Did Jesus ever exist? (Islamic, crucifixion, disciples, myth)

[Kris1]

Jesus did not exist, per se, rather he is a reincarnation of Lord Krishna.

Hindus believe that Krishna was the eighth "avatar" or incarnation of the god Vishnu - one of the Hindu deities in the Hindu trinity. Hindu scriptures state that Krishna "appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory." Krishna was born sometime between 900 and 1200 B.C. and his religious teachings can be found in the Bhagavad-Gita, one of the sacred texts in Hinduism. The karmic similarities between Jesus and the Hindu messiah named Krishna (1200 B.C.) are many. There over one hundred similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors which could easily fill a volume. Some of these similarities are apocryphal which means their source comes from the extra-canonical scriptures of Hinduism.

Identical Life Experiences
(1) Krishna was miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") as a divine incarnation.

(2) He was born at a time when his family had to travel to pay the yearly tax.
(3) His father was a carpenter yet Krishna was born of royal descent.
(4) His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gifts.

(5) He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants who feared that the divine child would supplant his kingdom.

(6) His father was warned by a heavenly voice to flee the tyrant who sought the death of the child. The child was then saved by friends who fled with them in the night to a distant country. When the tyrant learned that his attempt to kill the child failed, he issued a decree that all the infants in the area be put to death. Writing about Krishna in the eighteenth century, Sir William Jones stated, "In the Sanskrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country." (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273).

(7) The Bible states that Jesus and family fled to Egypt afterward to escape from King Herod. According to the Christian apocryphal text "the Gospel of the Infancy," the family traveled to Maturea, Egypt. Krishna was born in Maturea, India, hundreds of years earlier.

(8) He was baptized in the River Ganges.
(9) The missions of Krishna and Jesus were the same - the salvation of humanity.
(10) Krishna worked miracles and wonders such as raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.

(11) Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
(12) Jesus taught his disciples about the possibility of removing a mountain by faith. According to tradition, Krishna raised Mount Goverdhen above his disciples to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra.

(13) "He lived poor and he loved the poor."
(14) Krishna washed the feet of the Brahmins and transfigured before his disciples.
(15) Krishna's teachings and Jesus' teachings were very similar. The celebrated French missionary and traveler, Evarist-Regis Hucv, who made a journey of several thousand miles through China and Tibet, stated, "If we addressed a Mogul or Tibetan this question, 'Who is Krishna?' the reply was instantly 'The savior of men." According to Robert Cheyne, "All that converting the Hindoos to Christianity does for them is to change the object of their worship from Krishna to Christ." Appleton's Cyclopedia says this about the teachings of Krishna: "Its correspondence with the New Testament is indeed striking."

(16) There is an extra-canonical Hindu tradition which states that Krishna was crucified. According to some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.

(17) He descended to hell, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to heaven which was witnessed by many.

(18) Krishna is called the "shepherd god" and "lord of lords," and was considered "the redeemer, firstborn, sin bearer, liberator, universal Word."

(19) He is the second person of the trinity, and proclaimed himself the "resurrection" and the "way to the Father."

(20) He was considered the "beginning, the middle and the end," ("alpha and omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

(21) His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
(22) Krishna is to return again riding a white horse to do battle with the "prince of evil," who will desolate the Earth.



"How, if you hear that the man newly dead is, like the man newly born, still living man - one same, existent Spirit - will you weep? The end of birth is death; the end of death is birth: this is ordained!" - Bhagavad Gita (2)

"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again ... no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." - Jesus Christ (John 3:3-8)

[GldnRule]

northsider: Like I said, a person would have to be logical thinking AND reasonable (or refrain from choosing to be selectively not so) to be able to make the determination. So I can see where you wouldn't understand. I didn't even need the second to deliberate the matter in my own mind. It has been, to me, proven beyond all doubt without my having to consider the matter for ANY amount of time.

