The more I read this thread, the more I:

• Agree with Tony.
• Love my dog.
• Want to reread that other Atlantis thread.
• Look at the BDG.

We're really going to get bogged down if we debate whether Jesus the man actually existed.  I have done that at length on beliefnet, not arguing that he definitely existed but that he most probably did.

The passage in Josephus is problematic, as I learned, because it is somewhat out of context, is not characteristic of the style of Josephus, and because it talks about a "Jesus, who was the Christ" when Josephus, a Jew who seemed to be fairly happy with his life among the then-pagan Romans, probably would not have taken such a point of view.  A case however can be made that an earlier, lost edition of Josephus probably did refer to the historical Jesus, but that it was amended by some later copyist to agree more with Christian belief, which became rather universal in the late empire.  

It seems to me that the denial of a historical Jesus often stems from an exaggerated hostility to Christianity, and also from an unrealistic idea of the basis upon which anything from A.D. 33 could possibly be known.  I have seen people argue that because there are no Roman records of Jesus or of his trial, therefore, there was no such man.  But of course, millions of people lived in the Roman world and at least tens of thousands must have gotten themselves condemned to crucification on one pretext or another, and very scant or no records exist of any of them, either.

But particularly since a great many non-Christians of the classical era seem to have believed that Jesus was a historical figure, it seems quite strange to me to deny, from this vast remove, that he was.  

On the other hand it seems that there is little known for sure about Jesus the man.  It definitely is not true that "there's a fair bit of evidence from Roman sources to show that he was born and died on the cross."  

To meander a bit, the supposed saying of Jesus that I find most striking is something like, "A rope shall thread the eye of a needle more readily than a rich man shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven."  (Yes, it was "rope," not "camel," according to modern translation.)  If this vivid statement is indeed that of Jesus, it suggests that he may have thought wealth and wordly concern not merely irrelevant but indeed a serious impediment to spiritual enlightenment.  A rope is too fat to thread the eye of a needle, and a rich man is too filled up to behold the divine.  That's a rather Asiatic idea, it seems to me, suggesting as it does that the path to enlightenment requires abstinence and purification.  That's an idea you don't see emphasized much in the main streams of Christianity.  

SF,
The historical Jesus is documented most prominently in the Gospels,  But they were written long after the death of Jesus (often in bad Greek), by people who had never met or heard him.
there's a fair bit of evidence from Roman sources to show that he was born and died on the cross. Again, all written long after the death of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls which were written during Jesus' lifetime, don't give him a mention.

The main point of contention is what happened after he died. Apart from the clear doctoring of the end of Mark (the first of the Gospels) there is the bigger contention of why are the Jews blamed for the death of Jesus, when the fact of his crucifixion shows it was the Romans who wanted him dead.

I don't consider Jesus to be nice, per se.  He got angry, and even impatient at times.  And he had a bit of a God complex.

The historical Jesus is documented most prominently in the Gospels, but there's a fair bit of evidence from Roman sources to show that he was born and died on the cross.  

The main point of contention is what happened after he died.

Oh, and the manner of his birth, and some of his actions during his life. And the meaning of it all. and...

Edited:


I'll try to post this once every page or two.

Stigma wrote on 06/02/10 at 15:12:59:


Agree that one can assume that anything anyone posts is simply an opinion. Normally I would not react to such a post since there have been many posts advocating an atheist point of view on this forum before, particularly by Markovich and MNb. None of those two posters' posts on the same have bothered me. However, the overall tone of the post by TN when read in entirety, as I perceived it invoked an uncharacteristic, admittedly  unhelpful overreaction in me.

Stigma,

I can see your point. But there is a big difference between the statement of opinion "I don't believe in God" and the dismissive, categorical assertion "God not does exist"

I don't think this thread is going to do much more than annoy everyone, whatever their views, and will certainly become more and more antagonistic.
I won't lock it, but hope do be able to rely on members' good sense to simply stop posting?!