I think he lived. I just don’t believe he was the son of god.

There is good reason to conclude that a person, likely named Yeshua, did exist, had some sort of following and was likely put to death by the Romans. There is no reason to conclude that this person performed miracles, had a huge following, was the son of god, was god, died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

@Joanne
What good reason is that? As far as I know, nothing was written of him either inside or outside of the babble within decades of his supposed life.

@Namaste, @Gwendolyn2018, @Joanne No evidence that he ever lived. New Testament was written more than 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived. The story was based on mythological origins. No Jesus. No virgin birth. No resurrection. No apostles. It's all bullshit.

@RichCC Let me start with a somewhat humorous analogy in hopes of loosening up the gears.

Consider the birther conspiracy about Obama. It requires that there was a concerted effort in Hawaii about 60 years ago to forge evidence of an insignificant Kenyan newborn being born in the state of Hawaii on the off-chance that he might one day run for president. From the word "go," that conspiracy theory is ludicrous in its requirement of prescience and actions w no plausible motivation at the time.

You appear to have the idea that a Jewish dude named Yeshua w some unorthodox ideas was never walking around Roman-occupied Palestine w a modest following of disciples and hangers-on and never got himself crucified. And this is the extent of what my dear friend @Joanne means - i.e., we all three know that the Christmas story, the miracles, the exact quotations, the size of his following in Jerusalem, the resurrection, etc, are all a crock. The only question at issue between you two is: was there some such dude or not?

So ... let's concede to one another first that not only do none of us three absolutely know whether Yeshua existed or not, but also neither do any of the scholars who claim to know in either direction. That isn't a criticism of their expertise as historians; I'm a professional historian myself but of a much more recent time period. It's simply a well-known fact among all of us historians that scholars of the ancient world are working far more with probabilities than with established certainties. This is because so little evidence of anything at all has survived from those times (compared to more recent times, the difference in the volume of the source base is absolutely staggering).

So, let's look at the rough probabilities, bearing in mind the Obama birther conspiracy for fun and illumination:

For you to be correct, let's ask a few questions:

1. How likely is it that the People of the Way sect of the late 1st century/early 2nd century never had an original founding leader in the early 1st century as they claimed in their writings? Such movements are rarely founded by a committee. Have you ever encountered a charismatic committee capable of founding a movement?

2. If they had one such charismatic leader, how likely is it that they decided that they didn't like his name and decided to give him another one?

3. How likely is it that in Roman-occupied Palestine the People of the Way would claim that Yeshua was crucified by the Romans when he wasn't? It was a criminal's death, disgraceful at the time, not impressive. The only thing that could redeem his death in such a disgraceful manner would be his resurrection, which we know didn't happen but his followers obviously desperately wanted to believe because the crucifixion probably did happen.

Now, is this proof? Absolutely not. But historians of the ancient world have to work with probabilities much of the time, not certainties. It's pretty certain that, based on the lack of evidence from non-biblical sources, Yeshua's following was much smaller than Christians like to assume. But the idea that the dude never existed at all seems highly improbable to me and @Joanne, and there are atheist scholars of the period who concur w that assessment.

@Joanne can point you in the right direction in terms of the books. I myself stopped caring about Yeshua when I stopped being a Christian 30+ years ago, but I never bought the idea that he definitely never existed. To me, as a professional historian, that just sounds silly. What obviously didn't happen is all the mythology surrounding the dude; that's certainly bogus, no question. But the man? There almost had to be such a dude.

@RichCC Just to be clear. You are much more likely to be correct than the birthers. Their conspiracy theory is far, far sillier and far more easily disproved. Your idea can't be dismissed as patently false; it just seems highly improbable.

@vertrauen Your idea is highly improbable to the existence of Jesus. The sources to suggest he walked the earth are terrible, with the best ones being anonymous. They describe a character similar to earlier nonexistent ones in mythology. Jesus is a hybrid mythological figure who was chronicled centuries after he supposedly existed. He's based on Philo, who did exist, and other legends. Read The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors I don't think he ever existed.

@vertrauen
At this point I'm not insisting on proof. I'd settle for any evidence of Jesus or Yeshua or whoever at all.
I'd even enjoy seeing some 'atheist scholars of the period who concur'.

There were multiple "Sons Of God(tm)" around at the time both before and after Jesus. None of them seem to match the particulars of the figure later described in the bible.

@Joanne There are no reasons AT ALL to think Jesus ever existed, period.

@barjoe . Certainly the Jesus as described in the bible never existed: the miracle worker, son of god, etc... as I mentioned before. But circumstantial evidence can lead one to conclude that some person, at the root of the later myths about him, existed.

There were many messiah figures at this time, over the span of many decades. There is no reason to deny that one of them is at the root of the Jesus/Yeshua mythology.

If this Jesus character had been completely fabricated, I think the writers would have done a better job of creating him, his life, his message. In the earlier writings, this person was seen as a human, special--yet fully human. In the later writings he was turned into THE GOD of the universe. This shows the evolution of thoughts, and the amalgamation of prevalent god man beliefs, that arose and grew/morphed about a real person. If he were totally fabricated, they would have made him the god of the universe in human form from the beginning.

Aspects of his life and message are contradictory. His birth story is flawed. If he were a totally made up person, why would the writers have to fabricate a silly census story to have him born in Bethlehem, as prophesied? They would have just had him born there. That this story exists suggests a person, believed by some to be the messiah was from a family outside of Bethlehem and they had to get them there to fulfill that prophesy.

If he were completely fabricated, why was this messiah not named Emmanuel, as prophesy indicated?

Why did gospel writers trace his lineage through Joseph to the House of David if he was always seen as the son of god, without a human father? This also suggests a real person and that beliefs about him changed over time.

In the end, it really does not matter. The person who likely inspired the myths was not the messiah. He was not the son of any god. He is not the forgiver of sins, etc, etc.

@Joanne The gospels were written centuries later much based the writings of Flavius Josephus. He was born 4 years after the supposed crucifixion. He did make two references to Jesus and one reference to John the Baptist. It's possible.someone by that name lived.

@Gwendolyn2018 What's the CS?

@fuckreligion Rules to conduct oneself by that often are arbitrary, based on superstition, bear no relationship to morality, and which are attributed to certain primitive, mythological authority figures of the Abrahamic religions.

@Rossy92 Hahahahaha. I think you accidentally tagged me. Hahahaha. I have an unfortunate name.

@FuckReligion My bad. Took your response to indicate cluelessness to the point of the comment.

It is my belief that in a thousand or so years our swear words will be the prayers of the religious. How many times has something broken and it only gets fixed after a tirade of swear words.

@dalefvictor LOL, we 'bush Aussies' have a saying, " If it's making life difficult by being hard to undo or repair, the more you swear at it the easier the job gets."
So I reckon I must have used Jeebus F,,,,ing Christ and a few others at least 20+ times yesterday.

@Triphid my life's philosophy in a nutshell!

@AnneWimsey We also invented and often use the old " Irish Screwdriver' method from time to time.
I.e. "Irish Screwdriver" = a Hammer and a Cold Chisel, works wonders on stubborn things like frozen nuts and bolts....LOL.

@Triphid Whatever rings your bell, clears your head or floats your boat!

Oh, I'd say quite a few "Christians" are driving semis loaded with selfishness, greed and hate through that loophole!

@Auroramorealist agreed. Christian in name only.

all good ones, but the second one is fucking hilarious!

@dsharphead66 THANK YOU VERY MUCH