When I need an answer to something that may be beyond me I look to the advise and counsel of experts for definitive info.
I consider myself relatively intelligent, but in no way do I rank myself anywhere near the "great thinkers" that have existed. You may be able to "snow" me, but you sure aren't going to put some BS story past a major crew of truly great minds.
The list of people, and assembly of ultra-deep/ultra-critical thinkers that after their most intense contemplation of the information, came to a positive conclusion, and spoke of Jesus as a breathing, walking, talking, actual person is a veritable "Who's Who" of some of the greatest minds EVER: Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein ("As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."), Lev Tolstoy, Napoleon Bonaparte, Will Durant, Daniel Webster, David Strauss, Kenneth Scott Lattourette, George Bancroft, Lew Wallace, even MOHAMMED! The greatest applicants of every genre of critical thinking and reasoning...physics, math, philosophy, history, politics, military tactics, you name it...nearly ALL conclude Jesus was a real person. Along with MANY others not listed. You expect me to give what any of YOU think more credence than those mental superstars? Yeah, right! It's obvious some of you suffer from delusions of mental grandeur, but I submit none of you will ever convince me or anybody else that you can think, reason, and analyze on even a small fraction of the level of the least of those men. Many of the finest EXPERT thinkers OF ALL TIME proclaim Jesus as having existed as a person---This alone, is PROOF to anyone that isn't self deluded.
On a simpler note. Two thousand years ago there weren't any word processors, typewriters, or even paper. To put it bluntly--recording anything in writing was a bi**h. Because of this, no one back then wrote fiction novels, they wrote accounts of occurrences. They may have misunderstood what is was they were seeing, such as an eclipse or the like, but they didn't write about utter made-up bulls**t. Like those four ancient writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all got together and agreed to all write a fictitious story about some pretend dude... and further agreed to put out their joint fairytale at different times and even in different countries! That just isn't the way things would have gone down in those days. That's why the story they tell is so similar---they were all there and saw and experienced the same thing. Of course each had their own view, perception, and memory of the events and people they saw which is why the story varies among each writing. If it was really a conspiracy to put out something false all four stories would have been much closer to each other. Furthermore, if it was all a bunch of fables, how do nothing more than made up "tall tales" carry such major "mojo" for 20 centuries up until now?! How do you keep the con/scam going? 2000 yrs ago most people were illiterate slaves or peasants, but a lot of the people in the world have been much more mentally sophisticated since then, especially in the last 500 yrs. If the story was a fake how would it endure the way it has? People, by nature, are soooooooooo skeptical. And no matter how much phony promotion and propoganda was put out, there is no way that you could maintain such allegiance to someone who never existed, especially for the long haul. And not just the long haul, the TWO THOUSAND YEAR loooooooong haul. No one who ever lived has been able to do that, but a fictional character does?! Come ooooooooooooooon!
Trouble is, I know from experience that debating know-it-all, self important, hard-heads, that are completely closed minded to anything that isn't "set in stone", is futile. I've seen lots of blogs and forums, but WOW, some of you have been arguing on this thread for YEARS. Saying nothing more than the same thing over and over. So (based on the circumstantial evidence, LOL) it's clear we've got some here that are not very open to thinking outside their very little box.
Also, please note that I believe, right or wrong, everyone is entitled to think whatever they want to think...not withstanding the right for you to think me foolish, and I can think likewise of you.
All the best to all of you.

[Rafius]

Is the above the "circumstantial evidence" you spoke of GldnRule? I hope not!!

[GldnRule]

Kris1: I started my post, was diverted by other matters, and didn't return to finish it until hours later. During that time you put up your post--I don't know if Jesus was Lord Krishna incarnate, I haven't researched that, but my research has shown me that he was an actual person that existed and not just an imaginary character.
When thinkers of the caliber of Newton, Einstein, DaVinci, and Mohammed ALL concur on something it is rendered essentially irrefutable...and I submit, without reservation, anyone that would even attempt to dispute it would show themself to be either, as big a blowhole dupe as any to hit the planet, or "not all there". Those men are the epitome of EXPERT thinkers. The premier geniuses OF ALL TIME. How they come to their conclusions is waaaaaaaaaaay beyond me (and 99.9999999999% of everyone else that ever lived) so any attempt I would make to try to figure out how they did it would be as futile as if I tried to comprehend the workings of a mind so enlightened that it could come up with The Theory of Relativity.
Bottom line: The question, "Did Jesus Ever Exist?", has been considered by the worlds preeminent minds, and the answer is, "YES".
Best wishes to all.

