Did Jesus exist?

[unknown soldier]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect? If Jesus did exist, then how much was he like the Jesus of the New Testament? Was the "real" Jesus so different from the Biblical Jesus that the Biblical Jesus is essentially a myth like Osiris or Thor?

My position on the issue of the historicity of Jesus is that although I wouldn't say he was not historical, I'm not convinced by the evidence that he existed either. As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist. In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

[Goose]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

What Mithrae is attempting to do, I think, (and rightly I might add if he is) is first try to establish what that burden of proof is in your view by asking who you think existed and why.

Now you say you are consistent, but let's put that to the test. With the exception of the fragmented and somewhat ambiguous Pilate Stone much of the evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate comes to us from the same kind of documentary evidence, indeed even some of the same sources, as for Jesus (i.e. the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus). Or sources that are different but seem to cancel one another out in terms of historical weight by both being contemporary (i.e. Philo vs. Paul). So the evidence for the existence of Pilate is nearly the same as that for Jesus. So you must be likewise unconvinced that Pilate existed as well.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to brunumb in post #10]

Think of all the Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Hindu gods that are allegedly fictional beings created by the human imagination.

Have you in any way demonstrated that all these "Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Hindu gods" are indeed "fictional"? Or, is this simply your opinion? In other words, you hold the opinion these gods must be false, and therefore in your mind this somehow translates into all gods, and religions must have somehow been created in some sort of way, which goes on in your mind to somehow demonstrate Christianity must be fiction as well?

Tell you what, why don't you take any of these gods, you have mentioned above, or you can take any other religion in the world that you would like, and you, and I will compare any of these other religions to Christianity in order to determine if any of them at all would come close to comparing to Christianity as far as real historical evidence is concerned. I highly doubt you would want to take me up on this offer?

Incredible stories are associated with all of them. No facts or evidence available to convince people they were real but they were accepted as real and worshiped for centuries and even millennia.

I am not so certain how many folks actually believed the "Greek gods" were actually real, because there is certain evidence that many did not hold these things to be real at all. However, you may be correct to say there would be "no facts or evidence" which does not compare to Christianity because Christianity is without a doubt built upon historical facts, and evidence, one of which would be the empty tomb the Apostles continued to point to. Again, any time you would like to compare Christianity with any other religion as far as historical evidence is concerned, I'd be more than happy to join in. But again, I highly doubt you will want to take me up on the offer? I wonder why?

Not much of a stretch then to consider that a needy people invented a potential messiah with a cohort of supporters and then spun a creaky back story to prop up their new religion.

Oh yeah, my friend, that would be a tremendous "stretch" as far as the evidence concerning Christianity! Because you see, it is not like there were those who simply began to tell these incredible stories which others somehow simply began to believe. Rather, what we have as far as Christianity is concerned is real historical letters, written to real historical audiences at the time, which is an absolute testament to not only what the authors believed, but also what they claim to have witnessed themselves, along with how they were actually living out their lives. So then, you would have to have those who not only come up with this incredible story, you would also have to have those who came up with these many other fictional characters, along with all these letters which were written by these characters, to audiences at the time. As you can see, it would be a tremendous "stretch" to attempt to compare Christianity to these other gods, and religions as far as the historical evidence is concerned, because there is no comparison at all, and we have simply just considered a few things here, while there is a whole bunch more.

In a world full of ignorance and superstition it's not that hard to see it taking hold, particularly with the right sort of promotion.

Okay? So we are to imagine, in this "world full of ignorance" we have those who are somehow able to concoct, not only this incredible story, but also all of this historical evidence to go along with this story, which somehow leads to this figure becoming the most well known name in the history of the world? That is an incredible tale in itself, especially coming from a "world full of ignorance"! All you seem to be doing is to exchange one incredible story, for another?

How did Islam take hold, or closer to the present, the LDS or Scientology?

You are the one who seems to have all the answers, so why don't you tell us how all these things somehow, took hold? However, once you do this, we will go on to compare each one of these things to Christianity as far as historical evidence is concerned. I will be more than happy to compare each one you have mentioned above, and would look forward to the opportunity!

How do you go about dismissing their fictions along with the countless other invented gods?

