[aljolson]

As an athiest I do not believe in god, neither do I believe that "Jesus" ever existed as a singular person. Now in a previous thread, someone stated, that most athiests accept that "Jesus" was a real human person. Is this true, and is there any evidence for him.

[CHEM_sucks]

As a muslim, I do believe in God and jesus. I believe he was a real human person, because his stories are told in the Qu'ran

[Martyn*]

Jewish historian Titus Flavius Josephus records at least 20 or more persons in the first century by the name of 'Yeshua,' including Jesus bar Damneus and Jesus ben Sapphi.

If we are talking about Jesus of Nazareth ... that's an entirely different matter. There's very little or no concrete evidence to prove the existence of the gospel Jesus, and what can be proved is thought to be very shaky and has been the subject of much debate and controversy. In my view, the only historical Jesus, apart from the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, ever to come close to the gospel Jesus is Yeshu ben Pandira of the Talmud, who was hanged on the eve of Passover for leading Israel astray.

[aljolson]

(Original post by CHEM_sucks)
As a muslim, I do believe in God and jesus. I believe he was a real human person, because his stories are told in the Qu'ran

You believe because it is in the Qu'ran. I have no problem with this, I have always stated that, faith, to me at least, is an acceptable reason for belief, I just cannot accept the people who justify belief with spurious argument. May your God be good for you.

[CHEM_sucks]

(Original post by aljolson)
You believe because it is in the Qu'ran. I have no problem with this, I have always stated that, faith, to me at least, is an acceptable reason for belief, I just cannot accept the people who justify belief with spurious argument. May your God be good for you.

What do you believe by spurious argument?

Muslims believe in most of the prophets abrahim, jesus, moses as they have been mentioned in the Qu'ran. We believe that the stories in the Qu'ran are told by Allah (god). The Qu'ran was sent to Muhammed by the angel gabriel. Muhammed was illiterate (couldn't read nor write), so we believe he was sent the message. If you understand.

[cyfer]

(Original post by aljolson)
As an athiest I do not believe in god, neither do I believe that "Jesus" ever existed as a singular person. Now in a previous thread, someone stated, that most athiests accept that "Jesus" was a real human person. Is this true, and is there any evidence for him.

Yes Jesus existed. Most prominent evidence is writings from Tacitus I would say but there are many other sources.

[Spicey]

Yes, I have heard that there are graves marked around that time with names similar to his. However I suppose we will never truly know, unless we manage to create some sort of time machine or something.

[aljolson]

(Original post by CHEM_sucks)
What do you believe by spurious argument?

Muslims believe in most of the prophets abrahim, jesus, moses as they have been mentioned in the Qu'ran. We believe that the stories in the Qu'ran are told by Allah (god). The Qu'ran was sent to Muhammed by the angel gabriel. Muhammed was illiterate (couldn't read nor write), so we believe he was sent the message. If you understand.

But this is just faith, you cannot provide evidence. I don't know a lot about Islam, I know that certain Biblical "prophets" are still prophets in Islam, but this is just synchronistic. That is why I find fault in the idea of, a book, whether it be the Bible or the Qu'ran, being used to prove either God or Jesus.

[aljolson]

When did Tacitus write about Jesus, hearsay not permissable.

[aljolson]

You are referring, I think to the box of bones, attributed to James, "brother" of Jesus, unfortunately debunked.

[don_lad_]

AFAIK It's generally accepted that there was a historical figure named Jesus around at the time the Bible says he was. there's more evidence for his existence than there is for, say, Julius Caesar in terms of contemporary documentation etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...torical_person
plenty of references here if you want to go digging.
even Dawkins says in the God Delusion that he "probably" existed on a historical basis.

[aljolson]

(Original post by don_lad_)
AFAIK It's generally accepted that there was a historical figure named Jesus around at the time the Bible says he was. there's more evidence for his existence than there is for, say, Julius Caesar in terms of contemporary documentation etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...torical_person
plenty of references here if you want to go digging.
even Dawkins says in the God Delusion that he "probably" existed on a historical basis.

I have already read the wiki, now where is the evidence? I am not Dawkins, you have to convince ME, I think Dawkins , and I have not read the God delusion, argues against God, not Jesus the Nazerene, but Christianity stands or falls on "Christ" as a true historical figure.

What we have is a God who is imponderable, and a saviour who is unprovanle.

