Will the real JC please stand up.

I'm about as atheist as they come, but it seems pretty settled history that the man existed and was politically impactful
- He was most likely a real guy. But a guy Christian’s would absolutely hate: a brown Communist Palestinian who hung out with prostitutes, lepers, pariahs, refuted the legitimacy of the state, and organized massive mutual aid events to feed the poor. Probably a good dude. It’s a shame his followers are dicks though.
  
  I'm starting to think he wasn't all that great. He would have been someone who started a little apocalyptic religious following around himself, and those kind of people don't tend to have the best interests of their followers at heart.
  He probably did see himself as starting something that would kick the Romans out of Judea and install himself as king. Judas got cold feet about it and warned the authorities. The Romans crucified him for exactly what the gospel accounts say, except they had a lot more evidence than the writers were letting on.
- The bible Jesus probably never existed, but there were clearly a guy a lot of people followed called Jesus that the romains crucified.
  
  Except his name was probably some version of Joshua. The Jesus spelling comes from the Greek, where a lot of masculine names end in -s.
  
  Wasn't it the icebergs that crucified him?
- Yeah, disbelieving in the existence of Jesus the Jewish carpenter is about as silly as disbelieving in the existence of Pontius Pilate.
  
  I have physical evidence that Pilate existed as well as the testimony of people alive at the time and the claim isn't even that big.
- I'm an anti-theist, and I used to be on this page, but a while ago I read about how even this might not be true. We don't have any real proof he existed at all.
  
  Where'd you read that? Here are at least the known sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
  There's way less evidence of a ton of historical figures and events that are taken for granted as established history. Just my two cents
- Real talk, he hasn't been proven to exist. Not even a little.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
  And as you read through you will notice a heavy bias towards the assumption he did exist...but again, without proof. It's kind of silly the lie he was real is so prevalent.
  Each attempt to prove his existence relied on very loose reasoning. The closest they have ever come breaks down to one actual historical figure who wasn't a Christian mentioning some thieves who believed in Jesus numerous decades after Jesus supposedly died - which for a long time was proof enough...somehow.
  At this point scholars have admitted they will never have actual proof that he existed - that proof is "ultimately unattainable". And much like you noted with "political impact" they have moved the goal posts to the impact on society the concept of Jesus had as their proof. So... yeah, definitely not proven.
  
  What did you expect? We're talking about one guy who might have lived over 2000 years ago. You're not going to find his birth certificate and social security number.
  The best anyone can do is assign a probability to his existence. And reading the article you yourself linked to, that probability seems to be pretty high.
  
  We have two sources for Spartacus: Plutarch of Chaeronea and Appian of Alexandria. Both were written a century after he died. The two accounts mostly agree, but in the middle of the story they go completely different directions and then meet up again for the ending.
  Spartacus is generally regarded as existing. We don't know which account had it right, and it's possible neither of them are. We will probably never know.
  Point is, if you're not a ruler, then historical evidence of your existence tends to be thin. Jesus likely existed, and we have better evidence for him than Spartacus.
  
  Might not be intentional lie. Take for example how we today call government "Uncle Sam". It's not hard to imagine made up person back in the day used for similar purposes so records survived but there's no physical evidence. We do it all the time, witches, santa claus, boogeyman, etc.
  
  Note how the article uses the word "scholars" as opposed to scientists. Scientists would simply state that there is no actual evidence about the existence of this guy so this is all speculation.
  
  James Cameron did a national geographic documentary proving the guy existed. They found his ostuary. Which fits the time period. It was some astronomically absurd chance that it wasn't him. Since everyone in the tomb had the family names of all of his relatives. Something like it was a 1 in 10 million chance that it wasn't the nuclear family's buried remains.
- The fact remains that there is no actual evidence for the existence of the guy so ultimately it's all speculative.
  
