This is long overdue, I am going to start the debate of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was in fact a historical being. I am an atheist so I am going to make my case, first against his divinity. Although his story is not completely identical to previous pagan deities, there are several parallels, for instance

Roman Wine God Dionysus: Born of a virgin, Son of a god, turned water into wine, died and was resurrected.

Persian God Mithra: Born of a virgin on December 25th, given gifts by wise men, healed the sick, died for man's atonement, resurrected and would return in later years to save the faithful, had 12 disciples.

Hindu God Krishna: Born of virgin, son of Vishnu, known as "Our Lord and Saviour" died on a tree with holes in his hands and feet. King Kansa tried to kill him by killing all male children in the area.

This is far from an extensive list. If anyone has solid evidence for Jesus Christ's physical existence, tell me....

You haven't stated your case very well, no offence. You should have also talked about how scholars believe the four gospels were written years after Jesus was supposed to live, that two of the gospels literally lifting 90% of the text of Mark (which is chronologically the first of the gospels) and embellishing it, caused contradictions between all of them, that the fourth gospel (I think) is worthless because Jesus isn't even described as a man but as a spirit, and that this combined with some other stuff I can't remember proving that whoever it was who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses. This, combined with all the geological inaccuracies, makes them practically useless for the most part.

Oh, and you forgot the Egyptian god Osiris, who was the first Dionysus, Mithra, Jesus, whatever. Also, it's hilarious that Dionysus was founded in 2000BC (that's 2000 years before the supposed birth of Jesus) and in his stories was born the son of Zeus and a virgin woman, turned water into wine, died and came back to life the savior of mankind.

Based on my own Biblical research, I've come to the conclusion that Christianity is nothing but a hodgepodge of myths and that Jesus is no more real than Hercules.

how about the fact that he is only mentioned in the bible, surely a man of such fame, god or not, would have been written down some place else?

You haven't stated your case very well, no offence. You should have also talked about how scholars believe the four gospels were written years after Jesus was supposed to live, that all three gospels stole the major story from Mark, two of them literally lifting 90% of his text and embellishing them, causing contradictions between all of them, and that this combined with some other stuff I can't remember proving that whoever it was who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses.

Good point, but at I stated tghat I would first provide evidence that the story of Jesus's holiness was plagarised, I want to know about the legitimacy of his factual existence

(which is chronologically the first of the gospels) .

No , Robinson argues a persuasive case for parts of john.

how about the fact that he is only mentioned in the bible, surely a man of such fame, god or not, would have been written down some place else?

It is true that scholars doubt the existence of Socrates, yet they have more evidence for his existence than that of Jesus. Jesus isn't mentioned anywhere at all. The only things Christians really have is a brief paragraph in the writings of a Jewish historian that scholars now believe to be forged!

how about the fact that he is only mentioned in the bible, surely a man of such fame, god or not, would have been written down some place else?

There's stuff about him in the Koran.



Whether or not he existed, his life is a great example of how to live a love filled life. To experience untainted love at all times is heaven. This can be reached by everyone through understanding as taught by Jesus, Buddha, life experience, the behavior of children, bad luck, good luck, hurting people, helping people, etc etc

Whether or not he existed, his life is a great example of how to live a love filled life.

His morals are terrible. There's so much underlying malice, nihilism and egoism behind all the feigned love of man and equality.

There is NO 'direct' historical evidence that JC existed.

It is that simple.

There is however a whole truckful of 'indirect' evidence (for example both 'Q' and the Logion point to concrete a historical source).

Like I said before, you pays your money and yous make your choice.

His morals are terrible. There's so much underlying malice, nihilism and egoism behind all the feigned love of man and equality.

His morals were terrible?
Care to provide some examples or expand upon that?

There is however a whole truckful of 'indirect' evidence (for example both 'Q' and the Logion point to concrete a historical source).

Isn't "Q" supposedly a book of nothing but moral teachings attributed to a man named Jesus that a bunch of "followers" carried around, and in the end it spurned the savior cults we have today that began making up stories about the moral teacher? Plus isn't it only a hypothetical lost text, meaning they have no fragments of it?

Also, from what I've just read, the Logia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logia) hardly seem like hard evidence.

His morals were terrible?
Care to provide some examples or expand upon that?

It's just a personal opinion, as subjective as yours. Don't get your panties in a twist. I won't provide samples though; not because I don't have any, but because I was stupid to say what I said in the first place, since it could easily lead to this thread being taken off topic.

