what are peoples thoughts on Jesus?

[DropLogic]

Christians keep touting this "seeking truth" idea.  How the hell is it seeking truth when you completely disregard logic and reason?  I don't get how seemingly intelligent and educated people just accept these ideas on faith.  When asked...they just quote the bible as if it were a scientific reference.

[i_am_i]

I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

It's not much of a story, really.

So...now what?

[DropLogic]

I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

It's not much of a story, really.

So...now what?

If he lived like every other Jew...he definitely would have had a wife and kids...GOD FORBID!

[lundberg500]

I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

You are falling into the same trap as many others have done. You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only. You are taking what makes logical sense and removing the miracles and supernatural events associated with Jesus. Why do this? It's easy to suppose that there must have been a real person but he didn't do anything miraculous like the bible says. Dig a little deeper and you just might find out that Jesus never even existed as a historical person.

[PoopShoot]

You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only.

Not necessarily.  There are certainly assumptions involved in any definitive claim about Jesus' existence, but it's perfectly plausible that the messiah myth might have a number of elements related to an actual cult leader with some flair thrown in to give the god claims some weight.

[i_am_i]

I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

You are falling into the same trap as many others have done. You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only. You are taking what makes logical sense and removing the miracles and supernatural events associated with Jesus. Why do this? It's easy to suppose that there must have been a real person but he didn't do anything miraculous like the bible says. Dig a little deeper and you just might find out that Jesus never even existed as a historical person.

It doesn't make any difference, that's my point. I''m stipulating that, regardless of whatever the history books or the gospels say, there was an actual person who lived in that time who went by the name of Jesus (not an uncommon name), and that this Jesus was executed by the Romans.

Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

[DropLogic]

I'll stipulate that there was a real living and breathing person named Jesus who lived in and around Judea in the first century. He was born the way every other human being is born, he lived like every other Jew in that Roman-occupied area, he got into trouble with the Romans and was executed the way Romans executed rebels and other trouble-makers back then.

You are falling into the same trap as many others have done. You are assuming this from the information provided in the New Testament only. You are taking what makes logical sense and removing the miracles and supernatural events associated with Jesus. Why do this? It's easy to suppose that there must have been a real person but he didn't do anything miraculous like the bible says. Dig a little deeper and you just might find out that Jesus never even existed as a historical person.

It doesn't make any difference, that's my point. I''m stipulating that, regardless of whatever the history books or the gospels say, there was an actual person who lived in that time who went by the name of Jesus (not an uncommon name), and that this Jesus was executed by the Romans.

Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Obviously we turn him into a fatherless child, who can heal the sick, walk on water, come back from the dead, and appear on toast and make statues cry blood.  It's only logical, right?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Obviously we turn him into a fatherless child, who can heal the sick, walk on water, come back from the dead, and appear on toast and make statues cry blood.  It's only logical, right?

I'm pretty sure his point is that there is no big deal in conceding the point for the sake of argument; all the other non sequiturs you trotted out will be dealt with as the claim is made.

[i_am_i]

Freeservant very badly wants there to have been a real Jesus, and I'm agreeing with him, for the sake of argument, that there was a real Jesus. Now what? Where do we go from here?

Obviously we turn him into a fatherless child, who can heal the sick, walk on water, come back from the dead, and appear on toast and make statues cry blood.  It's only logical, right?

I'm pretty sure his point is that there is no big deal in conceding the point for the sake of argument; all the other non sequiturs you trotted out will be dealt with as the claim is made.

My question for Freeservant is very simple. How do we get from a real man named Jesus to the Jesus described in the gospels?

[radicalaggrivation]

I wouldn't even give him that much. There is no evidence that Jesus lived at all. But you're right. Even with that point being conceded there is still no way to justify the Jesus of the New Testament. I guess my point is that, while the majority of Americans take it for granted that Jesus at least existed, a believer has to admit, at any level of this argument, that they are operating out of faith based assumptions and not fact. I think the fact that there is no evidence allows for the possibility, in the same way that a total lack of evidence for God can be used to justify the belief (since we can't prove God does not exist).

[Thumpalumpacus]

My question for Freeservant is very simple. How do we get from a real man named Jesus to the Jesus described in the gospels?

Indeed, which is why I labeled the quoted projections non sequiturs; they don't follow from some guy named Jesus having lived and died.

It's also why I don't mind agnosticism on this question; divine provenance is not shown by crucifixion, else the Romans produced many thousands of gods.

[Gawen]

Personally, I've never come across any evidence that he did, but like I said - I haven't really studied the subject.

That;s the whole point. There is no subject to study...*grinnin*


These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years after:

 Apollonius
 Appian
 Arrian
 Aulus Gellius
 Columella
 Damis
 Dio Chrysostom
 Dion Pruseus
 Epictetus
 Favorinus
 Florus Lucius
 Hermogones
Josephus
Justus of Tiberius
Juvenal
Lucanus
Lucian                
Lysias                
Martial                
Paterculus
Pausanias
Persius
Petronius
Phaedrus
Philo-Judaeus
Phlegon
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Plutarch
Pompon Mela
Ptolemy
Quintilian
Quintius Curtius
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Statius
Suetonius
Tacitus
Theon of Smyran
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus

Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ.

[The Magic Pudding]

Mr Teatime has had some thoughts on Jesus.
He doesn't work cheap.
But if you want the job done, he's your man.

[hunterman317]

He existed. We all know he wasn't God.

[LegendarySandwich]

I think this is a pretty good article on whether Jesus existed or not:

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