  There's not much actual evidence for a lot of people of the period (e.g., Pontius Pilate) outside of historical writings. That's pretty ludicrous way to rationalize a petty belief.
- Settled by whom? The world dominated by Christian nations to boost their own influence? This is like Indian scholars saying all their gods are real and definitely existed and selectively citing texts written to confirm that bias. History isn't as clear cut as you think it is.
  Believe it or not people lied since the they began to talk. Just because there's some text doesn't make it entirely accurate.
  
  This is like Indian scholars saying all their gods are real and definitely existed and selectively citing texts written to confirm that bias
  It's actually not even remotely like that in any way
  
  All you've proven is that you haven't engaged with the scholarly arguments for historical Jesus at all. A bunch of them are not kind to a fundamentalist position. For example, there's an argument that the census story around Jesus' birth is a fabrication--there's no evidence for a Roman census around that time, and why would everyone need to travel to their birth town for this?--but the fact that they're sticking it there is because they had to deal with Jesus being an actual guy from Nazareth. They really, really want to attach him to King David by having him be born in Bethlehem, and him coming from Nazareth gets in the way of that. So they create this whole weird census story to make up for it.
  No matter if you agree with this take or not, it's clear no fundie would come up with that or accept it.

The consensus among historical scholars is that some itinerant preacher who we can reasonably call the historical Jesus existed. That is the state of the field. There was lots of religious fervor at the time, it was already probably clear to everyone that something bad was going to happen to the Temple, there were lots of similar guys running around.
Arguing that the man probably existed is not arguing that he advocated for the things he was saying in the Bible, that he was in any way divine, or that one should believe in Christianity. It’s not arguing for leftist hippie Jesus either. Just that at this point in history, some sort of Jewish rabble rouser claimed to be a messiah and started a small group of followers. This is not a crazy claim - rabble rousers exist, Jewish people exist and have a complex religious/political figure called a messiah, and the group of followers was causing problems in less than a hundred years.
Remember that historical argumentation and proof looks fundamentally different than argumentation and proof in physics or math. You can’t do “Josephus minus The Testimonium Flavianum plus Pliny’s letters equals Christ.” No one is going to be able to trot out a photo of Jesus. Although here’s something fun: here’s one of the first depictions of Jesus.
- There's a set of atheists who don't stop at saying the Bible is full of contradictions. They feel the Bible must be wrong in every single aspect. This is a position just as fragile as fundamentalists--after all, some events like the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians definitely did happen--and you don't need to make that claim in order to disregard the bible as divinely inspired.
  Edit: clarified wording
- That's dope that Jesus had one of those horse-heads masks all the way back then. Truly ahead of his time.
  
  Dude was shitposting all the way to the end. Truly a man worth worshipping.
- The consensus is also that Mark at least somewhat more accurately represents the historical figure than the other gospels, which are all either fairly culturally Greek or Greek to the core (John).
  
  What part of Mark? Give me the passage that references something that Jesus said or did that you are confident that he did say or do that thing.
  I ask because I have no idea. Every time I try to do this I find out it happened in the OT or in Greek literature or in the letters or it served a selfish purpose for Paul.
- I like leftist hippie Jesus tho
- The consensus among historical scholars
  Argument from authority, logical fallacy. Also you don't apply it consistently. The consensus among humanity (95%) is that the supernatural does exist. The consensus among Bible scholars is the resurrection is a real historical event and that Luke wrote the 3rd gospel.
  it was already probably clear to everyone that something bad was going to happen to the Temple, there were lots of similar guys running around.
  80 football fields in area and one of the most prominent locations of the Empire. By a lot you mean the 2 we know about I assume.
  Arguing that the man probably existed is not arguing that he advocated for the things he was saying in the Bible,
  We follow the evidence and build claims off of it. What you are doing here is taking a claim, and weakening it so you can sneak it in. It is no different than what the diests do. They continue to hide their God in smaller and smaller amounts of time and space and scope on the very edge of what we know. It also isn't different than what astrology does. Used to be astrology predicted the paths of empires now it is predicts that parts of your personality. All pseudoscience and fake history follows the route of ever decreasing effects.
  Remember that historical argumentation and proof looks fundamentally different than argumentation and proof in physics or math. You can’t do “Josephus minus The Testimonium Flavianum plus Pliny’s letters equals Christ.”
  When we don't have enough evidence we make no claims. We don't weaken our standards of evidence.
  
