I believe he was probally extravigated.

Okay.  I've heard the scenerios, arguments and reasons.  What makes history real?  What makes any historical figure real?

I lump Jesus together with other legendary figures such as Robin Hood and King Arthur.  Their historical roots are ambiguous.  There are figures in recorded history who might have given rise to the King Arthur or Robin Hood legends.  Each man's legend might actually have blended the histories of more than one historical figure.  In all likelihood, neither man was involved in anything like the events attributed to him.  

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scant that it is reasonable the think he might not have existed.  If he really could have performed the miraculous feats attributed to him, his reputation would surely have been greater than it was.  None of the gospels actually date from the years in which he lived.  There are myriads of questionable "unmiraculous" details in the gospel stories--e.g. the so-called census (of which there is no historical record) that would have drawn Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.

So, did Jesus exist?  Possibly--in the sense that some man or men existed that inspired the story to be told in the first place.  But probably not--in the sense that the real details of the man and his story have been distorted beyond any reasonable accuracy.  My opinion, of course.

Geegee, that's a very good question.  In fact, I've debated it at length with sntjohnny on this board.  He raised it in a thread in which he questioned the existence of Alexander the Great.  That thread, along with many others, was destroyed by the Big Hack that gave rise to the present forum.

There are some people that we know nothing about, but we know for sure existed.  For example, I know nothing about most of my ancestors, but they had to exist in order for me to be here.  There are other people that we know a great deal about who may never have existed in the form depicted in their legends--Santa Claus, Moses, Jesus Christ.  (Of these three, we probably know more real facts about the man who inspired Santa Claus.)

Historical figures such as Alexander the Great are in yet another category, because their existence is supported by a wide variety of historical artifacts--histories, place names, coins, buildings, statues, etc.  Although most of the evidence (not all) came after Alexander's life, it is too difficult to account for the sheer amount of evidence without positing a real person.

The historicity of Jesus is a more troubling question, because the volume of information on him is staggering.  However, his actual historical footprint is vastly smaller than Alexander's: basically a large set of gospels (including the non-orthodox ones) that were written decades after his life ended.  There is no reasonable archeological evidence--no tomb, no cross, no statues, no independent records.  No contemporaries wrote about him while he was alive.  References to him by near-contemporaries such as Josephus and Tacitus are meagre and their authenticity questionable.

Worse yet, we have some negative evidence.  We have similar quasi-fictional hagiographies of the deeds of other religious figures (e.g. Apollonius of Tyana), although there is greater recorded and archeological evidence that Apollonius existed.  Somehow, the Jesus legend got folded in with the Greek mystery religions and legends of dying-rising godmen.  So we can't really separate fact from fiction--except that non-Christians can more easily dismiss the accounts of miracles as being as apocryphal as those in similar hagiographies of those times.

"He raised it in a thread in which he questioned the existence of Alexander the Great."

Wasn't that between you and Elisha?

That darn hack.

You're right, sntjohny.  Sorry for the confusion.  What ever happened to Elisha?

Well, there you go.  I've confused sntjohnny's writings with Elisha's after only a few month's hiatus.  And both gentlemen are still alive.  Can you imagine the confusion 2,000 years from now?

Nor does it follow that the recollections will be accurate, truthful, or ever corrected.  Hence, we need good evidence to support claims that we believe and act upon.  By not demanding reasonable evidence, we become potential customers for any snakeoil salesman who comes our way.  Just because half the village has bought the snakeoil, that doesn't mean that we should pay out.

Small side note, there is historical record of the "so-called census."  See Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, i, 1.

Quite correct, FUSSCCJ, but some think that the census of Quirinius as described by Josephus was the basis for Luke's mention of the census.  Matthew did not mention it, which suggests that it did not figure into the original story.  That is, it was introduced by Luke as a Josephus-inspired embellishment on the story.  After all, that census was confined to Judea.  It was not an empire-wide event, as reported in Luke.

Actually, I was just assuming from "some think" that he hasn

I guess one of the questions in this debate is who to rely on more, historians or acheologists.  Sometimes they disagree (historians tend to be more trusting of written sources) and what do we do then?  Being a historian I of course tend to question the non-written as being to vague to get specific historical information out of in general, but it can all be used.  Again it depends on the time period.  I think the main problem people have when discussing these sorts of things is that they don

Mmmmm...Interesting.  We have on one hand, in so many word, a number of qualifiable or unqualifiable reports.  And on the other hand, we have a provable or unprovable point to consider.  But my question mainly deals with the historical interpretation..about whatever FACTS can be gathered.  I once heard that it is not whether there is a certian amount of facts availbable (who can tell that?) but based on the idea that since there is ANY mention of a historical person, then what is the interpretation of that person?  As I understand it, the interpretation SEEMS to be more important than the supporting facts.  An example is Jesus...or even Moses..who had done great feats.  Okay, sure, historicity may mention them, but what of their doings?  In this case, we may accept the persons realness, but we cannot accept their accopmplishments!  And if we cannot accept their accopmlishments, therefore, we cannot accept these persons of any historical value?  What if in the day of old...lol..never mind.  What I have just said may not make sene, but there is a point there to be discovered...I think.

I exist now.  But what a thousand years from now?