[chickenonsteroids]

Yes, there is good reason to believe Jesus actually existed. (Or Yeshua, I think that's the actual name in Hebrew... or was)

Josephus wrote about his brother in Book 20 in one of his writings. (I think you can find it in a museum in Italy called Museo Ambrosiano.) There's also another mention in Book 18 but I think that's just a forgery. It differs from the rest of the text. But I'm not too sure on that.

Anyway, that isn't really relevant. The existence of Jesus isn't really that much of an issue for Christianity, it's just the miracles that have no basis whatsoever. (I'm looking at you "The Case for Christ" )

[CHEM_sucks]

I can see why you wouldn't believe sayings from a book. Yes most of the prophets mentioned in the bible are also mentioned in the Qu'ran. We do believe the bible was sent by god, however we believe the bible has been changed and altered by people. If you get me? We believe the Qu'ran is pure. But that's our faith. And I can see why you may find it difficult to understand.

I hope you find the answers you are searching for.

[aljolson]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Yes, there is good reason to believe Jesus actually existed. (Or Yeshua, I think that's the actual name in Hebrew... or was)

Josephus wrote about his brother in Book 20 in one of his writings. (I think you can find it in a museum in Italy called Museo Ambrosiano.) There's also another mention in Book 18 but I think that's just a forgery. It differs from the rest of the text. But I'm not too sure on that.

Anyway, that isn't really relevant. The existence of Jesus isn't really that much of an issue for Christianity, it's just the miracles that have no basis whatsoever. (I'm looking at you "The Case for Christ" )

Why quote Josephus, he was never contemporary with Jesus, he is just relating hearsay. Do you really believe that history, 2000 years ago, was written with the same discipline as history today? It would have been written under the directions of some sponsor, as history was written even into the 20th century,

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by aljolson)
As an athiest I do not believe in god, neither do I believe that "Jesus" ever existed as a singular person. Now in a previous thread, someone stated, that most athiests accept that "Jesus" was a real human person. Is this true, and is there any evidence for him.

I think most people do think that Jesus was a real person, simply on the basis that they assume he was. I've heard plenty of people say something along the lines of "I think Jesus was an important leader/man with good teachings but I don't think he was a prophet/the son of God etc".

However most people I've discussed it with who actually have a knowledge of or study the period seem to be of the opinion that he probably wasn't real. Most of the stories of his 'life' seem to have been cribbed from the stories of earlier religions (three wise men, guiding star, virgin birth, resurrection).

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by aljolson)
Why quote Josephus, he was never contemporary with Jesus, he is just relating hearsay. Do you really believe that history, 2000 years ago, was written with the same discipline as history today? It would have been written under the directions of some sponsor, as history was written even into the 20th century,

lol why do you think I am? I'm just saying that you thinking Jesus is a complete myth isn't necessarily true.

Actually, I don't even know what you're talking about.

[aljolson]

(Original post by MancStudent098)
I think most people do think that Jesus was a real person, simply on the basis that they assume he was. I've heard plenty of people say something along the lines of "I think Jesus was an important leader/man with good teachings but I don't think he was a prophet/the son of God etc".

However most people I've discussed it with who actually have a knowledge of or study the period seem to be of the opinion that he probably wasn't real. Most of the stories of his 'life' seem to have been cribbed from the stories of earlier religions (three wise men, guiding star, virgin birth, resurrection).

I was always suspicious about the real Jesus, I remember asking my dad, probably when I was about 14/15. if he believed in god, he said, he did not believe in god, but he believed in Jesus. I could never fathom his thinking out, but I suppose it must be along the lines that Christ is actually given precedence over god in Christianity, or at least was.

[aljolson]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
lol why do you think I am? I'm just saying that you thinking Jesus is a complete myth isn't necessarily true.

Actually, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Chicken, go back and read what you wrote, You quoted Josephus, as if he were writing about someone he knew. Isn't necessarily true? That's the point of the thread, If Jesus did not exist, as a singular person, then christianity is false, if christianity is false, then Islam is false. It would be a great boon for religion if God/Christ revealed himself, or do we just keep turning left to escape the maze?

[don_lad_]

(Original post by aljolson)
I have already read the wiki, now where is the evidence? I am not Dawkins, you have to convince ME, I think Dawkins , and I have not read the God delusion, argues against God, not Jesus the Nazerene, but Christianity stands or falls on "Christ" as a true historical figure.

What we have is a God who is imponderable, and a saviour who is unprovanle.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. I thought you wanted to know whether or not there was a historical basis for the existence of Jesus? the answer to that is yes, I understand that the existence and nature of God is another matter entirely. The evidence is right there, it's pefectly well referenced.