  Argument from authority, logical fallacy.
  Actually not worth reading anything past this, literally just jerking off on your keyboard while sounding like an idiot.
  
  The consensus among Bible scholars is the resurrection is a real historical event and that Luke wrote the 3rd gospel.
  Lolwut, that never came up in my graduate religious historiography class.
  Dude, I’m not going to get into endless arguments with you. You don’t have the reading comprehension. I’m pretty sure you’re not even 18 yet. It takes you about two comments to start accusing anyone who calls you a Christian.
  I used to laugh at folks who suggested that atheists could be as fundamentalist and dogmatic as Christian’s are, but you’ve given me cause for pause.

The one true JC
- set DeusEx.JCDentonMale bCheatsEnabled True
  And now he can do wonders, too.
- I'm reinstalling
  
  Aw shit, here we go again...

I remember reading about this.
IRC before Emperor Constantine there was still a bit of a religious taboo of portraying Jesus (a god), due to the whole bible being against idolatry thing. So it was mostly metaphorical images of a buff shephard, if there were pictures at all, because Jesus was a shephard to his followers, and buff because why wouldn't you make him buff?
After Constantine converted, Christianity was romanised. The Romans loved idolatary so that taboo went out the window ASAP. The image of Jesus was partly inspired by images of Apollo and Dionysus (hence white, fit and feminine) then later Zeus (hence the authoritative beard). It's not actually inspired by actual Jesus, whose appearance was (perhaps deliberately) not described properly in the New Testament. The Church basically adapted its product to the tastes of the Roman market, just like the whole Christmas tree and Saturnalia gift giving becoming Christian traditions.
Apparently there's a similar thing in Islam, where a lot of the stuff that's supposedly a core Islamic value, is just Arabic culture that predates Islam. Something that annoys non-Arabic Muslims. From what I can tell, Muslims are even more likely to pretend their religion came fully formed and never changed/adapted in its long history. Understandably, I tend to avoid discussing this with devout Muslims. LOL
Obviously, religious extremists can't admit that their religion changes and adapts, or they'd have to admit that that one value they think is really important might be changed too or that their religious texts aren't the inerrant word of their god. Which is probably one of the reasons why different religious sects love to fight each other over stupid shit, rather than admit that they're both the same religion, but just a bit different based on local tradition and history because their religious texts were written by humans not gods.
Or at least, that's my theory.

Dear Jesus. Not responding to every "prove it" remark. But look, you people know that just because the supernatural clearly isn't real, does not mean that Jesus was not a real historical figure. No serious historian thinks he wasn't real. Most who study this period of history believe he was a real apocalyptic preacher, who was killed somewhat unexpectedly by the Romans, and whose followers at least claimed to have visions of him after his death.
None of these things are particularly far out there claims. There are many apocalyptic preachers today, no today we don't kill them, but their followers also often claim they've seen some crazy things.
- This is one of those silly arguments that only makes sense before you think about any detail of it. When you actually look at events in the narrative you start having to throw things out one at time until there's almost nothing left - no trial. no last supper.no temple whipping, No feeding the 5000. No census...
  1% Jesus isn't Jesus, but if what you mean is that a real person inspired the foundation of the church then what you're saying is they were able to make up a completely fictional account of every detail of a popular characters life - if they can do that then they why not just make him up entirely?
  
  It is diesm all over again. Just keep making God do less and less until he doesn't exist at all.
  