[GldnRule]

Rafius--Great, expert thinkers are able to find evidence of things (like gravity), where there would appear to be an absence of tangible indications, in a way men of common mental ability are not. To cite experts conclusions of fact based on their vastly superior analysis of circumstances is the optimal way to present circumstantial evidence, which is what I did. Did you expect I would analyze and present the evidence myself? That has already been done by the most brilliant people ever. People that think/thought on a higher level than you, me, and everyone else on this board put together, times 1000. But it's cool...you can attempt to refute Einstein, et al, if you care to.

[Rafius]

OK GldnRule. Let us examine your "circumstantial evidence".

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I didn't even need the second to deliberate the matter in my own mind. It has been, to me, proven beyond all doubt without my having to consider the matter for ANY amount of time.

So what you are saying is that the "evidence" is enough to convince YOU.

The list of people, and assembly of ultra-deep/ultra-critical thinkers that after their most intense contemplation of the information, came to a positive conclusion, and spoke of Jesus as a breathing, walking, talking, actual person is a veritable "Who's Who" of some of the greatest minds EVER: Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein

I'm sure that if you go back 500 years you would find many "ultra-deep/ultra-critical thinkers" who believed that the Earth was flat and that you would die if you travelled at a speed exceeding 5mph. Guess what! They were wrong. Your claim that because intelligent people believe it, it must be true is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad verecundiam fails miserably.

Lev Tolstoy, Napoleon Bonaparte, Will Durant, Daniel Webster, David Strauss, Kenneth Scott Lattourette, George Bancroft, Lew Wallace, even MOHAMMED! The greatest applicants of every genre of critical thinking and reasoning...physics, math, philosophy, history, politics, military tactics, you name it...nearly ALL conclude Jesus was a real person.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. FAIL.

Many of the finest EXPERT thinkers OF ALL TIME proclaim Jesus as having existed as a person---This alone, is PROOF to anyone that isn't self deluded.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. FAIL.

On a simpler note. Two thousand years ago there weren't any word processors, typewriters, or even paper.

Ever heard of Papyrus? It was being used by the Egyptians as long ago as 3500BC....it's where we get the name 'paper'.

Like those four ancient writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all got together and agreed to all write a fictitious story about some pretend dude... and further agreed to put out their joint fairytale at different times and even in different countries!

The gospels were not written by the people who's names they bear. They were written between c70CE- 110CE by anonymous authors who had never met this Jesus character. Irenaeus named the gospels in the 2nd century.

That just isn't the way things would have gone down in those days. That's why the story they tell is so similar---they were all there and saw and experienced the same thing.

No, they were not there.

'Luke' was not a follower of Jesus, he was a follower of Paul. Because some spurious stories about your man-god were circulating, Luke interviewed people who claimed to have known your man-god. So the Gospel of Luke is nothing more than second hand stories from people who claimed to have know this Jesus.

'Matthew' makes no direct claim in his gospel to being an eyewitness and heavily plagiarised Mark...which an "eye-witness" wouldn't need to do.

'Mark' wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peters account, written down by Mark.

The Gospel of 'John' was written c100-110 CE. Far to long after the events to have been written by an eye-witness.

......nor do they all "say the same thing". The earliest mention of your man-god comes from Paul. He make no mention of a virgin birth, raising the dead or walking on water kinds of miracles. A little healing but no big "WOW" except the resurrection. The next earliest source, Mark, adds a few miracles but no virgin birth and no raising people from the dead. Matthew has a virgin birth and even more miracles. Luke adds to the virgin birth and presents a slightly more miraculous being. John takes it another step by making Jesus the son of a god, raising Lazarus and generally being more spirit than human. The later the source the more fantastic the reports.
- Jesus dies.
- Paul adds resurrection.
- Matthew/Luke add virgin birth.
- John makes him a god.

Of course each had their own view, perception, and memory of the events and people they saw which is why the story varies among each writing.

....but you just said, "That's why the story they tell is so similar---they were all there and saw and experienced the same thing." Now you want to claim that the stories vary!!