PS, the Koran was written after Jesus's supposed existence by a man who would have been aware of Christianity, so that's not evidence.

Isn't "Q" supposedly a book of nothing but moral teachings attributed to a man named Jesus that a bunch of "followers" carried around, and in the end it spurned the savior cults we have today that began making up stories about the moral teacher?

Well that might be one rather jaundiced view of it.

But really 'Q' is just a theory that the synoptics had an underlying source or 'Quelle' ( German for 'spring' or 'source').

His morals were terrible?
Care to provide some examples or expand upon that?

Love me or BURN IN HELL

mmm, I can feel his ever present coercion- love, I mean love

Don't get your panties in a twist.

I just asked questions. Quit with the disrespect.

Also, from what I've just read, the Logia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logia) hardly seem like hard evidence. Did I claim they were?

PS, the Koran was written after Jesus's supposed existence by a man who would have been aware of Christianity, so that's not evidence.

His father-in-law was a christian and we can trace the jesus accounts in the Quran all the way back through certain sects.

Oh btw Hare, I used 'logion' and not 'logia' for a reason. I was really refering to the 'Thomas Gospel' more than anything else.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logion)

His father-in-law was a christian and we can trace the jesus accounts in the Quran all the way back through certain sects.

This actually interests me. Can you go into it in more detail?

Love me or BURN IN HELL

mmm, I can feel his ever present coercion- love, I mean love

What are you talking about?

This thread is mind-blowing.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus was "real" (what a joke!) or not, it matters whether you get something constructive out of the idea of him.

If you don't, that's your loss, move on to the next thing.

This actually interests me. Can you go into it in more detail?

LOl you would ask about that!

I can barely remember the details of it myself. Basically the quran just recounts what was taught by the nestorians (in regard to jesus

There is even apparently a muslim legend about mohammed being really friendly with a nestorian monk (monk =wild eyed whack job).

Not sure about the father-in-law bit, I'd have to look it up.

Jesus existed.

To even debate this is retarded.

Stop listening to the lies of Satan and start reading God's word (http://www.biblegateway.com)!

Love me or BURN IN HELL

mmm, I can feel his ever present coercion- love, I mean love

You're completely wrong. All people are supposed to burn in hell because of their sins; however, God created an easy way for all to be saved.

He sacrificed his own son, Jesus, for our sins.

You're completely wrong. All people are supposed to burn in hell because of their sins; however, God created an easy way for all to be saved.

He sacrificed his own son, Jesus, for our sins.

Do you have any proof that Vishnu didn't send Krishna to die for mankind???

What are you talking about?

This thread is mind-blowing.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus was "real" (what a joke!) or not, it matters whether you get something constructive out of the idea of him.

If you don't, that's your loss, move on to the next thing.

You seem to forget most christians believe the bible as literal fact. Not as a metaphor like your implying. So this entire thread would be to discuss the literal interpretation of the bible.

You seem to forget most christians believe the bible as literal fact. Not as a metaphor like your implying. So this entire thread would be to discuss the literal interpretation of the bible.

Literal interpretation of anything is a perfect way to come to the wrong conclusion. Everything is a metaphor for God; life is the most epic poem, written by and dedicated to Him.

how about the fact that he is only mentioned in the bible, surely a man of such fame, god or not, would have been written down some place else?


There wasn't a whiole lot of books being written at the time. There is no question that Jesus existed as a historical person, but the myths about him are just that--myths.

Read one of the gospels in the original Greek, and it strongly imples that Jesus did NOT die on the cross.

There is no question that Jesus existed as a historical person
There is.

Do you have any proof that Vishnu didn't send Krishna to die for mankind???

No, but we BELIEVE (which you people just cant comprehend) that Jesus came to die on the cross to cleanse us from our sins.

BTW the OP is misguided there were prophecies in the Bible about how God's son was going to come and provide a permanent attonement for sin and all that but you just like to assume that christians borrowed from hindus rather than wondering if hindus stole from Judism because you see christianity as a bigger threat since it is the has the most followers so you try to tear it apart so you feel better about not accepting the truth.

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. Judaism arguably the second. Yet Judaism was for awhile handed down generation to generation orally, so we have no idea what the stories were like originally (meaning it's probable they were distorted with time). Also, modern scholars claim that the messianic concept was introduced during the age of the prophets and therefore later in the history of Judaism. The messianic concept isn't even mentioned anywhere in the Torah, meaning, you guessed it, Krishna probably predates Judaism's messiah. This combined with the fact that the Jewish argue Jesus hadn't fulfilled all the necessary prophecies makes for a very poor case.

