Was Jesus a Historical Figure?

I have long entertained serious doubts. I have never seen any evidence he existed.

figuratively yes, literally no

Amongst researcher today the discussions around the historical Jesus is mostly about what he did. That Jesus was a historical person is as a rule never even questioned. Researchers see him as a historical person.
Historians today have come to the conclusion from historical material that
Jesus lived.
Amatuer researcher and popular discussions still try to maintain that the historical person Jesus never existed.

Quote: Historians today have come to the conclusion from historical material that Jesus lived.

What sort of historical material?

i worked with a fellow named jesus, so to say you can find historical evidence that a jesus existed is one thing, but outside of the bible i've not seen anything convincing enough to say that "that" jesus existed

I think there may have been a person who lived around that time to which much of the legend of Jesus was attributed (although even that seems doubtful). But I certainly don't believe that anyone with "magical/miraculous" powers has ever existed or ever will. That's just pure fantasy.

He probably did - there are reports of a carpenter boat builder/religious leader living on the Sea of Galilee who was married and had a child. But your'e not going to get more info on that . . ."He was a man, just a man"

Now this whole sacrificail lamb/divinity thing is another matter. That's the real money maker and "the story" is kept alive just for that reason.

Do you really want me to go through everything historians and researchers have been writing?
There are divided oppinions about who he was, Jesus, Messias, God´s son or a religious crackpot. There are divided opinions about what he said and did and if he really went to heaven.
That this man was a historical person who lived 2000 years ago - is something no serious researcher or historian doubt.
Maybe I should point out that the stories about Jesu life which we find in the Bible were not biblical stories when they were written. Jesus followers added much later Mathew, Mark, Luke and John´s stories about Jesu life to the holy scriptures - what we today call NT - and that was because these writers themselves had lived close to Jesus in time or area as well as their stories could be found in the Christian community since they had been written.

From the beginning these stories were not biblical stories but what we could call non bibilcal stories.
.

>>>>>But I certainly don't believe that anyone with "magical/miraculous" powers has ever existed or ever will. That's just pure fantasy. <<<<<

There is NO "magical/miraculous" powers involved in the New Testament, because all events mentioned in the New Testament are parables!

"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables;
he did not say anything to them without using a parable."

Obviously you haven't met my southern Baptist relatives. They would be happy to set you straight. Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute are not going to be very happy with you either.

I don't believe you. Check this info and the web site that delivers more:

Examining All the Evidence for a Historical Jesus

Below is a list of the very best possible examples of "evidence" that Jesus existed. Many of you may be surprised to learn how weak a case there is that Jesus ever really lived. Open your mind and carefully review the analysis below.

Let's examine all the "evidence" of a historical Jesus, followed by a conclusion at the end. The "evidence" is in italics, the responses are in bold:

Josephus, a court historian for Emperor Vespasian,(37-94 C.E.) recorded:
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date." (Jewish Antiquities XVIII 63f, later interpolations in brackets)

For hundreds of years, Catholic historians have used these paragraphs in Josephus' writings as "proof' that Jesus existed. That is, until scholars began to examine the text a little more critically. No serious scholar now believes that any of these passages mentioning Jesus were actually written by Josephus. They have been clearly identified as much later additions. They are not the same writing style as Josephus and if they are removed from the text, Josephus' original arguments run in their proper sequence.

In other writings supposedly attributed to Josephus, we read that as Jesus had miraculously cured Pilate's wife of a sickness, Pilate let him go. However, the Jewish priests later bribed Pilate to allow them to crucify Jesus "in defiance of all Jewish tradition." As for the resurrection, Josephus' alleged writings say Jesus' body could not have been stolen by his disciples, since "guards were posted around his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews"!

Further proof that these references to Jesus are fake, scholars point to the fact that Origen, writing in the third century tells us that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.

A letter to the Corinthian church, By Clement (elder of Rome) in 95 CE:
"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.

This quote supposedly from Clement of Rome, was said by Eusebius,to have been the fourth Bishop of Rome around 90 C.E. However, scholars now know that numerous letters attributed to this "Clement of Rome" were forged in the fourth and fifth centuries. The above quote is among those fake letters.

For those who still insist that the above quote from Clement is accurate, then read the whole letter, in which Clement vigorously attacks Paul as a misguided heretic. These fake Clement letters also describe Peter as vehemently denying Paul's status as an apostle. Clement supposedly says Paul's vision on the road to Damascus was from an evil demon or lying spirit and that Jesus is angry with Paul and that Paul is his "adversary." Those Clement letters are known forgeries written hundreds of years after the supposed events.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 110 CE, wrote a Letter to Trajan, saying:
.. For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought to me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if the admit it, I repeat the questions a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away to execution ... There have been others similarly fanatical who have been Roman citizens. I have entered them on the list of persons to be sent to Rome for trial... the charges are becoming more widespread ... an anonymous pamphlet has been circulated which contains the names of a number of accused persons. Amongst these I considered I should dismiss any who denied that they were or ever had been Christians when they had repeated after me a formula of invocation to the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your statue ... and furthermore had reviled the name of Christ; none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do.