You are the only one in this conversation who is doing the "dismissing" because I have not in any way dismissed any other god, nor any other religion. In fact, I have never mentioned these other religions until you did, because I understand that none of these other gods, or religions, would have a thing to do with whether there would be real historical facts, and evidence in support of the Christian claims. You are the one who seems to be under the impression that if one god, or religion is false, this somehow has something to do with the rest of them? It does not! It's kinda like one who was indoctrinated as a child, and believes Christianity to be true, based upon this indoctrination, and then goes on to assume that every Christian must, and has to be indoctrinated in order to believe Christianity to be true. It don't work that way, my friend! Sorry!

Here's a take on the existence of the twelve apostles to consider:

As far as this link is concerned, this again sort of demonstrates one who continues to allow others to think for them. I am certainly not going to address every point which is made because it would take up to much space, and time. So allow me to look at just a few, and demonstrate one who can read such things, and think for themselves, without having to refer to what someone else may have to say.

In this link, the author writes,

Isn't it a tad odd that such worthies, infused with the Holy Spirit and given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons, wrote nothing, or had nothing written for them or about them? Isn't it odd that men chosen to be eye-witnesses to the mighty deeds of Jesus, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement?

Now, let us look at some real facts here. It is a fact Paul wrote letters which we do not have. We know he wrote 3 letters to the Corinthians, not just 2. We also know he wrote at least one letter to the Laodiceans, which we do not have. Now, can you imagine there may be many more letters which Paul may have authored, which we do not have? The point here is, this author simply assumes these other men "wrote nothing, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement" when they very well could have. In other words, simply because we do not have these things in our possession, does not demonstrate there was never any such thing, just like the letters we have authored by Paul does not in any way demonstrate that this is all that Paul would have authored.

Now, let us consider another fact. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the content of the NT would be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would have read these letters, other than the original intended audience, and the authors certainly would have had no idea about any sort of Bible. As I said, this can be easily demonstrated concerning the overwhelming majority of the NT, and could in fact include the entire NT. With this being the case, the authors were not intending for the world to read these letters. The point is, the other Apostles the author of the article you linked us to is referring to, may have written many things, to many different folks, in personal letters just like we have in the NT that we simply do not have, and simply because we do not have them does not mean they never wrote.

This author then goes on to state,

All that we have about "the twelve" are conflicting legends and fantastic stories from a much later date

We have "the twelve" mentioned in the NT. So then, how has he determined these writings would have been, "from a much later date"? Moreover, Paul himself mentions, "the twelve", and we know that Paul would have lived at the time of Jesus, so what does the author mean by "a much later date"?

Well, let us look at just one more quote by the author you seem to be taking the word of,

The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles

Oh really? Well, I wonder why this would be? Could it possibly be because at the time of writing, these would have been the only two who would have been put to death? In other words, this author you have supplied us with, may have just given us evidence that the content of the NT would have been authored much earlier than he would like to admit?

As an example, let's consider the author of the two letters to Theophilus. As I said, we have very strong evidence this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul. One of the facts in support of this would be the fact that the author begins his second letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, once Paul arrives on the scene, and begins his journeys, we begin to here nothing much at all concerning the Apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless, Paul comes back in contact with them again. Now, can imagine why this may be? Well, could it be the fact this author would have been with Paul, and could only report on what Paul would be doing, and would have had no idea what the others would be doing, until, or unless, Paul comes back in contact with them again? Let us also keep in mind that Paul mentions the name of Luke being with him on these travels in his letters. In fact, in one of the letters in which Paul mentions the name of Luke, Paul was clearly in prison at the time of writing, and he goes on to tell his audience, who is Timothy, "only Luke is with me". Now, do you happen to know where the author of the two letters to Theophilus ends his second letter? That would be with Paul being under arrest. Can you imagine why this author would have ended the letter with Paul being under arrest? Well, could it be the fact there would be no more to tell at the time, since the author would have been sitting right there with Paul while in prison?

Again, the more we dig into this, the more we discover just how fantastic the idea that all these things could have been fabricated in some sort of way, and all one would be doing is to exchange one fantastic tale, for another. But hey! Folks are certainly free to believe whatever they wish, but it would be an enormous "stretch" for one to insist I have no reason to believe as I do.