I'm not 100% sure on this though, so hopefully Jackketch will come to the rescue. :p

Seems what i said the other day about surprises in the 'was jesus white?' thread was rather apt!

Just heard on the news that archeologists in Israel claim to have found the tomb of Herod.

Which just goes to show that maybe Ol' Jo wasn't totally off...

(and yes before anyone says 'ahhh but this doesn't prove Jesus existed!' please note I'm not claiming it does! Although it encourages me to think that the last word on whether he did or not has yet to be written)

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world.

It is?

It is?

Well recorded religion. The Vedas were written around 1,500 B.C.E while the Torah was supposedly written down around 1,400 B.C.E

Well recorded religion. The Vedas were written around 1,500 B.C.E while the Torah was supposedly written down around 1,400 B.C.E

I know next to nothing about Hinduism, but I'd lay money they copied of someone else...tends to be the way of these things.

As it says in the bible and no doubt in the Vedas somewhere too , 'ain't much new under the sun' especially when it comes to religion, not now and not then.

I know next to nothing about Hinduism, but I'd lay money they copied of someone else...tends to be the way of these things.

The only other religions I could think of are animisms, which were very basic, but I could see Hinduism slowly developing out of them.

The only other religions I could think of are animisms, which were very basic, but I could see Hinduism slowly developing out of them.

I'm way outta my comfort zone here but I'm guessing that some of the chinese folk religions predate even the vedic period...maybe even back to neolithic times. Also maybe some of the eastern europe/russian/causcaus stuff. As you say , animalistic stuff.

No, but we BELIEVE (which you people just cant comprehend) that Jesus came to die on the cross to cleanse us from our sins.

BTW the OP is misguided there were prophecies in the Bible about how God's son was going to come and provide a permanent attonement for sin and all that but you just like to assume that christians borrowed from hindus rather than wondering if hindus stole from Judism

Hinduism predates Judaism dumbfuck

Hinduism predates Judaism dumbfuck

In your opinion.

BTW calling people names is a good way to look mature :rolleyes:

"No, but we BELIEVE blah blah blah"

Just because you BELIEVE something doesn't make it TRUE. You need FACTS to back up your BELIEF, otherwise it is nothing more than a BASELESS ASSERTION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_by_age
(There is a source on the page itself, read the whole thing if you like.)

Stupid little bitch.

Never site wikipedia again it is the biggest pile of shit site if you want facts (besides meanings of words then it is in most cases acceptable) I dont know how many times ive said that it also has no sources even wikipedia points that out (although i does lead you to a site it has no useful imformation) and no i dont need facts to back up my belief although i do im just simply pointing out that you DONT need facts to believe in something althoughI shouldnt be responding to you because of you childish name calling.

BTW just because there is no written record before that time dosnt mean it didnt exist your just showing how illogical you are.

In your opinion.



No, its a fact, cretin

No, its a fact, cretin

Oh you were finished i was under the impression you were going to go one step forward (which i have seen no one do) and present this "fact".

BTW as I have mentioned just because there is no written record dosnt mean it wasnt around.

Like i said name calling is still very childish even when you use a medical term.

BTW just because there is no written record before that time dosnt mean it didnt exist your just showing how illogical you are.

Actually, scholars are aware of this, but they still believe Hinduism is the older. You see, you're making the illogical conclusion that it was around and was older just because it makes you comfortable, but that doesn't mean anything without evidence; which scholars do have. But we can't know anything about Judaism in its original form, since, if you've read your history books, you would know it was originally passed down word of mouth, meaning it was possibly corrupted, and then the Tanakh had a lot of changes throughout history. That whole messiah crap you harp on about wasn't added until years after the Torah was finished and is found nowhere in it.

There is however a whole truckful of 'indirect' evidence (for example both 'Q' and the Logion point to concrete a historical source).

Q as in the Q Gospel? Are they still trying to decipher the Q out of the 4 Canonical Gospels? Or did they actually find something else that has lead them to believe it actually exists?

There wasn't a whiole lot of books being written at the time. There is no question that Jesus existed as a historical person, but the myths about him are just that--myths.


That's how I feel. I think Jesus was another Religious Revolutionary. Religion was the law of the land and he wanted to revolutionize it by riding into town at the right time, at the right place, on the right animal. Oral accounts of what he has done were just over exaggerated before they even got to someone who decided to write them down.

