Freedomain Radio

Is there enough evidence to say, for certain, that the Jesus discussed in the Bible actually did exist?
Is it scientifically accepted that he did?
Or is the evidence still so ambiguous that it would be more reasonable to assume he was completely fabricated?

As I understand it, the Romans kept quite meticulous records about their executions. They were, after all, bureaucrats, and bureaucrats like their paperwork. Yet there is no paperwork about Jesus's crucifixion. Nor is there any mention about a Jewish terrorist or rebel stirring the shit in Jerusalem or the surrounding area.

Also, the earliest writings about Jesus were decades after his supposed death. The gospels were written by people who never met Jesus personally, IIRC.

Thank you both.

Is there anybody who disagrees? Is there anybody aware of solid evidence for the existence of Jesus? Or is there a general consensus that he was most likely completely fabricated?

DanielOR:

As I understand it, the Romans kept quite meticulous records about their executions. They were, after all, bureaucrats, and bureaucrats like their paperwork. Yet there is no paperwork about Jesus's crucifixion. Nor is there any mention about a Jewish terrorist or rebel stirring the shit in Jerusalem or the surrounding area.

I presented this argument, and the rebuttle went something like this:

"Romans kept records only of the high-profile executions. Jesus was far from high-profile. His execution was viewed as a rather common one, and thus they didn't make a record."

Of course, this doesn't prove he existed, but if this is true, it does cleanly refute this piece of evidence for Jesus's non-existence.

Wow. An execution of a man-god-holy ghost who is both father and son of himself is not high-profile? Whom else did the Romans execute?!

check out "zeitgeist", i think the URL is zeitgeistmovie.com

the first part has some interesting stuff about religion and jesus. 

AESTHETE:

Disruptive cults were as plentiful as shit back then. I'm sure Jesus was just another brick in the wall (well, the analogy to bricks doesn't work, because bricks are useful).

Disruptive cults? Which ones?

NonAbsolute:

AESTHETE:

Disruptive cults were as plentiful as shit back then. I'm sure Jesus was just another brick in the wall (well, the analogy to bricks doesn't work, because bricks are useful).

Disruptive cults? Which ones?

AESTHETE:

Is there enough evidence to say, for certain, that the Jesus discussed in the Bible actually did exist?
Is it scientifically accepted that he did?
Or is the evidence still so ambiguous that it would be more reasonable to assume he was completely fabricated?

Asking whether "Jesus" existed is the same as asking if there was a guy named "Zeus" in ancient Athens...

My guess (and apparently the weak general historical consensus) is that a historical Jesus of some sort probably did exist, but surprisingly there doesn't appear to have been a single concurrent independent 3rd party confirmation of this found to date.  Apparently all other sources come from individuals born after Jesus reportedly died and only could be considered as heresay evidence. 

 http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

AESTHETE:

DanielOR:

As I understand it, the Romans kept quite meticulous records about their executions. They were, after all, bureaucrats, and bureaucrats like their paperwork. Yet there is no paperwork about Jesus's crucifixion. Nor is there any mention about a Jewish terrorist or rebel stirring the shit in Jerusalem or the surrounding area.

I presented this argument, and the rebuttle went something like this:

"Romans kept records only of the high-profile executions. Jesus was far from high-profile. His execution was viewed as a rather common one, and thus they didn't make a record."

Of course, this doesn't prove he existed, but if this is true, it does cleanly refute this piece of evidence for Jesus's non-existence.

From what I've read---and hell, I'm far from an expert on ancient Roman government---but that rebuttal is just wrong. The Romans were bureaucrats, just like any government today. It would be like saying the DMV only keeps photos of high-profile drivers. Just silly. And it goes against all of the other evidence mounted against the actual existance of a man named Jesus at that time and place.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong. But then again, perhaps King Arthur really existed. Still, I doubt he became king just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at him.