[Clownboat]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

What Mithrae is attempting to do, I think, (and rightly I might add if he is) is first try to establish what that burden of proof is in your view by asking who you think existed and why.

Now you say you are consistent, but let's put that to the test. With the exception of the fragmented and somewhat ambiguous Pilate Stone much of the evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate comes to us from the same kind of documentary evidence, indeed even some of the same sources, as for Jesus (i.e. the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus). Or sources that are different but seem to cancel one another out in terms of historical weight by both being contemporary (i.e. Philo vs. Paul). So the evidence for the existence of Pilate is nearly the same as that for Jesus. So you must be likewise unconvinced that Pilate existed as well.

The Pilate stone is a damaged block (82 cm x 65 cm) of carved limestone with a partially intact inscription attributed to, and mentioning, Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26 to 36... The artifact is particularly significant because it is an archaeological find of an authentic 1st-century Roman inscription mentioning the name "[Pont]ius Pilatus".

This proves nothing, but to compare the evidence from Pilate to Jesus is not apt unless you can show that the Pilate Stone is religious promotional material.

To check for consistency... is the Pilate Stone just as credible as claims from the Quran?
Consider that your are trying to justify Pilate existence to the flight that Muhammed took on a winged horse in the Quran. Does the Pilate Stone justify Pilate like the Quran does Muhammed's flight?

[unknown soldier]

But I'm wondering how my opinion on the existence of these figures bears on the historicity of Jesus.

History doesn't start and stop with the early Christian movement; it's a broad, coherent discipline whose purpose is to gather, analyze and draw conclusions from any available data about the past. Someone who is unwilling or unable to situate their opinions even loosely/informally within a broader framework is obviously failing to engage in that pursuit: Whatever it is that you are doing, it's obviously not history! That doesn't necessarily mean that the opinions of arbitrary scepticism are incorrect of course, any more than the opinions of dogmatic faith are necessarily incorrect; but if someone is not even making a credible attempt at coherent historical analysis, it's difficult to see why anyone else would take their historical opinions seriously.

Again, you are shifting the burden of proof. You think Jesus existed? Then you prove it. Besides, I never said that I am "unwilling or unable to situate (my opinion) even loosely/informally within a broader framework" or that I am "obviously failing to engage in that pursuit." We (myself included) are waiting to see what historical expertise that you or anybody else can post regarding the historicity of Jesus. Maybe then I can engage in some dialogue regarding historical disciplines.

Given the few examples I provided, it's clear that Jesus sits far more closely and obviously alongside the likes of Paul (who you say "no doubt" existed) and Socrates - with multiple converging, potentially even first-hand lines of evidence regarding some key details of their lives from within a few decades of the fact, along with identifiable influences on subsequent history - than the likes of Priam or David (several centuries' gap before the first known direct or indirect allusions to them) and even moreso figures like Herakles or Moses (poorly- or late-attested figures whose situation in and influence on history is nebulous or non-existent, but with obvious and overriding mythic utility).

The evidence for Paul is far better than the evidence for Jesus because we have Paul's writings but nothing like that from Jesus. Contrary to what you claim, we have no first hand, eyewitness accounts of Jesus. So Jesus appears to be in the same class as Moses; he's a Biblical figure who obviously had, as you say, overriding mythic utility. If there was no Moses or Jesus, then some of the Jews would have found it necessary to invent them. It is important to point out that not long ago Bible scholars were convinced that Moses existed, but after much fighting, they finally caved in to the scholars who demonstrated that Moses didn't exist. The same appears to be happening over the historicity of Jesus.

These and comparison/contrast with various other figures are one of the reasons why I consider the historical existence of Jesus to be somewhere in the order of 90% probable.

My opinion is that there's an even chance Jesus existed. But even if he did exist, then he was nothing like the Christ of faith.

So is that the best you can do? I thought that you can discredit mythicism. But honestly, I knew full well that you couldn't do it. Real-Jesus apologists tend to engage in a lot of bluster and braggadocio, but when all the smoke they blow into people's eyes clears, we are still left looking for Jesus. I suppose Christians derive some comfort from it which appears to be the reason for it all.

[unknown soldier]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

What Mithrae is attempting to do, I think, (and rightly I might add if he is) is first try to establish what that burden of proof is in your view by asking who you think existed and why.

