Was Jesus a real person?

<font color="red"> Use David’s theory about those smarter than you and what they think to arrive at your answer. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Phil153: There's a good chance I'm smarter than Sklansky. Does that mean I'm right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

[maurile]

Interesting stuff here:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY evidence of his existence is a ancient religious text

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply untrue. Jospehus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus' existence in several separate, entirely secular, documents and letters.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, there are not several documents, there is one paragraph - that's all. Second, it's a very dubious paragraph that most scholars (Christian or not) believe has been compromised at one time or another by one or more Chriatian transcribers.

If you've ever read the test in question it's next to impossible to believe that it was written by Josephus. Here it is again (most controvertial parts in bold):

[ QUOTE ]
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of controversy about this quote. The oldest existing manuscrpits we have are copies of copies made by early Christian monks. Secondly, early church fathers who were familiar with Josephus' writings don't mention this quote. Finally, the style of this quote makes no sense from a non-Christian Jew who otherwise had only negative things to say about would be Messiahs and wrote far more about John the Baptist.

The main battle ground is over how much of it was actually written by Josephus. Some say the non-overtly Christan bits are probably his work. Others doubt the whole thing. Only radical fundamentalists even hint that the whole thing is his work.

In one other place Josephus mentions the trial of "James the brother of Jesus". He makes no other mention of any Jesus.

There are no other non-biblical accounts of Jesus of any remotely comparable standing. This is the very best there is - by far. Even so it's terrible.