Did Jesus Actually Exist?

I am not the one spreading lies about reputable authors.

Neither am I.

That you deny the reputation of some is libel and character assassination.

You lie about the existence of evidence.

There is none.

Whose reputation have I defiled, who was not making a fool of himself already?

You are making a fool of yourself..

Can you deny my recreation of "The Golden Ratio"?

Based on these formulas: 1 6 3 1 3 (9's) (Got it from Fibonacci's Sequence)

3 1 3 1 3 (7's) (Got it from Pi)

2 1 2 1 2 (3's) (got it from Golden Ratio)

And this formula: 9, 1, 7, 1, 1, 7, 9, 4, 9, 7, 9, 7, 9

I now have 3, 7 9. Let's look at the "Magic Square".

( ) = Golden Ratio

{ } = Almost Golden Ratio

(1), 4 {7}

2, 5 8

{(3)}, 6 {(9)}.

The Golden Ratio looks like this:

Using the 3, 7 and 9, on the "Magic Square", you get Bottom-left, top-right and bottom-right. The Golden Ratio is close, but it's Bottom-left, top-left, bottom-right.

So if you want the Golden Ratio, you have to find the formulaic answer to transitioning the 7 into a 1. I have the formula right here: 3 + 1 + 9 = 14. Pi is 3.14.) Half of 14 is 7. Look at these formulas one more time:

3 1 3 1 3 (7's) (Got it from Pi)

2 1 2 1 2 (3's) (got it from Golden Ratio)

The Universe transposed from Pi to the Golden Ratio by reducing itself to 1/3 of its mathematical size when it was Pi.

In order of massive to small mathematical designs: Fibonacci Sequence (9) > Pi (7) > the Golden Ratio (3).

Not a lot to draw the conclusion that the was in fact a real living person behind the myths unlike Caesar where we even have as must or more information then some current movie stars as far as his personal life is concern.

Rumors about him having a homosexual relationship early in his life with a name foreign ruler, and who his one wife cheater on him with and the men who wives he bedded in turn and so on.

As far as Jesus we know almost zero outside the myths not even if he was gay or not.

Still can not see how you or anyone else can claims there is not a question of whether there is a real person behind the myths instead of perhaps a compound person or a completely made up person.

Science has been attacked many times, Timur. It has been accused to be foolish, ridiculous, criminal, what have you. It has always survived.

The question asked by the OP has been answered: there is a consensus in the halls of academia that some real Galilean preacher was at the onset of the Jesus myth(s). This much is true and verifiably so. Case closed.

Caesar made the news because he was perhaps the richest and most powerful man alive at the time, but who cares...

It's not to you to decide who closes the case.

As you pretend to the scientific final truth, you should remember that once the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

Those opposing were burnt..

Yep, quite recreational..

Scientists have found contemporary evidence the rest of us missed?

No he was not the richest man that position was held by Crassus who once stated "no man was to be accounted rich that could not maintain an army at least two legions"

We have those details going back 50 BC but we do not have any details but for the myths of Jesus life so once more how in the hell, other then for religion reasons, can anyone claim to know if there was a real person behind the myths?

What you implied was beyond the pale and you should apologise. End of.

Could we then say that we reject all this nonsense as the Academy of Sciences rejects the communications which, it seems, amiable fools do not fail to send every year on the erroneous value of Pi or the possibility of perpetual motion? No, things are different, because we cannot, strictly speaking, detect in our hypercritics real fallacies or oppose them with fully binding evidences. The historical reason lies in the possible, in the (more or less) likely; it offers to our review, at the best, evidence that one may find no good reason to doubt, or that good reasons encourage us to accept; but what can you answer to those who believe that these reasons for belief are not sufficient? Mgr Duchesne once retorted to an opponent who had called him hypercritical, "What if it was you who were hypocritical?"

No one can be compelled to faith: hence (each generation of historians have experienced this) the passionate character, the bitterness, the infinitude of the discussions triggered by such hypercritical assumptions: we can not 'get through', and no argument can prevail.
Henri Irénée MARROU, De la connaissance historique, Éd. du Seuil, coll. Points Histoire, 1975.

The question asked by the thread author was about the scientific consensus. This question has been answered.

It's true, beyond the pale or not. Same BS peddling techniques. If you don't want to be scorned, act rationally. I expect a certain level of respect for empirical facts and scientific consensus, yes, especially on a board devoted to knowledge. Let's not lynch Jesus a second time with spurious age-old, debunked arguments, thank you.

Well, you should follow the very precepts you are advocating here..

Like how you "deny" The Golden Ratio formulas I unearthed from the Universe, with a childish remark?

Yeah, I'm sure you have your colloquial expertise to boot.

Nonsense an as someone had already stated science and scientists are not the area of human knowledge that would have an opinion on an historic event that would be historians.

This is from a French article trying to "open the file of hyper-criticism". It pokes gentle fun at "those amateurs who, a bit too easily, pretend that Jesus never existed"...

http://www.phdn.org/histoire/hypercritique.html