Lack of evidence in contemporary records

This is how scientists believe he may have l looked like..not him literally..but a contemporary average joe or jesus.
Not the white Anglo Saxon depiction hanging on my granny's wall.

"Jesus is the Greek translation of the name Joshua... So, Jesus Christ's real name was Joshua ben Joseph, or more correctly, Yehoshua ben Yosef (Hebrew) or Yehoshua bar Yosef (Aramaic)."

Everything people believe today about "Jesus" as the "Christ" came from Saul after he suffered some kind hallucination, on the road to Damascus. He later changed his name to Paul. The entire modern "Christian" church (most especially the CATHOLIC church) is based on Paul's beliefs about "Jesus", and not on the actual life of Joshua ben Joseph (Jesus).

I stick him in the same bracket as William Tell, Robin Hood or King Arthur. Some of the stories may have been based in reality but who can tell and after so many layers of embellishment you could hardly call these sources the "real" version of these folk heroes.

I don't know whether he existed or not but my preference is that a man may have existed like him, certainly not a god! The stories have been based on the Hebrew Bible (OT) and the ancient wisdoms, Roman and Greek cultures as well as trying to drum up support for a new cult in the difficult times for the Jews.Pile it all on one man and make him a god. It's all fascinating stuff and I doubt whether we will ever know but it's fun discussing.

There is no compelling evidence that Jesus existed. The most convincing evidence that a physical Jesus did not exist are the writings of Paul. The founders of the religion invented a physical Jesus to kickstart their new religion. They also borrowed concepts from earlier myths to make it more interesting. I am 99% sure that Jesus never existed, but a large number of non-theists concede his existence just to take the path of least resistance. I think this is a mistake.

The most convincing argument as Richard Carrier outlines is that whenever records should mention Jesus in that time frame the entire section is missing. It leads one to believe that Christians were embarrassed that he was not mentioned so they simply removed that part of the record.

This jewish rabbi (just that should be enough as to his credibility!) was obsessed with inducing people to kowtow to his god. Humans came a very poor second. Thus what did he ever say against slavery? State torture? Capital punishment? War? Taxes?! The exploitation of women and children? What do our duty feminists think of his encouraging people to leave their wives and children to follow him? And what can we deduct from his urging the poor to accept their poverty and carry on being exploited by the rich ? Just what bank did he work for?!!

I’ve watched Ehrman and Price debate. I’ve read books by both along with Fitzgerald, Carrier, Doherty, Lataster and Zindler. Personally I find the mythical side makes better argument but it’s a 2,000 year old subject and I doubt if it’s ever resolved. I can’t get emotional about it as many do even on the non-believer side of the fence. Bill Cooke writing in “Free Inquiry” seems to argue that the subject shouldn’t even be discussed. In reading books I have come to the conclusion that there are good reasons to doubt the existence of a real flesh and blood Jesus. I certainly wouldn’t fault someone for completely disagreeing with me as long as his arguments are sound.

Like Islam, when you put things in chronological order the evolution of the narrative is clear. Paul never uses the events of the gospels to reinforce his points, he prides himself on his visions and personal revelations. To me this argues against a historic man. And puts Paul in a similar role to Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

I think that there was a historical Jewish character that the story is based upon whether he was named Jesus, Yeshua, or Joshua, or whatever. The point is that an oral tradition was used to facilitate an entire religion to replace the destroyed 2nd temple. The prophesies of Judaism were in tatters and Christianity evolved from its remnants.

Who cares...

From my own research I believe Jesus as a stand alone guy is pure fiction, but rather stories about multiple different people at the time. Collected to birth a single identity that brought upon the Christian faith.

no smoke without fire. id say it was a tiny flame that smouldered a lot for a long time.

Yes he did....Jesus Christ....... Cuban Pitcher.....lol

Chances are he was not conjured out of thin air. Chances are also that he was not related to a diety.

I am fairly confident he never existed in any way shape or form other than in the minds of an early Jewish sect/Mystery faith that imagined a Celestial Jesus who was crucified by Satan and his princes in the lower realm/firmament not knowing who he was.

