There were many messiah figures at this time, preaching about the end times. I have no doubt that one of them could have been named Yeshuah and that he inspired a very devoted following who remained faithful to him--while remaining Jewish.

The reason he was not mentioned in extra biblical sources would be the same reason why others were not mentioned by name. There were just so many of them; and they were not taken seriously by the Romans. They simply killed them when they felt it necessary.

Saul/Paul, whoever he was, would hunt down these Christ followers because they upset the Jewish leaders of the time; and, at some point, he became convinced that this Jesus, whom he saw as completely human, but with a heavenly message, had been the Messiah but not just for the Jews, for everyone.

Since the Jews were not responsive, he had to appeal to the Gentiles and their beliefs about god men were incorporated into the Jesus story. And so, this person, whomever he was, was eventually turned into the son of god, savior of all mankind (not just the Jews) and then THE GOD of the universe by whoever wrote the gospel of John.

Christians are Paulists and don't even know it.

• If this person had been completely fabricated I think those who made up the story would have done a better job of it. As it is, the stories about him contradict each other: his message is not clear, his origin story is not true to ancient prophesies about the Messiah, his nature (man? god-man?) is not clear...etc.

• This only makes sense if there was a real person at the root of it and stories about him were well known, such as where he was actually born. So, they had to make up silly stories, like the census, his virgin birth, and miracles etc. in order to turn this person into the Messiah.

• The Catholic Church finished the job. They decided which stories made it into what became the bible and others were considered heresy. Why did they allow conflicting stories? Likely because they were well known by different groups of Christians and they couldn't just throw all of them out. But, they could change them over time, either intentionally or not. And, so, a relatively obscure person, who was just one messiah figure among many, over time, was turned into the savior of mankind and THE GOD of the universe.

Yeah there's no mention of Brian either.

I don't have a problem if there was a person named jesus, just like I don't have a problem if there was a person named lucy, I think it's like saying "someone had toast for breakfast" I'd just assume, ok, someone had toast for breaky.
But as soon as you tell me that this toast or Lucy did magical things, I would require evidence to convince me of the events, and if evidence isn't provided, I would take this toast or person named lucy as non credible.

"Maybe" is as definitive an answer as will ever be given. Generations of Israeli archaeologists have been scouring that country looking for evidence of... anything, and although they've been looking mainly for evidence regarding the Mosaic stories, they also haven't found anything regarding Jesus. And these are true professionals, so they aren't the type to sweep it under the rug if they found some contemporary engraving of his name and genealogy or something of that sort.

The most charitable thing we can say is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If there were a Yeshua as in the stories he probably would have been forgotten. His magic tricks are third rate at best.
It takes a cultural gimmick to stick around like that. It seems the Gospels were all written after 70ce which is after the Romans tore down the temple. Yeshua had been around a couple of hundred years at that point but exclusively as a spiritual being. Paul was famously a follower in 40ad. Only seven of his letters are potentially authentic and of those seven only one passage lends itself to thinking Paul “might” have thought of Yeshua as a physical being, and of course that could have been added later.
Gospel Yeshua seems to be a composite of a handful of real people including a character called “The Egyptian” who was an anti-Roman rebel leader.
The main reason for the story is so God could forgive sin without blood sacrifices since blood sacrifices require the temple which had been destroyed.
It’s pretty dry stuff really, and not the central issue that it's been made into.
Weird how people that believe the end is near insist on making the world come to an end. Believers are famously into letting the world come to an end. They really believe it ends with them living in celestial Disneyland when all they’ll get is extinction for our species.
Stupid

On my way out of religion, I tried doing research to find out what kind of person Jesus really was. The more I looked into it, the more I was convinced he didn't even exist. There are just too many cults based on god-men that could do all kinds of magical things. It just so happened the one I was raised in was the one that believed in a god-man named Jesus.

The more I have read and heard on this subject, I don't believe he did exist.

To be honestly don't care.
Even if there was a real guy, that wouldn't sway my non-belief in any way.

As a historian, I can say: we will never know for sure. It's way too back in time.

