Did Jesus Christ really exist?

Atheism is no more a belief than the assertion "that that there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" is a belief.[quote]

Of course it is! Its a belief that there is no God. My Dad is one and he believes that Jesus never existed. I should piont howver that Im not prejudaced at all.

As a Catholic I do believe Christ but I suggest that the biblical descriptions of him my not be totally accurate. Ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels? They were found in the Egyptian dessert having been buried there some 1000 years after his death. They also talk about Jesus life but as a mortal man not the Messiah. They even suggest a close relationship with Mary Magdalene. She even gets her own Gospel. I wonder if these are a more accurate depiction of Christ's life or least that they tell us more than the Church would have us know.

I disagree. Atheism is a belief (the belief that there is no God). Skepticism, and more specifically agnosticism (there may or may not be a God; the decision should be made upon definite evidence) is as close to absence of belief, or rather the reluctance to establish a belief, that you can get in matters religious.

-Akolouthos

       i don't know if anyone has previously posted an answer to this but the book in question may have been The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail first published in 1982. the authors argued that Jesus may have married Mary Magdalene; had kids; emigrated to france; became the Morovingian dynasty and protected by a secret society called the Priory of Sion.

Have either of you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels ? They were a set of Gospels found in the Egyptian Desert a few hundred years ago. They too talk about Jesus's life but as a mortal man and the suggest a close relationship with Mary Magdalene

" And the companion of the saviour was Mary Magdalene"

In acnient times companion was often used to mean spouse

" And the disciples asked Jesus " master why do you lover her more then us?" "

It has been suggested that they had a baby together so that there is a holy bloodline.

The link to Merovingians and The Priory of Sion has been proven false. Even one of its members Gerard De Sed wrote a book denouncing it! It was scheme designed by the Priory's TV spokesperson Pierre Plantard to give creedence to his belief that he was decsended from the Merovingians. 

But there other groups associated with the Grail like the Cathars and the Templars which people are willing to except and other places like Rosslyn Chapel on Scotland where she is thought to be buried.

Nope. He refers to one Jesus brother of John. Jesus and Christ are different concepts entirely.

Only in the sense that they confirm the Christian cultists believed in him,  not that their belief was true.

No-one I think disputes that Christians believe Jesus existed and was Christ. That they believe he did and was is not evidence their belief was justified.

Some parts of it are pretty good (Maccabees for instance). But the Bible is not homogeneous: it ranges from wildly absurd myths through poetry that needs no facts to give it value (Song of Solomon) to morality tales like Job and Esther and collections of bits of advice that aren't even connected with God (Proverbs) to passages that are indeed fairly reliabe history (for instance the existence of and the wars between Israel and Judaea).

But almost none of it is contemporary, merely a collection of tales remembered through oral tradition, like Homer, and while the exile to Babylon, for instance, is historical, it is nowhere near as well-founded as the contemporary records that many cultures have left behind.

Originally posted by docyabut   expand Likely Image of Jesus Early Image of Jesus Found By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

      All i can see is Steven Spielbergs ET 

                i even squinted my eyes but still ET.

Well actually yes, if the "ancientness" of a text is to be considered a validation of its authenticity. Most of the Gnostic texts that have been "re-discovered" were written after the canonical Gospels--and thus the Church has to deal with old heresies once again, and this time in an environment fraught with relativism *sigh* . Anyway, if you are a Christian, what you need to know is that the Church canon developed as it did as an expression of orthodox (little "o") Christianity. If you are not a Christian, frankly you can believe in whatever non-canonical texts you want.

Allow me to offer an example. Some people used to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Others believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The latter was true then, and is true now--unless you want to get truly nominalistic about it . That doesn't mean that the former opinion didn't/doesn't exist, only that it is wrong.

If you accept the premises and tenets of the Christian faith, you can cast the development of the Canon in the same light. If you do not, you won't be able to understand it in the same sense, and I will refuse to acknowledge your heliocentric solar system (a refusal that still won't render it false ).

-Akolouthos