The passage in Josephus is a complete forgery: Passage is too brief and stylistically different (probably inserted by a christian in the available space years later). Gospels are Literary Fictions. The letters of paul never mention a Jesus that walked the earth and he goes out of his way to say he did not receive this from man, but from revelation (hallucination/visions/dreams) and interpretation of scripture. He does make some vague reference to James, brother of the lord....But is he talking about a blood brother or just another Baptized Christian (as in brethren), I think in context the latter is more probable.

Contrary to popular believe there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus. For a thorough and complete analysis of all the the evidence see Richard Carrier's Book on the Historicity of Jesus.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan pointed out, but with "Jesus Christ" we have the most extraordinary of all claims combined with an extraordinary lack of evidence. It cannot even be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such an entity ever lived, let alone that he was the Son of God, performed miracles, etc.

I believe that the Bible is a collection of stories, myths and probably truths. There are some real historical evidences of Jesus' life that was based on the bible. I believe that someone like Jesus existed, just like Buddha; He was a real man. Though I see him as a historical figure who did good things on Earth and not a miraculous God. I believe that Jesus was just an ordinary man like us who did extraordinary things during his time. Just my opinion though.

The evidence weighs very strongly against there ever being a historical basis for these myths. Highly recommend Richard Carrier's book on the Jesus myth for a comprehensive exploration of the historical evidence and arguments.

I think Jesus was a composite of more than one person and characters from previous myths and Hebrew prophecies.

We know there was more than one claimant to the messiah title. I think as people met and bragged up their own local gods incarnate, they made up increasingly outrageous tales to outdo each other. That's human nature. Over decades people combined grew stories and attributed them to one individual adding elements that served to fulfil the messianic prophecies.

If you think about the census that took place in the story of Jesus' birth, it indicates that there was a real person from Nazareth who was claimed to be the messiah. If he were entirely fictional, there would have been no need to fabricate the census story to explain his birth in Bethlehem.

One person couldn't have traveled as much as Jesus is claimed to have in 10 years or so. It took Moses group 40 years to travel a couple hundred miles.

I think Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic preacher. I accept that he existed as fact, however I do not believe he was divine.

I believe that the one referred to as Jesus Christ is mostlikely a combination of at least 2-5 men...and maybe a special person in the sense that a really good teacher is, but no more the child of God then anybody is.

Jesus probably existed. He was not the son of god, he was not magic and never claimed to be. He saw what was happening around him, oppression and widescale corruption by the Jewish authorities and spoke up. People have been doing it forever. There is some bits of evidence..Joesphus Flavius for example mentions Jesus a couple of times. The thing iswhy would there be any more evidence than that? The Romans kept meticulous records of things that were important to them and he wasn't. The story of Pilot sounds so likely. Romans crucified dessenters on an industrial scale, why would they care about him? The thing that Jesus did that was different is he spoke out against the Jewish collaboration and corruption. This is what ended it for him. There were loads of rabble rousers at the time, just most toted the party line of Romans are wicked, Jews are oppressed. Jesus saw through that. I get that. I get how he would piss off the authorities. If you read the gospels in the original firm (via the amazing Mr. Ephraim) they actually aren't that complimentary. In fact Jesus comes across as a bit of a git. It surprises me that anyone would doubt his existence because we know there are people have always spoken out against what they see as wrong. Now if that person is especially charismatic (think Che Guevara), or present as a way that makes us question how we live (think of Ghandi and his vows of chastity and poverty) or have really really strong views about a subject (think the young student who spoke out against gun violence...sorry forgot her name) then you have a recipe for a person others will listen to and hang on his every word.Jesus had all of this. He was young, and lived separately and differently than others and had some really radical things to say. Imagine how attractive that would be to oppressed people? He probably seemed really exotic and fascinating to the people in that time. The big thing for me is why would he be made up? I mean its not a very godly story anyway. (He fares better in Islam). Bloke turns up, rocks the boat, lives like some weird hippy with his mates and then dies. No finery, no golden throne or anything people expected of a god. He said some lovely words and some people thought that he cured their ills.(Probably not). Not god or a son, not magic, a little bit supercilious and up himself but human and real.