Let's face the facts; this "Jesus of Nazareth" person probably never existed. It's a nice myth though

>Just because they can prove this person actually existed
You seem to have access to some compelling evidence, please share it.

It is as you say.

>You seem to have access to some compelling evidence, please share it.
You are missing the point. What does it matter?

"I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him"
-Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian"

Da ancient isrealite was black herod was black alexander jannaeus was black so jesus was obviously black

>Black science man

...

The point is people take Jesus's existence at face value simply because he is a major part of western culture. Atheists use the admission that Jesus was a man but wasn't special as a sort of meeting point to discuss with christians, but I and OP are positing that there is not enough evidence to suggest that he actually lived at all, so the whole thing is for naught

If he never existed then how do you theorize the start of Christianity?

No mind has written better stories than that of the black mind

>but I and OP are positing that there is not enough evidence to suggest that he actually lived at all, so the whole thing is for naught

Tacitus is not enough for you? Even though many non-christian scholars are able to agree on it's accuracy?

If Jesus were a euhemerized deity as opposed to an actual heretical rabble-rouser who got put to death (a category dime a dozen throughout history) surely you'd expect someone to mention it before the 18th century.

More.

>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Josephus a Roman Jew born ~37 CE
>About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

If you read ANYTHING from this actual time period it is filled with mysticism and great deeds. Proving ones existence does not prove his deeds. There is evidence of Lugalbanda having lived, an ancient king of Sumeria said to have ruled for 1,200 years father of Gilgamesh.

Can we all agree that you've made too many of these threads tonight and should fuck off?

He was probably a real guy, even though the direct evidence of him is basically nonexistent. There is an interesting minority argument that he never existed at all though

He most likely did. Whether or not he was the son of God well that's up to you.

Christians/Chrestians spelling is an issue with this document since the i/e distinction is not later made for Chrstus (If I was rused then feel free to point out a source that says it has not been provably altered in that way).
There's a notable difference between the two.
There is also mild reason to believe that since it is not quoted when it would have been relevant and since only one 8th century Christian copy was discovered and actually made reference to rather late (14th century I think, but I may be wrong on this part) that the passage may have been further changed. But there is no real evidence of this.

Interpolations.
He refers to Jesus in the passage though.

Jesus being some messianic apocalyptic preacher in the 1st century isn't an extraordinary claim but I think that the provided evidence can be doubted to an extent that it can be said with some validity that he may not have existed as a basis for the later myths.
However due to how common of an occurence a man like the historical Jesus would be in that time and place, his existence as a historical figure and a real basis for the resulting mythology is probably the more reasonable position.

Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

Jesus Christ is a fictional character. He is Jesus of Nazareth as depicted by Paul the Apostle.

>that picture

Every time. I can't stop laughing.