Jesus = wannabe Buddha.

Actually, scholars are aware of this, but they still believe Hinduism is the older. You see, you're making the illogical conclusion that it was around and was older just because it makes you comfortable, but that doesn't mean anything without evidence; which scholars do have. But we can't know anything about Judaism in its original form, since, if you've read your history books, you would know it was originally passed down word of mouth, meaning it was possibly corrupted, and then the Tanakh had a lot of changes throughout history. That whole messiah crap you harp on about wasn't added until years after the Torah was finished and is found nowhere in it.

Just because they say they have proof dosnt make it so, this man says he has proof as well do you believe him?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eA4U01GloQc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schneider

You are just saying all this stuff and agree with them because unlike this man it is far less unbelievable and it makes you fell good to believe their claims.

How the fuck do you know how I feel about anything unless I say? Besides, they are more believable because they're not nut cases talking about fighting aliens underground who was "never able or willing to prove his allegations", they're historians with actual sources you can track down by going to the library or phoning a museum or anthropology center. It's true that historians have made stuff up in the past (like claiming people believed the earth was flat and the Christians who forged an historical account of Jesus), but that's why you never say you know something 100% without looking into it for yourself.

Honestly, that's a fucking weak argument (and the most biased wikipedia article I have ever seen, in all honesty).

This debate is one of pedantic foolishness. A hard skeptic can never be convinced of anything. We have a greater number of references from antiquity about Jesus than most prominent figures from those times that we all accept existed. Between the canonical texts and the christian apocrypha, we find more documentation to substantiate the existence of Jesus than the existence of Ceasar. Beyond that, the existence of Christianity alone should provide enough evidence for the existence of Jesus. Stop arguing about whether or not he existed and start using what texts we have to answer the more important question, which is whether or not he was divine.

This debate is one of pedantic foolishness. A hard skeptic can never be convinced of anything. We have a greater number of references from antiquity about Jesus than most prominent figures from those times that we all accept existed. Between the canonical texts and the christian apocrypha, we find more documentation to substantiate the existence of Jesus than the existence of Ceasar. Beyond that, the existence of Christianity alone should provide enough evidence for the existence of Jesus. Stop arguing about whether or not he existed and start using what texts we have to answer the more important question, which is whether or not he was divine.

Yes we have countless souces to substantiate that JC existed but none of them come close to being 'proof' in an historical sense. Even accepting the possibilty that parts of John are infact an eyewitness account...they may well just be the ramblings of an old man.

Divine? yes, 'god' no.

Yes we have countless souces to substantiate that JC existed but none of them come close to being 'proof' in an historical sense. Even accepting the possibilty that parts of John are infact an eyewitness account...they may well just be the ramblings of an old man.

Divine? yes, 'god' no.


There is no 'proof' other than historical documentation. We have those. We have tons, many dating into antiquity.

I never said anything about John being an eyewitness account?

From what I've discovered: Divine? No.

Edit: I decided that what you meant by, 'they don't come close to being historical proof' you meant that you think archaeological evidence is necessary? You think that unless we have archaeological evidence of a figure from antiquity, then we can't be pretty certain that they existed? That's fallacious.

This debate is one of pedantic foolishness. A hard skeptic can never be convinced of anything. We have a greater number of references from antiquity about Jesus than most prominent figures from those times that we all accept existed. Between the canonical texts and the christian apocrypha, we find more documentation to substantiate the existence of Jesus than the existence of Ceasar. Beyond that, the existence of Christianity alone should provide enough evidence for the existence of Jesus. Stop arguing about whether or not he existed and start using what texts we have to answer the more important question, which is whether or not he was divine.

I disagree. All the Christian texts were written years after Jesus's supposed existence. For Caesar, we have sculptures from the time, remains of relatives, one of his homes, letters and documents from around that time, loads of accounts, and his face aging on freaking coins! Plus a lot, lot more. What do we have for the supposed son of God? A forged entry in the work of a Jewish historian and that's it. No surviving letters by average day men speaking of him or anything.

As I said earlier, there's more evidence for the existence of Socrates, yet scholars doubt his existence.

Also, a religion doesn't prove the existence of a being, else Dionysus and Hercules are real people.

There is no 'proof' other than historical documentation. We have those. We have tons, many dating into antiquity.

I never said anything about John being an eyewitness account?

From what I've discovered: Divine? No.

