I think there was a historical Jesus.  Based on the criteria for authenticity why would the church invent deeds and sayings of his contrary to their beliefs such as "let the dead bury the dead," getting baptized by a historical repentance preacher, and having an outburst in the temple during passover for which he was duly crucified as Roman law dictated that all public disturbances during passover in Jerusalem were tantamount to sedition for which non-citizens were crucified.  Wouldn't it have been much easier for early Christians to spread their beliefs if their living god/prophet/anointed/chosen one  hadn't got himself killed rather quickly (Jesus's ministry only lasted for a few years)  Granted Christianity lucked out with Paul of Tarsus tinkering with the basics a bit and converting gentiles.

Somewhat off topic but what completely amazes me is that there is more evidence for a historical King Arthur than there is for Jesus.

Markovich, I have heard many say, "Where is God today?"  And they deny his miracles.  The fact is, miracles still happen today.  I have read numerous reports, even some from some missionaries who travel the world currently, reporting strong manifestations of God.  To say God doesn't move today isn't true.  To think God will entertain parlor tricks (make the moon turn black and I will believe) will not come to pass.  But healings still exist.  Miracles still happen, even today.  But greater than that is having a relationship with Christ.  Christ did many miracles, but this was not enough to prove his divinity to some - as a matter of fact, the Pharisees, more than anyone, wanted him to be crucified, claiming that his miracles on the Sabbath broke the law.   
If you want to see a real miracle, seek God's face.  Find out for yourself if he is real...the real miracles aren't just the physically blind being healed, but spiritually blind as well.  You can't accuse God of being a lie and expect to see anything - even if you saw something happen, you could easily count it to chance.  I could testify right now of miracles God has done in my life, but too many times people have shot them down as coincidence.  That is their choice, but I know God heard my prayers...and I testify about Him today.

My own perspective is that while Jesus the man most probably existed, the miracles attributed to him, and his resurrection, are the product of embellishments, exaggerations and outright lies by his followers.  All you have to do is look at the world to see that miracles just don't happen.  In fact, the supposed god never appears and never does anything.  You can pray all you like, and in terms of causing any detectable effect in the world, it is completely unavailing.  Everything that happens is mundane, and why should it have been any different in 33 A.D.?

What was different about 33 A.D. is that people then were much more credulous and much more disposed to believe in magic, sorcery and the like.  The large majority of people didn't know how to read, and if something was written down or reported as true by sufficiently impressive people, it took on the aura of truth.  But most Judean contemporaries of Jesus didn't think that he was the miracle-working Son of God, which alone is a strong argument against the supposed miracles having happened.  A number of people did believe it, and it is rather easy to suppose why they did, but this sort of thing happens all the time without anyone being truly raised from the dead or truly healed by the laying-on of hands.

So it is much easier for me as an observer of this world and a student of science and history to believe that if Jesus existed, he was nothing more than a man.  Clearly he was a man who stirred up a great deal of excitement and acquired a numerous following.  But he was a man.  I mean, come on.  Who has been born without his mother first being inseminated?

[I don't understand the objection to "rabble-rousing preacher," since even in the Christian account, this is essentially what he was.  He went among the poor and the downtrodden, not among the rich and well-connected, and that appears to be what got him in trouble.]

A similar argument applies on a more metaphysical level.  It is quite difficult to understand how a spirit world populated by gods, angels, devils and so forth jibes with the world of matter and energy, our understanding of which is gradually increasing.  It is, on the other hand, quite easy to understand the emotional needs and social forces that conjoin to produce belief in spirits, immortal souls, and gods; together with any number of priests willing to accept donations to get people right with this or that version of the supposed godhead.

So while you can't disprove that any number of gods exist, my view is that the great preponderance of likelihood is that none do.

See, this has turned into a nice, open, well-behaved thread! 

Don't know what everybody was so worried about...

I am glad to see that, after a couple of days, people don't think is appropriate to ban someone for supporting Jesus, and I appreciate that.