  Because he was a real person, who was an apocalyptic preacher, was unexpected killed while Pontius Pilot was Governor of Judaea, and whose followers though they had visions of him after his death.
  Supernatural things obviously aren't real. But the historicity of this preacher we call Jesus of Nazareth, whose life inspired Paul to start what much later became the Catholic and Greek churches isn't up for debate by anybody other than morons online.
  Obviously essentially no details of any gospel is true. But that doesn't mean the man did not exist, nor that the gospels aren't interesting insofar as they elucidate aspects of the development of the early church and early Christian theology.
- I'm laughing at this functionally religious furvor we have going on in here. "Prove it!" Bruh, if old-ass writing that generally agrees with other old-ass writing isn't good enough for you, might as well just throw out everything before about 1500 outside of China.
  
  if old-ass writing that generally agrees with other old-ass writing isn’t good enough for you
  Follow that to the logical conclusion and we're expected to believe in the Great Flood myth, the existence of Angels, and the Aristotelian scientific theories of Four Elements and Four Humors.
  
  Define generally agrees.
- Sure and coconut oil exists. No, it does not cure cancer. There for the type of coconut oil that cures cancer does not exist.
- No serious historian thinks he wasn’t real.
  One of the big problems with "Historical Jesus" isn't that "historians don't think he's real" but that "historicans can't prove he is".
  The period covered by the Bible had a surplus of Messiah-esque figures who all kinda had some of the characteristics attributed to Big J. And Roman historians of the period who had made a point of writing histories of the region failed to mention any of the key events recorded in the early Christian scriptures.
  Most who study this period of history believe
  The prevailing view among most serious historians is simply "Not Enough Information".
  That said, a bunch of the more miraculous events attributed to the figure are common to prior religious icons - virgin birth, walking on water, loaves and fishes, raising the dead, exorcising demons - while the parables predate the "Historical Jesus" by centuries, as well.
  So the task of "disproving" Jesus is as sticky as "disproving" Paul Bunyon. Which is to say its trivial to announce a 60' tall man who formed the Grand Canyon with his axe isn't real. But nearly impossible to prove "famous tall lumberjack" never existed.
  None of these things are particularly far out there claims.
  The thing that made Jesus stand out above the parables and the miracles was his famous walk into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, his Last Supper, and his crucifixion. These are events that we find incredibly difficult to prove.
  In fact, the entire historical record around Christianity as a faith is incredibly thin for its first 150 years.
  To wrap your brain around this, consider if the modern American state had approaching zero preserved historical evidence of its existence until halfway Calvin Coolidge's second term, in 1926. Then tag in claims that George Washington could fly and shoot lasers out his eyes. Or that Abraham Lincoln used a magic staff to part the Potomac and lead Confederate slaves out of bondage. Then try to have a conversation about "historical Presidents". Imagine if the Constitution was revealed to James Madison on gold tablets that he found in a magic hat. How do you then take the Battle of Saratoga or the Gettsyburg Address or the Louisiana Purchase at face value?
  This is the fundamental problem with "historical Jesus". What records do exist are comically unreliable.
  
  According to Paul he learned about the last supper in a dream and we know there was a popular fictional book in the empire that describes a last supper in a very similar manner.
  Our historical evidence of the man is a dream based on a novel he had read. Not exactly a good argument
- Yeshua Ben Hur existed. Jesus Christ, not so much.
  
  Why are you booing me? I'm right!
- No serious historian thinks he wasn’t real.
  Do serious historians live in Scotland with True Scotsmen?
  None of these things are particularly far out there claims. There are many apocalyptic preachers today, no today we don’t kill them, but their followers sure also often claim they’ve seen some crazy things.
  Name a cult whose founder only preached for 6 months and the cult survived. Name one. You can't. Because it never happens making your model of the events the ultimate black swan event in history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
  
  I find when people identify someone else's usage of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to be disingenuous, as if it's impossible to make objective statements ever. No true historian promotes knowledge which hasn't been proven. There is no evidence that a man named Jesus the Christ of Nazareth who could perform miracles and spoke to Pilate and was known throughout the kingdom as a troublemaker ever existed. There was a Yeshua Ben Hur who historically could be an avatar people can associate these fantastical tales with, but that would obviously not be real history.
  