If it was really a conspiracy to put out something false all four stories would have been much closer to each other. Furthermore, if it was all a bunch of fables, how do nothing more than made up "tall tales" carry such major "mojo" for 20 centuries up until now?! How do you keep the con/scam going? 2000 yrs ago most people were illiterate slaves or peasants, but a lot of the people in the world have been much more mentally sophisticated since then, especially in the last 500 yrs. If the story was a fake how would it endure the way it has?

So if we use that logic you would admit, would you not, that Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are also true? After all they have existed for 1000 years LONGER than Christianity and are still being practised by millions of devotees today. How would they keep the scam going for 3000 years? If Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are nothing more than made up "tall tales" how did they manage to carry such major "mojo" for 3000 years? If you believe that the longevity of Christianity proves that it's true then you must also concede that religions that have survived longer than Christianity are also true....or face the accusation of hypocrisy.

People, by nature, are soooooooooo skeptical. And no matter how much phony promotion and propoganda was put out, there is no way that you could maintain such allegiance to someone who never existed, especially for the long haul. And not just the long haul, the TWO THOUSAND YEAR loooooooong haul.

So Zoroaster exists.

No one who ever lived has been able to do that, but a fictional character does?! Come ooooooooooooooon!

So Brahma exists.

Trouble is, I know from experience that debating know-it-all, self important, hard-heads, that are completely closed minded to anything that isn't "set in stone", is futile.

Yes, I've had the same experience debating know-it-all, self important, hard-heads, that are completely closed minded to anything that isn't "set in the Bible"

It's clear we've got some here that are not very open to thinking outside their very little box.

Are you open to thinking outside your little box to accept the possible existence of the thousands of other gods that people believe exist?

All the best to all of you.

...and too you....but I would like to add that I sure do hope that any unfortunate who finds himself in a law court facing spurious charges....doesn't have you passing a verdict on your interpretation of " circumstantial evidence."

[GldnRule]

Rafius--Where YOUR argument fails against ME, is that I'm not presenting MY conclusion, I'm presenting the conclusion determined, not just by "intelligent men", but by men who are considered to be THE GREATEST THINKERS EVER. You offer YOUR dispute of THEIR determination. And YOUR credentials compared to Einstein, Newton, and DaVinci? Next thing you know you'll tell us you can out-run Usain Bolt, and are a better chess player than Kasparov or Fischer.
You go on and on trying to dispute what you think I might believe--What theology I do or don't think might be true, what God or Gods I do or don't believe might have existed. I never said I believed any theology had more credence than another, or that any Gods whatsoever did or didn't exist. I never even debated the Deity of this Jesus Christ guy, or any theology he might have disseminated. The only question I addressed was the initial posed, which was, "Did Jesus ever Exist?" The fact you debated things I never even brought up makes me think, "WTF?".
My initial post stated that many cases have been decided on circumstantial evidence. Just as a lawyer doesn't do the work himself, but would bring in a DNA expert to state his factual determinations based on his research, and puts forth nothing but his determination without going into the details of the technical aspects of how he did his testing...I put forth the determination of the expert thinkers, and nothing but their determination, since I know nothing of the technical aspects of that level of critical thinking. And just as a jurist can then come to whatever conclusions they come to based on the experts' determinations, I left it open to anyone reading my post to come to whatever conclusions they might come to based on the determinations of the experts I cited. Not withstanding what I stated I think of those that would proclaim they know better than those exaulted experts.
BTW, any kid that paid attention during their ancient history class in Jr. high school knows what a papyrus plant is and that it was used in ancient times to make a material to write on. I made note of there being no paper (like what would be used in the typewriter or word processor I mentioned didn't exist in the same sentence) to support the point that it was very difficult to write things down 2000 yrs ago. I would have gone into further detail if I knew you needed it to understand what I was getting at. Sorry about that. I thought such a simple statement of fact (that it was tough to record things in writing in those days, discouraging non documentary works), and the frivolous little prefacing sentence, was a given. Hmmmm, something tells me you're just one of those intrinsically disagreeable guys that looks for anything to debate. Yup, betcha that's the reeeeeal deal. And see that, I didn't even need Einstein to help me figure that out?! I just used the circumstantial evidence.
At the very least it's nice to know that if I ever need someone to dispute the concurring determination of dozens of the greatest minds in both ancient and contemporary human history, I'll know where to look.
All the best.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Rafius--Where YOUR argument fails against ME, is that I'm not presenting MY conclusion, I'm presenting the conclusion determined, not just by "intelligent men", but by men who are considered to be THE GREATEST THINKERS EVER.