I never expected anyone to believe in Him, although I do.  But to see the comments against Him, like calling him a rabble-rousing preacher, shows how little people really know about Him.  I guess saying that He prophesied His own death doesn't account for much, but if Einstein writes an article, we receive it as God.   

Not only did Jesus prophesy his own death, but he fulfilled many prophecies in the Bible, all concerning His life, death, resurrection, and now Heavenly reign.  We look into so many sources, when the answers are right in front of us.  Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

To say he cannot get mad is not to understand God.  God has feelings too.  The Bible says that we are created in the image of God - we were created with feelings too.  One of those is anger.  But there is a godly form of anger, and an ungodly form of it too.   

I don't much care about martyrdom - I would never spread something around saying, "I got kicked off of www.chesspub.com for saying I am a Christian."  Totally not my aim.  But there were multiple negative posts in a row, and that is a bit rousing.  If people can tell why they don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, and quote sources, then I think I can quote sources why He is the Son of God with sources.  Of course, I have had atheists tell me that it is "circular reasoning" to use the Bible to explain Jesus.  But Jesus put it in these words - John 10:4 - "And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice."   

The words of Jesus are heard by His sheep - those who hear His voice.  There are those who don't hear His words.  They reject Him as the Son of God.  We can debate that all day long, but I won't debate it.  Jesus simply said, You cannot come to Him, except the Father call you.  Paul calls the words a stumblingblock and foolishness to those who don't hear His voice - hence all the mockery of Jesus in this forum.   

So many times I read that people who are atheists can read so many documents written by men about subjects they don't truly understand, and can only question, with welcome arms, but when it comes to the Word of God, it is disdained.  The Big Bang?  "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  There's your Big Bang, right in the Scripture.  God created all that you see.   

But the Word is darkness to those who don't understand it.  It cannot be understood, except through the light of Christ.  He said out of His own mouth, "I am the light of the world".  If you don't come to Christ, you will never really understand the Word of God - it will remain as another book to you, and words that make no sense.

The Bible says to come to God, and He will come to you.  James 4:8 - "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [ye] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [ye] double minded."  The only way to be cleansed of your sin is through the blood of Jesus, which was shed upon the cross.  You think it strange that Jesus died such a vicious death, but when you understand that it was to pay for your sins, you understand what he went through.  Jesus died so that all who believed on Him could receive life - He paid the price for their sins, and they give themselves unto Him.  Those who reject Him reject what He paid for them on the cross - they will die in their sins, according to Him.   

That isn't even enough to begin with Jesus, but a small piece...there aren't enough characters to talk about him on this whole forum.  This post will surely be picked at, but someone needs to know the truth.   

Jesus says the only way to God the Father is through Him - when you have seen Him, you have seen the Father.  He did nothing apart from His Father's will.  You can criticize His behaviour, but there was nothing He did that went against God the Father.  The only way to salvation, to be saved from your sins, was to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and to be cleansed from your sins.  Buddha cannot get you to heaven, nor Mohammed, nor any other God.  In the Word, it says, I am God - there is no other.   

I could keep going, but I will leave it there - that is an invitation to those who would want to accept Jesus into their hearts...if you don't want to accept it, that is your choice too.  But I have told what the Word says.

Stigma wrote on 06/03/10 at 03:26:59:

Neither would I if it weren't for Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. There are a few striking quotes in it.
As far as I am concerned this makes Jesus only more human, but not less special.

MNb wrote on 06/03/10 at 02:59:08:

Interesting, haven't heard of that one before. Two other Jewish texts that contain somewhat similar ideas to those of Jesus are 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

and again parts of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I don't know if any of these contain such specifically Cynic (or eastern) moral ideas as Markovich mentioned; as I said they could have come from Decapolis instead. But the claim that Jesus as a teacher was highly original and his ideas were unique in history, or even in a Hellenic-Judaic cultural milieu, is in some trouble.