Once again... everything written about Jesus in the bible isn't necessarily true. So, his death may be one of the many fabricated parts.

to answer the original question on this topic

do i want jesus to have existed
i believe there was a jesus and he was a real man
but i dont believe everything the bible says or that he was the son of god

That gives me hope eiri. Let's hope that it wasn't.

It's entirely possible in fact that Jesus wasn't one person, but in fact a collection of people with similar ideas, and when it was written up, a man named Jesus was invented as the figurehead.

The idea of Jesus is what I want to have existed. To know that someone can be so selfless as to give their life, etc. It gives hope to people who need it when their lives are tough.

I personally prefer modern examples of people willing to give their lives, since their existence is proven...

For the more spiritual it works.

I prefer Ghandi and Martin Luther Kind Jr. and people like them since I can see documented examples of their work and the progress they helped to achieve. I also like the ancient idea since some people will not use modern day references for peace and understanding.

no i do not want Jesus to have existed for a number of reasons, number one being that even if what he stood for was noble i am sick of hearing about some outdated hippy being hung on the cross. Ghandi stood for peace, and can be seen, as well as accurately documented, give me someone we know is real, not some "mysterious figure" from thousands of years ago.

So in a few thousand years Ghandi will be a mysterious madeup hippy who is outdatted? But the fact is he still existed. You have pretty silly logic

There are people we know existed from 2 thousand years ago... like Caesar. No one's doubting HIS existence. Or Constantine. Or Alexander the Great. We have proof of all of those people.

Oh! And all of those Egyptian Pharaos from long before Jesus!! We acknowledge their existence too.

So no, in 1,000 years, I'm pretty sure people will still be watching videos of Ghandi, and knowing he existed.

My point was, I think, that people going through horrible things for good causes or reasons is not a good thing. It is only a testament to what kind of world we are living, an unjust world of lunacy and pain, and should not inspire any kind of hope, but anger , sadness, maybe, but not hope.

I would rather that there be no pain, sin, whatever, to care about. So honestly, caring isn't a good thing either, only a testament to a poopy world.

I suppose what I am trying to say is, the world should be perfect, why isn't it?!

I think a perfect world would be rather boring...

one only need to research Jewish, Greek and Roman history to realise that Jesus existed as a single person and whom was quite notorious.

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in Palestine during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.

Historians have developed a number of methods to critically analyze historical sources:

Criterion of dissimilarity. (More narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment.) Statements contrary or dissimilar to the author's agenda are likely to be more reliable. For example, a Christian source would be unlikely to claim that Jesus was from Nazareth (rather than from Bethlehem), unless his family was actually from Nazareth, as this was a cause of embarrassment.

Criterion of multiple attestation. When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is at least certain that the tradition predates the sources. See the Historicity of Jesus for an example of the multiple independent attestations of the fact that Jesus was a real person.

Contextual and linguistic criteria. A source is more credible when the tradition makes sense in the context of what historians know about the cultural background. There are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the gospels. For example, if a dialogue only works in Greek (the language of its written source), it is quite likely the author is reporting something at least slightly different from the original.

Author's Agenda. This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When material serves the perceived purposes of the author or redactor, it is suspect.For example, various sections of the gospels, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, portray Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in the view of many scholars, reflect the agenda of the gospel authors rather than historical events.

Historians have little other than Christian accounts on which to base a biography of Jesus. Greek accounts portray Jesus as the son of adultery, and Jewish accounts portray him as a magician, but these accounts tell us virtually nothing about Jesus as a historical figure but they do tell us that he existed.

According to the Gospels and other early sources, Jesus was active in Galilee and Judea (modern day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan) during the first half of the first century. Following the break-down of earlier Jewish kingdoms the partially-Hellenized territory was under Roman imperial rule, but there were ongoing hopes of a revival of sovereignty. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but although the land was mostly peaceful, there was an ongoing risk of rebellion, riots, banditry, and violent resistance. Four decades after Jesus’ death the tensions caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration of the kingdom of David culminated in the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final break between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

Given the historical context in which the Gospels took their final form and during which Christianity first emerged, historians have struggled to understand Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known about first century Judaism. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus seems not to have belonged to any particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in combining elements of many of these different – and for most Jews, opposing – positions. Most critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, and preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea. (According to Geza Vermes, the fact that Jesus' followers addressed him as "lord" indicates that they likened him to notable miracle workers and scribes. see Names and titles of Jesus)

Nevertheless, Jesus reflects the cultural milieu of his time. Many of his teachings echo the beliefs of the Qumran community (which was probably a branch of the Essenes) and of some of the Pharisees. In Jesus' day, the two main schools of thought among the Pharisees were the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai; the accusations of hypocrisy which Jesus is reported as levelling at Pharisees in general may have been directed against the stricter members of the House of Shammai, although he also agreed with their teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). In general, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is stricter than the teachings of the House of Hillel.

Finally, Jesus' repeated declarations that the kingdom of God was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views and the political views of the Zealots. Following the failure of the Maccabean insurrection against the Seleucids almost two centuries previously, most Jews of Jesus' time believed that the restoration of the kingdom would be accomplished by God, not by any movement of Jews. However, he did believe that this restoration was imminent. Jesus was enigmatic at best about his claim to actually be the presumptive monarch. That he speaks of twelve disciples is probably symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus a metaphor for "all Israel". According to Geza Vermes and others, the use of the terms "messiah" and "son of God" by Jesus' followers indicate that they believed he would assume the monarchy upon the restoration of the kingdom (see Names and titles of Jesus).

Your sources would do your claims good. As in, the source you copied and pasted this from (just in case you forgot, it's wikipedia) and all the sources that claim the validity of the historical Jesus. Don't forget to re-read the section I have bolded, and then go blow your nose of snot.

And you'd probably be better posting it in the thread "Did Jesus Exist" instead of this one.

Because obviously Guest's response to this thread is "Yes". Duh.

its not about wanting or not wanting although I suppose that plays a large part of faith in Christ, wanting him to be the son of God or wanting him to be merely a man but it can not be denied that this man Jesus of Nazareth existed it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. I have many non christian - anti christian friends who willingly acknowledge the existance of Jesus of nazareth for simple fear of being found to be foolish or liers - they simply deny his divinity.

Yes I do!

yeah right heheeh

Why not?