Yes, I agree, and all the Christian claims from outside the Bible only confirm the existence of Christians, so they vastly overstate the evidence. Things like Paul saying he was a persecutor are not demonstrated by outside evidence.. so they are accepted as true... when they are also evidence of someone inflating their own self worth in the story.

to a rabbi at least, "Jesus of Nazareth" (actually Joshua, the most common male name then) might equate to "John Doe, from Nowhere"

I agree he likely did not exist. I will add to the evidence with this observation: purportedly, jesus (not his real name in any event, as that is a greek name) was jewish. Jews do not proselytize. It is forbidden. No way a jew wandered around preaching and proselytizing. He especially would not go about telling people they were going to heaven (not part of judaism) or to hell (also not part of judaism) for not being jewish (also not part of judaism; note that heaven and hell crept into later jewish folklore but it isn't part of the religion). That is retroactive projection on the part of christians, the same sort who portray their hero, an ancient middle eastern jew, as blond and blue-eyed.

g

Exactly. You've missed many discussions on the subject.
No, Jesus did not exist, but I'm tired of spelling it all out again

Jesus is also a figure in the Koran. I've read somewhere there was another manuscript other than the Bible or Koran that described a "Jesus" existing but I haven't researched it.

At age 13, I told my parents I'm an atheist. I realized the Bible is just a book of stories or fables written by men. I don't waste time wondering if Jesus existed.

I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.

There were at least nine of them, but none of the were the carpenter of Nazareth as spoken about in the New Testicle of the holly Babble.

If the biblical Chrust had existed why is there no historical record of him?
When there is historical verification for John the Baptist (no mention of Jesus), Simon Magus (again no mention of Christ) and St. Paul who only ever describes "the Christ" as a spiritual being, not a living person.

There were Jesus cult/gnostic groups who worshipped a man named Jesus, then Josephus and the romans used that to massiahfy and make the Jews into a more passive nation of ppl. Josephus wrote the Jewish wars which shows how much of a problem the Jews were for Rome. They married Josephus into the ruling families of Rome and created the Christ story based on the gnostic Jesus cults. Only two historical mentions of a Jesus and both were by Josephus and both a considered to be later addition to his text years later. <Forgery basically. Hope this info helps.

The jury's still out.
I ffind the mythicist's arguments unconvincing.
You can't jump from "these are mythic elements" to "Jesus never existed." Non sequitur.
I also find Bart Ehrman's book (Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth) unconvincing as well. Professor Ehrman is a new testament scholar and a non-believer. I highly recommend his other books. You can find talks by him on youtube as well.
And of course the apologist's arguments are not only bullshit but stinky bullshit as well. William Lane Craig is a 'fine' example of this- he proclaims that we have evidence for an historical jesus- matthew, mark, luke & john. Ok, craig, by the same logic, I can prove Harry Potter exists. Or Huckleberry Finn. Or Atticus Finch. Or...

I don't think he did - but that's not the point.

Whether he did or he didn't, the 'magical Jesus, son of god' certainly didn't - so christianity is based on bullshit.

With that established, is the existence of a particular 'ordinary man' 2000 years ago of any relevance at all?

Why does it matter?

Most likely there were several of him. That is how most myths grow, because people remember stories better than names. So that often two stories, about two different people, get attached to the same name. Then that name becomes more famous because it has two stories attached, so that when someone forgets name that goes with a third story, they are more likely to attach that to the most famous name, and so on.

Though it would be unwise to think with any certainty that it is pure myth, since it is quite possible that most of it may just be a fiction. Perhaps, or perhaps not, borrowing just a name or a couple of vernacular stories from popular myth.

Though I have heard that some scholars say, that many of the contradictions in, and styles of the new testament, clearly indicate two figures, who can be divided leaving two logically consistent persons. One an old testament style prophet, preaching hard Judaism, and the other a later fictional addition delivering the liberal teachings.

The one thing that you can say for certain, is that after all this time and with such doubtful evidence, then any one who thinks they can say anything at all with even half certainty, is deluded or dishonest.

[bartdehrman.com]

There's no evidence that Jesus ever walked the earth. The evidence against him is that all "historical" references are early 2nd century. Folklore. All of the gospels are plagiarized from the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus, born Yosef ben Matityahu, a Jewish general who defected. He made two passing references to Jesus and one anecdotal to the death of John the Baptist. The whole "religion" was contrived sometime in 2nd and 3rd century. Total bullshit.

No shit, Sherlock!