Jesus Christ! Fact or fiction?

^ That's pretty much how I feel.

I'm rather agnostic on the issue, but in a sense I veer towards both fact and fiction. I don't believe in the veracity of the claims made about Jesus in the bible or in Islamic scripture or various religious texts, but I do suspect that there was a Jesus figure that had followers that inspired the writings.

Interesting, as much as intriguing. I've been noticing so much concern about proving Jesus existence, that ultimately I get wondering what's the real point in that, since both the basic principles of life existence and of human relationship - as a matter of fact - haven't ever changed since long before any occidental religion ever existed, no to say the oriental ones which are much older.

^First: we're not discussing how good people are Christian people. We know, we know, most of them give to the poor, they live and share with the community and they cook cakes to the newcoming neighbours. Fine. But that's not the point of the thread.

Secondly: while there are some details in the biography of Jesus as written in the Bible that are to be believed (the Resurrection, his divine nature, the Lazarus resurrection, the water becoming wine, etc...), I'm not sure we're discussing if Jesus was a man whose life times had been a little exagerated by his "biographists" or if he was the Son of God and the Messiah.
The initial post asks the question of his EXISTENCE - a question more... crucial.

Thirdly: I'm aware of the "mythicist" hypothesis (the hypothesis that Jesus may have been a myth) and I consider that some points raised by the mythicists are... interesting and even seducing... But, having been a history student, I don't want to be seduced: I want to be convinced with proofs.
And, to speak the truth, while I acknowledge some problems within the biographical aspects of the New Testament,what Eddie says won't convince me.
Not only Constantine making Christianism the official religion of the Roman Empire wasn't the best thing to do by the Empire to keep its "dominions" under its grip (the cult of Mithra was vastly practiced by soldiers and merchants, two important groups in the Roman society), but this decision was also criticised by the elite and some rulers.
Also, the main problems with the written sources about Jesus are not that the geographical aspects would be wrong: keep in mind that we don't have versions of the Evangiles older than the fourth century. We must assume that there could have been, decades after decades, heavy re-writings of what Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote in their times. That could explain some geographical glitches or even the weird holes in the chronology (we know that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod, but the year is still unclear).

What could puzzle us is that we can't find sources about Jesus from his times: none of the contemporean Roman, Greek or Hebraic authors wrote about him. The first authors referencing Jesus are Tacite, Pline the Young and Suetone - the three ones writing at the end of the first century, more than 50 years after Jesus' death.
On the other hand, Paul of Tarse, whose existence was real, met the former disciples of Jesus and started writing around the year 50. So, it could be accepted as a proof of the existence of Jesus - even if his biography is somewhat full of holes.

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: Jesus didn't exist because he was a story made up by the Romans around 50ad, and there was no place called Nazareth at the time. And indeed no place called Bethlehem at the time. One of the writers of one of the Gospels refers to Jesus as a Nazarine, but this is misunderstood to assume Jesus and his family were from Nazareth, and Jesus and co were not because there was not such a place at the time. And whilst a few hundreds years BC there had been a town called Bethlehem as mentioned in the Jewish scriptures prophesizing the birth of the Messiah (the God of the Messianic Jews), the ignorance of the writers of Luke and Matthew tried to amend the failed attempt of Mark of appeasing the Messianic Jews by writing in the prophesies, so creating the nativity and locating it where there was nothing but barren stony ground. The Passion is a typical Pagan god story of that time, Mark's account of the Jesus ministry is basically using the writing of Josephus' account of Titus Flavian in the Middle East and Palestine, and then Matthew and Luke bring in more typical Pagan god story to flesh out the nativity and try to keep the Messianic Jews happy. But the Jews never bought it. What's your view.............

I’d take someone living their life to the guidelines of the bible over some of the most unpleasant, hedonistic, debauched, selfish, sexually depraved, self-gratifying, nasty, irresponsible, vindictive, directionless and arrogant people I’ve encountered in my life any day.

Fact.

Here something else to chew on. The Christian Religion was an invention of the Romans to keep their dominions under control and worked very well for quite a period of time and still works pretty well for the Pope in Rome and all the various Splinter groups that have descended from it.............

If it was not for Constantine there would be no Christian religions as we know today ...................

Tom Ozric wrote: No human being can come back to life after being nailed to wood........sorry, I just can't buy into it.....

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: Jesus didn't exist because he was a story made up by the Romans around 50ad, and there was no place called Nazareth at the time. And indeed no place called Bethlehem at the time. One of the writers of one of the Gospels refers to Jesus as a Nazarine, but this is misunderstood to assume Jesus and his family were from Nazareth, and Jesus and co were not because there was not such a place at the time. And whilst a few hundreds years BC there had been a town called Bethlehem as mentioned in the Jewish scriptures prophesizing the birth of the Messiah (the God of the Messianic Jews), the ignorance of the writers of Luke and Matthew tried to amend the failed attempt of Mark of appeasing the Messianic Jews by writing in the prophesies, so creating the nativity and locating it where there was nothing but barren stony ground. The Passion is a typical Pagan god story of that time, Mark's account of the Jesus ministry is basically using the writing of Josephus' account of Titus Flavian in the Middle East and Palestine, and then Matthew and Luke bring in more typical Pagan god story to flesh out the nativity and try to keep the Messianic Jews happy. But the Jews never bought it. What's your view.............