This continued posting of agnostic vs atheism, or pulling the alleged existence of Jesus into a dialogue tells me that humans really struggle with letting things go...

Letting go of religion itself, letting go of likely fairytales and letting go of the arguments.

Those who claim Jesus existed with certainty, are just as dogmatic as those who claim a God exists, or those who claim they can prove a God doesn't exist.

But, once one has truly made peace with the lack of belief, based on lack of sufficient evidence, there is no real reason for discussion, unless it is for pure entertainment.

Actually, the deniers of Jesus' existence are like atheists in that they demand solid proof before saying ,yes, he existed. As of now, there is no evidence outside the bible for him. None.

I could care less whether Jesus existed or not but I do firmly believe that Brian got the short end of the stick.

The Jesus believed in by religionists is certainly a fiction. There may have been a person by that name whom the mythmakers transformed into a sub-god. I understand that in real life he was a syphilitic, alcoholic goatfucker but that might be just a myth.

I just read this interesting impartial essay on the subject:

[religioustolerance.org]

I lean toward thinking that there really was a flesh and blood Jesus but that much or most of what was written about him was made up. There’s no way to know with absolute certainty.

Most of the things Jesus is reported to have said seem very astute and commendable. They were written by someone, and that’s all that matters. I think of scriptures as an expression of collective human wisdom.

That business of sending ahead to borrow a donkey without permission to ride into Jerusalem so that prophecy would be fulfilled—that sounds like pure fraud. Also I don’t agree about Hell. Otherwise Jesus comes across as a pretty smart, gutsy guy.

If some people want to glorify and exaggerate his life and turn him into God, that is their right and I am not troubled. Myth creation is a form of artistic expression, sort of like “Star Wars”.

While there's no definitive answer, there is good reason to doubt:

It's true that here on Agnostic.com, that anyone who says anything positive about religion will be criticized and perhaps labeled an "Christian apologist". I'm not saying a large majority of the members here do that, but I've often seen people give a hard time by other members for saying something non-critical about religion. I just think that people should be able to feel free to speak their minds without having to fear being jumped all over for saying something that varies (even if only slightly) from the popular opinions and feelings.

Oh, good grief. Whether or not he existed. He is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Like Buddha and Mohammed andm Odin and Freya. Not in existance anymore, if ever.

There were several individuals throughout history who claimed to be the son of god before the one xtians finally decided to latch on to and believe.

There is definitely a faction out there of of atheists who approach their atheism with equal the furvor of any AR wielding, nut case evangelical Christian or suicide bomb wearing, militant Islamic. I find both sides of the spectrum to be equally annoying, but at least the annoying atheists aren’t blowing up buildings or opening fire on unarmed civilians.

When one side says the creator of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars knocked up a teenage Jewish girl, and you don't believe it, how do you compromise?

It doesn’t matter one jot to me whether he was a real person or merely a fiction, although I think in all probability there was a man called Jesus, but he was mortal and not divine. I think like you do, and believe that being too adamant about anything seems to mirror the religious too much, something we have to be careful about.

Outside of the bible there is no material evidence for the existence of jesus. The Romans have no records if his execution, or of his or his parents appearance at the census in bethlehem (which didn't actually take place in bethlehem). Most accounts of his life appeared decades after his supposed death.

It could be that the Romans expunged records of him... But that sounds frightfully conspiratorial. Considering the Roman empire evolved into the Catholic Church, you'd think they'd reestablish the records they destroyed, for their own sake.

Now mohamed, he probably did exist.

Pooh, defending idiotic superstitions Again today? Borrrriinng.....

There is no need for any credentials when someone makes a claim that can not be established without evidence. There is king kong the size of a large building actively living in New York. I do not have to be a biologist to say I do not believe it show me the evidence.

That being said, though I am more inclined to understand that there is no evidece for a historical Jesus, I also agree with you. There has been almost 2000 years of the Jesus cult. History simply does not care wether he was a live human being or not, neither does the religions followers. There is already irrufutable proof that the virgin part of the story was not made up for about 300 years yet the virgin birth is a main tentent of the religion. Facts are simply not important in religion, it has to wxist dispite the facts.

‘What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.’

And your point is?

Well, I think it always makes some difference as to what is a historical fact as opposed to a historical fiction. I'd agree that it makes no difference to the religious claims surrounding historical jesus. But it would make some difference in our understanding of how myths are made and religious beliefs evolve.

When you bounce against that little book of fiction called the bible that he existed against not existed... it does make a big difference. Just saying.

The existence of Jesus is not problematic in the way that the supernatural claims about him are. Claiming the existence of a charismatic individual who had some relatively good things to say about humanity is completely consistent with reality (e.g. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc.).

I will always concede that he existed in the context of discussion, even if he actually did not. There are obviously many serious problems with Christianity, but focusing the existence of Jesus as a person is not the best approach.

I agree and have run into these types. There is lots information about this person's existence and it has pretty much been shown to be a foregone conclusion. However, the real issue is about who this person was and what he did and said. During this time most everyone was illiterate (including the said Jesus and his followers) and history was mostly through oral stories. Many years later were some of the stories written down but over the ensuing years they have been translated over and over and the circumstances changed. A common lesson my late partner practiced with her elementary school kids was to get them in a circle and whisper some statement in one child's ear and have them repeat it to the next child all the way around the circle. The end result was never even close to what was said at the onset.

Right. His literal existence or non-existence neither validates nor invalidates the metaphorical truth of his teachings.

Jesus exists, here is the proof.

Technically, you are correct. The existence of a man named Jesus in no way validates the claims of divinity.

Then if what you say is true you must force your singular belief in Christ to those who worship Buddha, Mohammed the Prophet, Judaism and every other belief system in the world? Ghandi once said “ I like your Christ very much but your Christians not”

Comments ought to be good. As for Jesus, he may have existed and he may not have existed...