How popular is the notion that Jesus never existed at all?

Question

It seems to me the best conclusion based on the evidence. How many others agree?

Answer 1

It's not a very popular notion
because even the Jews and Muslims
acknowledge his existence.
Add Christians too and it's an
overwhelming majority that
believe he existed.

Answer 2

Humanity needs or expects a convenient explanation
as to what happens after death. So much so, they are more than willing to accept some ancient, scientifically unconfirmed
"scripture". I believe there was a 'Jesus,.... Was he the offspring of some almighty single creative force? The real mystery here is how many could so willingly believe with absolute certainty. I guess that's how the "National Enquirer"
sells papers. Yes, so give me your thumbs down, the more the better, at least I'll know you have read and regardless of your conviction, know that secretly I have installed a question mark in your head, the more you deny the more question marks installed.

Answer 3

The question whether Jesus existed reminds me of the research on whether William Shakespeare is the writer of his own plays or not.That is..... it is totally irrelevant.. I'm not looking at this from a Christian point of view, I know, but I believe that asking oneself if he existed in person takes away some of the meaning conveyed by what Jesus stands for, as a religious concept. It is that meaning, that set of beliefs/whatever that Christianity is based on, and Atheists/Agnostics may disaprove, the human Jesus (if he existed, but as I said, it doesn't really matter) is jthe face given to that complex.

Answer 4

Not very popular. The general consensus amongst most scholars and historians is that Jesus did exist.

Now, if your question was how popular the notion that Jesus was just a man is, then I would have to say...it's about half and half.

If one was to apply the same standards to Jesus' existence as they do to other historical figures, most of them wouldn't exist either.

Answer 5

Timothy Freke wrote a book on this called, "The Jesus Mystery." He beilieves that Jesus was imaginary because of the large amount of Greek numerology, imagery, and themes common to mystery religions of the time. Most scholars, however, believe that the Gospels contain all of these mystery religion trademarks because early convert came from these mystery religions.

Answer 6

This question has been posed many times. I think most, but not all, scholars who have studied it have concluded that there are fewer unanswered questions if you say that he did. The much bigger questions are about what he did and said and here there is a lot of room for debate.
If you think that Jesus didn't exist then you have to account for the early church - and please don't say that it was all due to Paul without looking at the evidence that it existed before Paul.

Answer 7

I'm with you. Rehashed mythology from other cultures mixed in with some paganism and astrology. That is the basic recipe for a new religion.

Hell if Hubbard could start his own religion why not Jesus?

EDIT

Many Christians seem to accept the Bible as evidence that Jesus existed but it is at best second hand evidence and at worst simple lies and chinese whispers.

There is no first hand eye witness account written about jesus at the time Jesus allegedly existed.

The fact that the Jesus myth matches exactly the myths of similar figures in other cultures is telling. It is a bit like the flood myth.

As for Aristotle, Plato and Ceasar - of course there is evidence that they existed. Plato wrote a book, Aristotle has records documenting him and ceasar produced coins with his bloody head on them.

What more do you want. Not one word written by the hand of jesus has ever been produced - could jesus not write? Was he illiterate?

President Bush farts at a conference and the world knows about it in seconds. Jesus, on the other hand, heals the sick, feeds the starving, walks on water, raises the dead, dies on a cross and then comes back and nobody writes about it until 40 years later!!!!! Does that not seem strange to anybody.

Christians also believe that Christian doctrine was defined by Christ and the apostles yet if they look closer at history it was defined with political motivation at Niscea. The political motivation of Constantine was preventing the Roman empire descending into utter chaos. The definition of a religion for all in the empire was a step along the way of uniting the people and preventing chaos. The Christian doctrine was developed under the direction of Constantine.

Answer 8

I actually don't buy this one. I think, though, that the mythical Jesus is probably an amalgam of myths and actual historical figures all attached to a single guy who probably didn't really do too much.

Answer 9

I agree. I mean, first of all, any reasonable person ought to be able to admit that the Gospels are fairy tales; but a lot of otherwise reasonable people don't admit this because they refuse to apply reason to their "religious" beliefs as they would anything else. But as to the further question of whether the gospels are embellishments of actual historical events, there's no direct evidence either way. We can only say the character of "Jesus" may have been based on one or more Jewish upstart prophets who were executed by the Romans for sedition.

It's an established historical fact, by the way, that early Christianity absorbed the mythological and ritual features of the pagan cults it replaced; even the early Church doctors tacitly acknowledged this. The incarnate "Son of God," who is violently slain at the Vernal Equinox only to rise again three days later, is a patently pagan motif. The idea of the "Eucharist," of eating the flesh and blood of the slain god so as to share in his power, is older than history.

Anybody who can say "There is more proof for Jesus than all the Caesars, religious and secular" is simply willfully ignorant of history. It's one of those outrageously false lines that "Christians" like to regurgitate with absolutely nothing to back it up. There is NO historical proof of Jesus - none at all. (The warm fuzzy feeling you get in church doesn't count as historical evidence.) No contemporary accounts, no authentic artifacts - not even a corpse! Things like the interpolated "Jesus passage" in pseudo-Josephus, or the sham medieval "relics," only bolster the notion that the whole thing is a lie, because you don't forge evidence on behalf of the truth.

By the way, thumbing me down doesn't make Christianity any truer!

Answer 10

As a historical figure, born in Bethlehem and who worked as a carpenter and prominent leader and prophet in the Christianity movement, he definitely existed. The line becomes skewed when comparing the man with his biblical deeds and actions. Most of the bible stories concerning his life are just parables, (immaculate conception, turning water into wine, Resurrection, etc) never actually happened (as there are scientific and logical impossibilities). The stories are just lessons of morality and faith, meant to embellish Jesus' commitment to his religion.

Answer 11

Not very. It is a very weak case that he ever did. However, it really isn't that much of an extraordinary claim that there was a rabbi by that name.

I personally think that they took a real person and made the story around him. Its always better to stay a little closer to the truth and there was no reason to make him up totally from air. There were probably several guys they could have used.