Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Actually, Zeus does exist; albeit under an alias.

Agreed, Thomas. My problem is with people who, because they reject all the mystical and supernatural garbage contained in the Gospels, assume that, therefore, there never was any such person who preached sometime in the 1st Century c.e. and who was, apparently, executed on a Roman cross. To me, that assumption requires a far greater leap of faith as well as a rejection of what most people consider prima facie documentary evidence and testimony.

wouldn't anyone with a fairly basic interest in history know that there were multiples of people who fit that particular set of measurements?

No offense to Bill personally...but there is nothing precise about what he posts...I understand that I am the last to speak, since my grammar is very poor myself...but there is no such proof whatsoever that what he had posted, and what you subjectivity agreed with is any different than what a believer such as myself would call a personal belief...If you reject that this is so...I would love to hear you explain how you think it is different in your own subjective ways...

Everyone can see his grammar is not very good, just like mine...And there is boat loads more evidence that he is not precise, than he is...

But you have subjectively agreed with him and said precisely? How come? Do you think he is precise? You said so, because you found a common agreeance?...Correct? That is what a belief is to a believer...

Bill has posted before that the God of the Bible is just as likely as the tooth fairy and such...

You can not "validate" "just as likely" because those words in their contexts imply generalizations, and not the perspective of definite, or absolutes...

You can not possibly view 2 non-existent concepts as anything other than an absolutist thinking of how they both never existed, and never will...

If one thinks they do not and never have or will...

If someone makes a claim about non-existence in a non absolutist way...then it implies subjective thinking...and to me personally, that is exactly what a belief actually is...I am not sure why atheists seem to be petrified of this word...as if it auto makes you delusional or something...but that is the way I see it...and I am fine if they wish to call it a subjective opinion, or interpretation...or whichever way they would like to disguise this...(to me personally, from my own subjectivity)

The only other possibility that could exist regarding 2 non-existent concepts, and a subjective view...not an absolutist...would require one to personally think that there are at least 2 levels of non-existence itself...

And then to me personally, it refutes that God is "just as likely"...and it is just different subjective perspectives...nothing less, or more...

I don't need to stop doing that...that is your subjective view...mine...anyone who uses "evidence" can very easily "prove" me wrong with a rejection if they would like to do so...and think they can...

What Bill is absolutely correct about is that talking about something for 2000 years is not evidence of anything other than it being a good story.

It is an actual rejection that what they have just said is what they are actually thinking? If they reject what they have just said...then any believer should not believe them anyways...

You do not know what anyone else believes.

You ever talk to edgarblithe or cicerone impostor? c.i. once actually used the argument that there could not have been anyone named Jesus because there is no equivalent for the letter J in the Hebrew language. By that token there was no Julius Caesar in real life either because there was neither J not U in the Latin alphabet as used by the Romans.

No, I think it's pretty certain that Saul of Tarsus (aka Saint Paul) was referring to a real and specific historical person when he began his ministry and proselytizing. That doesn't mean the specific stories told about this person are fully credible any more than a TV show about, say, Davy Crockett airs authentic incidents in Crockett's life.

Just like you know nothing about mine...or how "tied up" you may think I am...!

I think we should get Mel Brooks on the line. He could clear this up right away.

(Probably obscure reference to Brooks 2000 year old man, I can't help it, I'm a comedian hoarder)

But since you have just said to me it is not about a belief for others...How could someone "validate" this claim you have just made, if they actually wanted to do so?

Is it possible that you view him as being absolutely correct, because you subjectively agree with him? Or would you say you could demonstrate this universally, as a "fact" for someone else to personally view it as such?

I know that you use the language of belief/believe/believing a lot when you post on threads related to religion/christianity.

You are absolutely correct...I do do that very often...Now what does that mean? Where do we go from there? Do you actually think that you can attempt to prove that that means I need to stop throwing it out there? Why would one personally think I should? Or personally reject I should not?

I agree with Bill on so little that your comment is quite funny.

There are records of myths and heroic tales that are older than 2000 years. That doesn't prove that they are true stories. The only thing we can be fairly certain of is that they are good stories, that they had some entertainment value.

I think you should stop using language that suggests you know what other people believe.

Talking about what you personally believe is one thing. Assuming you know what anyone else believes is another.

And I am saying that it has merit...but it is simply your own subjective view...there are many who would not personally agree with those statements you have just made...and if they did not want too, they should not have too...In the same exact ways you find it funny...Is the same way they would be offended that you laugh at what they think...

Can you explain to me why that would honestly, personally offend you? (not even giving my own subjective views as to whether I think you are correct or not)

If Bill is offended by my amusement that someone thinks I agree with him reflexively then I am sure he will tell me.

You are not Kreskin.