Edit: I decided that what you meant by, 'they don't come close to being historical proof' you meant that you think archaeological evidence is necessary? You think that unless we have archaeological evidence of a figure from antiquity, then we can't be pretty certain that they existed? That's fallacious.

No you didn't , which is ashame because its the closest we have to a contemporary account (as far as I am aware). And thats the point. Primary documentary evidence needs to be original and contemporary. One can argue what time span falls under 'contemporary' but its clear that the documentary evidence we have doesn't.

Secondary documentary evidence (like John's account) are only really evidence if they can be shown to corroborate archaeological evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty damn sure JC existed , I just don't feel the need to pretend its a 'given'.

As to other historical characters I don't know, not really my field but I expect their existence isn't disputed because the the secondary documentary evidence backs up the primary archaeological. But like I said I'm no expert on that.

I apologise to any real historians if i have oversimplified the whole evidence criteria thing.

You forget the Norse/Danish God Baldr, who died and was resurected also

From what I recall in another forum, there was a Roman tourist that was touring the Holy Land at the time of Jesus and allegedly saw JC preach to his crowd, but he did not witness any miracles, perhaps he was just not there at the right time, perhaps JC was just another prophet (and there were tons at that time in Israel). From what I recall the tourist wrote a letter home that simply said that Jesus was like many of the other messiahs, so from what I can deduce, Jesus existed, but was not divine in the sense that he was not the son of God. Who here has seen "The God Who Wasn't There"? That might give some insight to this thread.

Jesus was a real person. The majority of historians would agree with this as well; it's just a matter of whether or not you're going to be left behind.

Yes, that is a joke.

From what I recall in another forum, there was a Roman tourist that was touring the Holy Land at the time of Jesus and allegedly saw JC preach to his crowd, but he did not witness any miracles, perhaps he was just not there at the right time, perhaps JC was just another prophet (and there were tons at that time in Israel). From what I recall the tourist wrote a letter home that simply said that Jesus was like many of the other messiahs, so from what I can deduce, Jesus existed, but was not divine in the sense that he was not the son of God. Who here has seen "The God Who Wasn't There"? That might give some insight to this thread.

Damn it. I really wanted to find that, but nothing came up on google except a bunch of crap about Mel Gibson's "The Passion". :(

Maybe it was just made up or something. *shrug*

Damn it. I really wanted to find that, but nothing came up on google except a bunch of crap about Mel Gibson's "The Passion". :(

Maybe it was just made up or something. *shrug*

If its any comfort, I've been racking my brains ( and google) to remember what he's on about too. I do vaguely recall something along those lines.

But in the end it can only be either some faked piece of Josephus or a 4th-12th C christian forgery .

Trust me on this, if it had even the merest appearance of perhaps maybe kinda sorta proving Jesus' historicity then it'd be quoted on every fucking web site for or against going...along with the usual suspects of pliny, josephus, trajan etc etc

If its any comfort, I've been racking my brains ( and google) to remember what he's on about too. I do vaguely recall something along those lines.

But in the end it can only be either some faked piece of Josephus or a 4th-12th C christian forgery .

Trust me on this, if it had even the merest appearance of perhaps maybe kinda sorta proving Jesus' historicity then it'd be quoted on every fucking web site for or against going...along with the usual suspects of pliny, josephus, trajan etc etc

yeah you're probably right, i think it was josephus... hmmm *searches &T for the post*

No you didn't , which is ashame because its the closest we have to a contemporary account (as far as I am aware). And thats the point. Primary documentary evidence needs to be original and contemporary. One can argue what time span falls under 'contemporary' but its clear that the documentary evidence we have doesn't.

Secondary documentary evidence (like John's account) are only really evidence if they can be shown to corroborate archaeological evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty damn sure JC existed , I just don't feel the need to pretend its a 'given'.

As to other historical characters I don't know, not really my field but I expect their existence isn't disputed because the the secondary documentary evidence backs up the primary archaeological. But like I said I'm no expert on that.

I apologise to any real historians if i have oversimplified the whole evidence criteria thing.

Haha.... Did you just say that as far as you're aware, The Gospel of John is the Gospel that, as far as we can tell, was written closest to the life of Jesus? I see I argued my point with the wrong people. Good day.

Haha.... Did you just say that as far as you're aware, The Gospel of John is the Gospel that, as far as we can tell, was written closest to the life of Jesus? I see I argued my point with the wrong people. Good day.

Stay, ignorance is no bar to posting here (look at Sammy or Mastertwat) and we won't hold it against you...much.