Partially because I am the type of guy that likes to root for the underdog, and right now he is under a lot of fire as a historical figure, much less anything more. And partially because I feel a need to be certain as to whether or not he was real, as it is a major turning point in human history, and deserves to be treated with respect rather than idealogical bigotry.-The teachings deserve the respect. The NT is powerful in that regard. Ideological bigotry has no place in the considerations. Thanks for your explanation of your position. It just didn't seem consistent.


> > If this is the standard of proof then we must throw out a whole lot of what we know about history. Anyone that we do not have bones for must not have existed, regardless of how many references in what would be considered a generally contemporary period archaeologically. Including anyone referenced in the Talmud, Torah, Upanishads, Vedas, or any other ancient text. By those standards, very little of what we know of history can be real.
> 
> I think you misread George and I. The 'references' you favor in the Torah and Talmud are inferences by folks who wish to prove Jesus. Inferences are not proof. Much of history is inferred, alot is real, some is not.-And I get sent references from a website called "Jesus Never Existed"... The 'references' you favor are inferences by people who wish to disprove Jesus. Inferences are not proof. -
Just to make sure the standards of proof for either case are the same...

B_M: "I would recommend that you read the New Testament Code series of books by Robert Eisenman." ... "Even he recognizes that Jesus was in fact a real historical figure".
> 
> This does not appear to be the interpretation of Eisenman's book by several reviewers. His earlier book about "James the brother of Jesus" is cited on this page of the jesusneverexisted website:
> 
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
> 
> "When we remove Christian interpolation from the "Jamesian" reference in Josephus, it becomes clear that James was the brother, not of a non-existent 'Jesus Christ', but of Jesus bar Damneus, high priest briefly in the year 63."-Tony: If you are agnostic, why is it so important to you that Jesus was real. What the NT teaches are marvelous rules to live by. To me that is the important part.

I would recommend that you read the New Testament Code series of books by Robert Eisenman. He is perhaps the leading expert on that time period, and is a staunch Jew, so there is no worries about him trying to fluff up the NT to be a holy book. Even he recognizes that Jesus was in fact a real historical figure, regardless of whether or not he admits to any belief in his divine nature. He also does a most excellent job at going over the NT with a fine tooth archaeological comb, filling in a lot of the surrounding political issues that were going on at the time and bring the actual history recorded in the NT to light, free of any mystical connection.-I'll have to look into that.


> If this is the standard of proof then we must throw out a whole lot of what we know about history. Anyone that we do not have bones for must not have existed, regardless of how many references in what would be considered a generally contemporary period archaeologically. Including anyone referenced in the Talmud, Torah, Upanishads, Vedas, or any other ancient text. By those standards, very little of what we know of history can be real.-I think you misread George and I. The 'references' you favor in the Torah and Talmud are inferences by folks who wish to prove Jesus. Inferences are not proof. Much of history is inferred, alot is real, some is not.

Thank you, George. Exactly my reasoning. The Christian faith is based on written documentation (Gospels) from 60-80 years after the crucifiction. Did Jesus (Josuah ben Joseph) really exist as a single person? I kind of think so, but on closer inspection, can't be sure. Because the documentation has to be taken on faith, Christians scramble for any shred of evidence they can imagine is present in Jewish teachings. I have a Catholic priest as a cousin. I enjoy his services, and he enjoys his religion, and I enjoy him. Do I debate with him his basic beliefs? Of course not. Each person of faith should be allowed to believe as they wish without attack. I have a strange faith in my beliefs, which I have developed for myself. I cannot be changed.-If this is the standard of proof then we must throw out a whole lot of what we know about history. Anyone that we do not have bones for must not have existed, regardless of how many references in what would be considered a generally contemporary period archaeologically. Including anyone referenced in the Talmud, Torah, Upanishads, Vedas, or any other ancient text. By those standards, very little of what we know of history can be real.

The reference cited states: "The Talmud contains stories that some scholars have concluded are references to Jesus, regarded as the messiah of Christianity." 
> 
> In other words there are no actual references to Jesus in the Talmud.-Thank you, George. Exactly my reasoning. The Christian faith is based on written documentation (Gospels) from 60-80 years after the crucifiction. Did Jesus (Josuah ben Joseph) really exist as a single person? I kind of think so, but on closer inspection, can't be sure. Because the documentation has to be taken on faith, Christians scramble for any shred of evidence they can imagine is present in Jewish teachings. I have a Catholic priest as a cousin. I enjoy his services, and he enjoys his religion, and I enjoy him. Do I debate with him his basic beliefs? Of course not. Each person of faith should be allowed to believe as they wish without attack. I have a strange faith in my beliefs, which I have developed for myself. I cannot be changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud-Interesting, but I am not impressed. Lots of conjecture. Christians have always tried to impose their theology into the older OT and of course would try it in the Talmud commentaries. Lots of talk, no proof.


> Celsus (Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word (Account, Doctrine or Discourse) (Λόγος Ἀληθής), preserved by Origen. This work is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Christianity.
> Celsus explained that Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera (i.32)]. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return made himself out to be a god. Celsus confirmed the Historicity of Jesus but not the Virgin birth. Celsus also confirmed what the Talmud said about Jesus.[1]
> 
What did the Talmud say about Jesus?

In 19th century England "freethinker" meant one prepared to go against the dominant religious orthodoxy.
> 
> "The Freethinker" magazine has been "the voice of atheism since 1881"
> 
> http://freethinker.co.uk/
> 
> 
> There's lots of good arguments to show that Jesus never existed:
> 
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
> 
> and very little evidence that he did.
> 
> Of course a lot of the NT consists of nice stories and parables, 
> just as do the tales of King Arthur or Robin Hood or William Tell.-Thank you, George, for this post. I found it very educational and I appreciate it.