Feeble attempt to disown your claim fella! You need to go back to your post #762 and read what you said. Here it is....

"Many of the finest EXPERT thinkers OF ALL TIME proclaim Jesus as having existed as a person---This alone, is PROOF to anyone that isn't self deluded."

I repeat. This claim is an appeal to authority and it is a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy to claim that just because intelligent people believe something. it must be true. That is absolute nonsense. It wouldn't matter if every person on this planet believed that Jesus existed, it still would not prove truth, just like it didn't prove truth when every person on the planet believed that the Earth was flat. The number of people that believe something does not indicate that what they believe is true. It only indicates that the belief is popular.

You offer YOUR dispute of THEIR determination. And YOUR credentials compared to Einstein, Newton, and DaVinci? Next thing you know you'll tell us you can out-run Usain Bolt, and are a better chess player than Kasparov or Fischer.

You offer nothing but fallacious arguments. Just because I believe one thing and Newton believed another, it does not prove that what Newton believes is true simply because he is more intelligent than I am. You present a ridiculous argument that wouldn't even pass the logic of a 10 year old child.

You go on and on trying to dispute what you think I might believe--

I have no need to "think" what you believe. You have made it abundantly clear what you believe. You believe that because intelligent people believe something it PROVES that what they believe is true (see post #726). Well here's news for you....it doesn't.

Just as a lawyer doesn't do the work himself, but would bring in a DNA expert to state his factual determinations based on his research, and puts forth nothing but his determination without going into the details of the technical aspects of how he did his testing...I put forth the determination of the expert thinkers, and nothing but their determination, since I know nothing of the technical aspects of that level of critical thinking. And just as a jurist can then come to whatever conclusions they come to based on the experts' determinations,

The evidence of an expert witness which is supported by objective, verifiable evidence such as DNA is admissible. The personal, subjective and unverifiable beliefs of a witness is not admissible in ANY court of law.....no matter how intelligent the witness is. Please don't try to brow beat me with the law my friend. My partner is a lawyer with 35 years experience....you will be crushed.

I left it open to anyone reading my post to come to whatever conclusions they might come to based on the determinations of the experts I cited.

What "experts"?? You have cited a couple of scientists and an artist and proclaim them to be experts in theology....and you conveniently ignore that these people lived at a time in our past when just about everyone held superstitious, regardless of their intelligence.

Not withstanding what I stated I think of those that would proclaim they know better than those exaulted experts.

They are not experts.

BTW, any kid that paid attention during their ancient history class in Jr. high school knows what a papyrus plant is and that it was used in ancient times to make a material to write on. I made note of there being no paper (like what would be used in the typewriter or word processor I mentioned didn't exist in the same sentence) to support the point that it was very difficult to write things down 2000 yrs ago.

The Egyptians, Chinese and other Mesopotamian Cultures seem to have managed. They have written records stretching back 4-6,000 years. Josephus, Seutonius, Thallus, Perseus, Justus of Tiberius, Livy, Florus, Petronius, Phlegon, Chrysostum,, Luccanus, Philo, Curtius, Pliny,, Plutarch, Quintillian, Seneca and a dozen others I could name were all writing at the time this Jesus was supposed to have lived and they produced copious amounts of literature regarding what was going on at that time...they don't seem to have had any problem getting hold of writing materials nor do they appear to have heard anything about someone called Jesus. What about the Romans? They were meticulous record keepers who had no problem with writing material but there is no record of any Yeshua ben Yoseph from them.

Hmmmm, something tells me you're just one of those intrinsically disagreeable guys that looks for anything to debate.

I'll take that to mean that you have no defence to my rebuttal and your only course is to resort to ad hominems.

At the very least it's nice to know that if I ever need someone to dispute the concurring determination of dozens of the greatest minds in both ancient and contemporary human history, I'll know where to look.

Yeah...whatever! Your argument has collapsed and you have nothing left but insults.

