE Like Him - his family

First of all, what a jerk-ass statement. Second of all, what is wrong with you that you have only weird, random access to punctuation marks. "Great word and honor"?

People are the only constant in religions: Therefore people are the root of evil that they choose, not religion .

it's prejudice hateful dishonest EGO that is evil. That's what you have here, now stop blaming things outside of yourself because you're out of bounds.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion .
Steven Weinberg

Lots of good people do evil things and they no of no religion .Your statement is way off even for you!