Did Jesus Christ really exist?

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

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

I have always thought that humans lack the creativity to come up with things without an inspiration, which is often weather or preaching kook related.  I think its very likely that Jesus existed, and he was probably something like a David Koresh with a hodge podge of post mortem writers who exxagerated and made things up.

I think that the history of sects, their dynamics of origin and growth, show that in all probability there was a historic person on which the highly idealised figure of Jesus Christ was based.
Religious sects usually have their origin in the teaching of one leader, and usually later romanticise the figure and usually to an extent that would make the original unrecognisable.

Although there was in all possibility a figure like Jesus, I doubt if any of his words or deeds that are recorded in the New Testament bear any great resemblance to the actual events. The �New Testament� was in its conception a propaganda tool, spreading the message of a new sect through Jewish and gentile culture. That does not necessarily mean that the original teaching was falsified, just modified and packaged and sold to the public.

The Christian sect was in the beginning only one of many Jewish sects, their leader was only one of many that either claimed themselves or were claimed to be the "Messiah", the potential political and spiritual leader of a renewed Jewish society that would liberate itself from oppression, both domestic and foreign.
During the time of Roman occupation, �Messiahs� popped up in every village of Judaea, and Gallilea , claiming to be chosen one, the son of God, and our Jesus was possibly of such little significance to both the Roman and Jewish authorities that he wasn�t worth mentioning in any records.

The far greater mystery is, why especially this tiny sect succeeded where others failed, and spread around the Roman Empire in such little time with such rapid growth.


Edited by Komnenos

Originally posted by ak�nc� jesus(isa)has been proven to exist,there are writings that prove that he,his wife and kids,and his FATHER existed

What writings are these, could yu post a link?

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/   do you think this will be the answer? 

Because they had a hard time configuring his story

Originally posted by Richard XIII I think everybody accept that Plato existed. No double standard between philosophy and religion. In fact is a double standard between mind and heart.

There's a major difference here: whether Plato or not existed, it is only his message, his ideas that matter. In the case of Jesus, the person matters just as much as the message, since he is supposed to be the son of God, and his message therefore would become irrefutable . His existence therefore, becomes crucial to the message. Without him really existing, Christianity would be just another philosophy.

If you have any "solid physical evidence" about Plato let me see. 

Originally posted by Decebal In the case of Jesus, the person matters just as much as the message, since he is supposed to be the son of God, and his message therefore would become irrefutable . His existence therefore, becomes crucial to the message. Without him really existing, Christianity would be just another philosophy.

If Jesus did not exist, then the Christian myth is just that. However, if Jesus did exist, that says nothing one way or another about the truth of the myth. The important issue is not whether Jesus existed, but whether the Christ existed (and, for that matter, still exists).

Even whether Jesus taught what he is supposed to have taught is not terribly important. The issue is whether and why anyone should pay any attention to what he is supposed to have taught.

 

 

You raise a good point as to why we who are atheists like to depress and criticize the beliefs of "true believers."  Let me see if I can answer that. 

1.  We need to go after unscientific beliefs because secular science is the only common thing people believe across the globe.  Take it away and the world is left divided into four huge hate groups, groups which are dedicated to the elimination of the other: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Asian Marxism.  All four would become locked in combat over our diminishing world resources.  Our common belief in science-secular ideals across the globe are all that now prevents that from happening. 

2.  We atheists have little in common other than our non-belief.  It is almost the only thing that unites us.  Our secular ideals are being torn apart and our science education is being creationized and Intelligent Design idiotized.  You Christians like to picture yourselves as martyrs, but we atheists have only one forum and that is internet.   We are locked out of the newspapers, tV, radio and magazines.  We cannot even pay for ads. 

3.  We consider relieving others of the burden of trying to accept non-science on faith as being uplifting for both them and us, not depressing.  If dealing with us is depressing to you it is because you are ineffective in your responses.  We fill you with self-doubt and make it harder for you to keep all that dogma on faith.  We remind you that you did have a science education and that you have turned your back on it even though you like to think you haven't.

Personally, I believe there is an alternative to all this.  To have to choose science-secular in a society dominated by hedonism, gambling, addictions, obesity, corporate fraud, immodesty in dress and crime and violence, we should be turning to a system of belief which is far more moral than archaic Christian dogma.  What can we say of a Bible that has commands in it allowing slaves and which has nothing against rape, kidnapping, extortion, bribery, sewing mines, spreading fatal diseases and torture? 

 There is an alternative . . .

charles,  http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com