[GldnRule]

I was just discussing the subject of Jesus with an elderly lifelong Christian, showed him this board, and he said something I had never considered, but was blown away by. He said that the "major mojo" I had referred to was a colossal understatement. I explained that I wrote that in the context that I know there are many religions that are based on Jesus Christ, and a lot of the bible was written about Jesus. I've read the bible (as a book) because I figured I should read the worlds all time best seller. Ok, kinda boring, and difficult to understand. I'm not at all religious. So I asked him what he meant. He replied, "take the mojo of all the people who are living or ever have lived, even throwing in all the other people and entities that were purported to be Gods, and put together it doesn't add up to the "mojo" that Jesus presently has on the world." When I asked him on what basis he could make such a hyperbolic statement he answered, "every time anywhere in the world someone writes down the date they pay unknowing homage to the mojo of Jesus Christ."
I had never taken anything more than a cursory consideration of why the calender notes the year it does. I mean, I knew why, but never thought about the influence that is required to make it so.
Gotta say, after contemplating that, I don't need big minds, small minds, anybody, or anything to prove to me that Jesus had to have existed. Logic and reason is sufficient. No make believe character from a fiction novel could be that influential upon a world noted for the "authority allergy" of the people that make it up. We live in a world where everyone jockeys for position. Everyone is looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Some have gotten VERY famous, but it pales in comparison to having the WHOLE WORLD mark time by your life. And twenty centuries later they're STILL doing it! Now THAT'S what I call putting out a vibe! Build a few churches, build a lot of churches, name a highway or hospital, even have a recognized holiday set aside for you in some country...PPPFFFFFFFTTT!
No wonder all those great thinkers came to the conclusion they did...they were all masters of deductive reasoning...and based on that they could come to no other. THAT'S the evidence...his almost UNBELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVABLE influence! Only a complete moron would think that could come from the figment of someone's imagination, two thousand years removed.
Dig on that the next time you genuflect on the date line of a check or form you fill out.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

.......I know there are many religions that are based on Jesus Christ,.......

Sorry dude but you have it arse-backwards. The character of Jesus The Christ is based on a mixture of gods from other religions.

He replied, "take the mojo of all the people who are living or ever have lived, even throwing in all the other people and entities that were purported to be Gods, and put together it doesn't add up to the "mojo" that Jesus presently has on the world."

Really?? Christians make up one-third of the worlds population which is approximately 2.3 billion people. That means that there are approximately 4.5 billion people who are not Christians. That makes Christians a minority.

When I asked him on what basis he could make such a hyperbolic statement he answered, "every time anywhere in the world someone writes down the date they pay unknowing homage to the mojo of Jesus Christ."

Meaning what....that the use of BC and AD in our calender is evidence for Jesus?? Please tell me you're joking!

I had never taken anything more than a cursory consideration of why the calender notes the year it does. I mean, I knew why, but never thought about the influence that is required to make it so. Gotta say, after contemplating that, I don't need big minds, small minds, anybody, or anything to prove to me that Jesus had to have existed. Logic and reason is sufficient.

Where does the "logic and reason" fit in that?

No make believe character from a fiction novel could be that influential upon a world noted for the "authority allergy" of the people that make it up.

In our calenders, the days of the week are named after pagan gods. Do you accept that as proof those gods existed in the same way that you accept the calender use of BC/AD is proof that Jesus existed?

We live in a world where everyone jockeys for position. Everyone is looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Some have gotten VERY famous, but it pales in comparison to having the WHOLE WORLD mark time by your life. And twenty centuries later they're STILL doing it!

Oh dear! You do love to generalise don't you? The "WHOLE WORLD" does not mark time by the alleged birth of Jesus. The Hebrews don't. They reckon years from the 'Creation'. Nor do Zoroastrians. They reckon years from the birth of Zoroaster and Muslims reckon years from the flight of Mohammed from Mecca. You would do well to actually find out a little about what you are claiming before claiming it.

THAT'S the evidence...his almost UNBELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVABLE influence!

...but the majority of the world is NOT influenced by you Jesus. Christians are a minority in the world.

Only a complete moron would think that could come from the figment of someone's imagination, two thousand years removed.

Zoroaster? Brahma?

Dig on that the next time you genuflect on the date line of a check or form you fill out.

You know fella...you are a master of logical fallacies!