  Look no serious historian who studies that period of history believes this. You can think whatever you want and spew dumb rhetoric. But you're incorrect.

You forgot supply-side Jesus
- Is that a bottle of, uh, personal lube?
  
  It's a candle, but I suppose if you're real determined...

Scientifically, he was probably a real dude.
- Probably, but there were tons of apocalyptic Jews at the time. Did any of them turn water to wine, rise from the dead, etc? Nah
  
  Ronald Reagan didn't do most of the things that his followers believe either but saying Regan wasn't real is getting reeeealy existential.
  
  How many of them founded a religion? None. So it is isn't comparable
- Prove it

Jesus was a cave man from the upper paleolithic era who survived and studied under the Buddha, then went west to try and spread those teachings, and was unintentionally ascribed godhood by his followers.
If you got that reference, I'll buy you a drink of your choice should we ever meet.
- What a great movie! I'm not the one for rewatching movies, I've seen this one three times, so yeah... That's a lot for me
  
  What’s the movie?
  I know there are a lot of people that think Jesus was buddhist so I thought it was about that
- Anything that says IPA on it I tend to like but really my favorite beer is free, so just whatever you want to get me. It is the Man from Earth. Not really a great movie. When he said John T. Party from Boston a little part of me died.
  You know what one really annoying thing, amongst many, with that movie is? There are connections between the Buddha and the Gospel Jesus. However, with the sole exception of the Golden Rule, all the details are biographical. Which hints really strongly that it is just a typical way the human mind likes a story since presumably if there was a connection between the Gospel writers and Buddhism they would have his teachings instead of his biography.
  
  Nah that movie was great for what it was. Literally one set and some of the acting was really bad but the writing makes up for all of it. Anybody who appreciates dialogue in Cinema should check it out if you haven't already.
  I don't understand your point trying to disprove connections between Buddha and Jesus. Jesus' part of the Bible does have his teachings. If Jesus and the Bible were real, the "biography" is basically a supercut of all the times he learned a lesson, taught lessons to others or performed miracles (sometimes the last two are the same). So I don't understand how you're saying his "biography" doesn't have his teachings. But even without my explanation, I don't see a 1+1 equation from what you said.

Nah, Jesus existed.
A lot of people were called Jesus back then.
Jesus of Nazareth on the other hand ...
- A lot of people were called Jesus back then.
  Still are, I know a bunch of Jewish dudes named Joshua.
  
  There are a lot of Hispanic dudes named Jesus as well.

I’m “white” and look like the dude in the middle.
Honestly we need to stop using the words “white” and “black” to refer to skin. All the humans I’ve ever seen are brown. Maybe we should call albinos “white people”. Maybe. Probably not.
Jesus on the left looks like he’s got jaundice.
- Yeah, yellow Jesus looks like his liver failed.. didn't even make it to the cross..

I made American Jesus
- No no, that's the People's Liberation Front of Judea.
- I see him on the interstate.
- A band called Bad Religion did, too! EDIT: On a second thought and based on the replies, I guess you knew from the start. Aaaanyway.
  
  I finally got to see them last spring at punk rock bowling. They're pretty old now, but still a good show.
- He is undecided as to whether he prefers a straight or a banana mag.
- Old but always relevant
- He's the force the army wields.
- LMAO

Confirmed John Cena is Jesus.

Darkmatter2525?

Aye DarkMatter2525

A grift by James the Just. Nothing more and nothing less.

ITT: angry ackshually type atheists OR legit religious nutjobs.

One of the most irritating aspects of people who call themselves atheist is the complete lack of knowledge about the historical accuracy and existence of Jesus.
Sure, he was a schizophrenic religious zealot. A complete nut with good ideas. He existed but that's the extent of it. There's no divinity involved, but get off this ill-informed idea that the man didn't exist.
- Is this irony?
- Tell me which ideas you know for a fact he had and how you know that.
- Prove it.

I like how everyone in the comments is being all serious over a meme.

you are a christian troll, or just a troll, there's no way you're that dumb