Others ... first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said they had ceased to be Christians two or more years previously, and some even 20 years ago. ... They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: that they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery ... After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and re-assemble later for food of an ordinary harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies. This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate cult carried to extravagant lengths ... a great many individuals of every age and class, both men and women, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the towns, but villages and rural districts too which are infected through contact with this wretched cult. (Letters X 96)

The above quote only proves that there were Christians, which is not in question here. Notice that it never mentions an alleged historical figure named "Jesus" but refers to a Christ figure. Remember, the term "Christ" simply means a Messiah. This quote tells us nothing about a historical Jesus and is not evidence of his existence.
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/jesus_evidence.htm

You quate something from the Mormons who basically don´t even believe in Jesus.
Historians have written and researched about the historical Jesus since the 18th century and even further back-

Scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life. Over the past two hundred years, the image of Jesus among historical scholars has come to be very different from the common image of Jesus that was based on the gospels. Scholars of historical Jesus distinguish their subject from the "Jesus Christ" of Christianity. Other scholars hold that Jesus as presented in the gospels is the real Jesus and that his life and influence only make sense if the gospel stories are accurate. The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death. A great majority of biblical scholars and historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.[8

The English title of Albert Schweitzer's 1906 book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, is a label for the post-Enlightenment effort to describe Jesus using critical historical methods. Since the end of the 18th century, scholars have examined the gospels and tried to formulate historical biographies of Jesus. Contemporary efforts benefit from a better understanding of 1st-century Judaism, renewed Roman Catholic biblical scholarship, broad acceptance of critical historical methods, sociological insights, and literary analysis of Jesus' sayings.

>>>>>>Obviously you haven't met my southern Baptist relatives. They would be happy to set you straight. Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute are not going to be very happy with you either.<<<<<<<

So what?

Then what are they expecting out from a Spiritual Book like New Testament?

Stories of "magical/miraculous" powers ? ?

Or stories about Heaven and Hell ???

Attempts to use historical rather than religious methods to construct a verifiable biography of Jesus began in the 18th century with Hermann Samuel Reimarus, up to William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer in the 19th century Reimarus pioneered "the search for the historical Jesus", applying the Rationalism of the Enlightenment Era to claims about Jesus. Although Schweitzer was among the greatest contributors to this quest, he also ended it by noting how each scholar's version of Jesus seemed little more than an idealized autobiography of the scholar himself.

I find this tidbit from Wickepedia quite interesting.

You are trying to say that scholars have established that the historical Jesus exists. In fact, if you just look around on the inter-net, you will find countless arguments for and against. The flow is not all in one direction. What they are unanimous in establishing is that there is no historical evidence to prove that he lived at all.

Correctly the flow is not all in one direction.
There is more historical evidence that Jesus lived than of many histoical figures that we never question.
No scolars question that the NT books were written between 70 - 150 A.D
If I open up the daily paper I never see anybody questioning Jesus as a historical person - only in a group like this in internet.
There is more prove that he lived than he did not live.

There are a number of Jewish and Roman references to Jesus, some indisputable, and some probable though not conclusive references.

A few examples for instance:

Josephus has already been mentioned. A first century Jewish historian and prolific writer, he was not a Christian but did take note of first century events in and around Jerusalem. In his history, which has not been disputed by any scholars I am aware of, he wote about the stoning of James, brother of Jesus, who was called 'Christ'.

Also attributed to Josephus is a writing: "About this time came Jesus, a wise man, performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks." This passage is generally accepted by scholars as essentially authentic Josephus but it was subsequently corrupted by edits attempting to make Josephus in agreement with the divine stature of Jesus which most serous scholars think Josephus never did. So we aren't certain that we have the exact words of the original manuscript but, serious scholars, don't dispute that the basics are authentic. Josephus also made reference to the trial and crucifixion of Jesus at the order of Pontius Pilate.

The Roman Historian Tacitus wrote of Jesus (whom he called "Christus") and the spread of Christianity throughout Rome in his work Annals, approximately AD 116. It is not believed that Tacitus was converted to Christianity.

Pliny The Younger, a Roman provincial governer about A.D. 112 does not speak of Jesus directly but complained that the Christians caused him problems because they worshiped Jesus that they called Christ and not the Emperor.

These are some of the better known non-Christian sources. Because of the brief period of time involved, it is virtually impossible for a myth of Jesus to have evolved to the point that it did when the first Christian writers began compiling the documents of the New Testament without some also writing that there was no evidence that such a person as Jesus actually lived. There are no documents from that era questioning that Jesus lived.

There is of course room to debate the divinity of Jesus. But there is little room to seriously doubt that he existed.

Just as a point of reference......is there any doubt that there was a King David, John the Baptist or Pontius Pilate? I thought evidence existed that these men are historical figures.

Correct