Now you say you are consistent, but let's put that to the test. With the exception of the fragmented and somewhat ambiguous Pilate Stone much of the evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate comes to us from the same kind of documentary evidence, indeed even some of the same sources, as for Jesus (i.e. the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus). Or sources that are different but seem to cancel one another out in terms of historical weight by both being contemporary (i.e. Philo vs. Paul). So the evidence for the existence of Pilate is nearly the same as that for Jesus. So you must be likewise unconvinced that Pilate existed as well.

Sheesh, Goose; I was hoping to discuss the historicity of Jesus on this thread, but here I find myself on trial desperately defending my consistency regarding evidence. There's nothing like attacking the logic of the skeptics if you have no good evidence for your position. It might just save the day allowing Christians everywhere to breathe a sigh of relief knowing that that dastardly unknown soldier has been discredited.

But I'll bite the bait! I haven't looked closely at the historical evidence for Plate, but if it's as weak as the evidence for Jesus, then I'm not sure Pilate existed either.

Now that we've had fun playing our little game, can we get back to the issue of the historicity of Jesus? Please post why we should be convinced Jesus existed.

[Mithrae]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

What Mithrae is attempting to do, I think, (and rightly I might add if he is) is first try to establish what that burden of proof is in your view by asking who you think existed and why.

In a sense, but more specifically I think one of them problems here as in many cases is binary thinking rather than trying (however vaguely) to quantify uncertainty. The approach of arbitrary scepticism - simply declaring that the available evidence isn't 'good enough' - seems to be a binary, pass/fail approach ill-suited to the task. For the proposition that so-and-so existed, there's going to be a range of uncertainties for various figures going from virtually certainty they did exist to certainty they didn't, but looking at those whose existence is virtually certain (eg. Alexander the Great ) doesn't necessarily tell us much about how we do or should deal with uncertainty. That's why I think it's important to consider a few examples from fairly probable, to plausible, to fairly improbable.

When we do that, we see that the evidence regarding Jeus' existence seems to be far closer and in some cases even better than the likes of Socrates, Paul, Pilate, Hillel the Elder, Josephus, Muhammad and so on than figures (which arbitrary sceptics nevertheless continually invoke) like Herakles, Krishna, Robin Hood etc.

[Edit: Perhaps more importantly, considering those several different points on the continuum of uncertainty potentially forestalls an extension of arbitrary criteria by glib assertion that "Pilate/Socrates/Hillel/Paul etc. probably didn't exist either!"]

[unknown soldier]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

Again, no skeptic has any burden of proof. You have that burden, and if you fail to convince people, then that is your problem, not theirs. You can complain about the skeptics all you want, but it won't make a good case for your claim that Jesus existed.

Nice catch, and brings to mind Hitchens's razor, a consequence of the failure of the burden of proof: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Well, just try dismissing without proof the historicity of Jesus, and the apologists will be on you like white on rice. In my case as you know they are going after me. I think the logic goes something like this:

Unknown Soldier is special pleading.
Conclusion: Jesus existed!

It seems reasonable to me that if Christ existed, then it really should not be necessary to attack the skeptics. If I knew Jesus was historical, then I would just present the evidence and let the truth attack the skeptics.

[Mithrae]

Given the few examples I provided, it's clear that Jesus sits far more closely and obviously alongside the likes of Paul (who you say "no doubt" existed) and Socrates - with multiple converging, potentially even first-hand lines of evidence regarding some key details of their lives from within a few decades of the fact, along with identifiable influences on subsequent history - than the likes of Priam or David (several centuries' gap before the first known direct or indirect allusions to them) and even moreso figures like Herakles or Moses (poorly- or late-attested figures whose situation in and influence on history is nebulous or non-existent, but with obvious and overriding mythic utility).

The evidence for Paul is far better than the evidence for Jesus because we have Paul's writings but nothing like that from Jesus. Contrary to what you claim, we have no first hand, eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

On the contrary: The body of literature/letters produced by Paul and his admirers is good evidence for his existence, yes, but an even stronger type of evidence is the religious/social movements produced by Jesus and those he inspired. As we all know well enough, documents can be pseudonymously produced or filled with fictitious content without too much hassle... and that is much easier to accomplish than producing the effects of sustained, intensive preaching and practicing of a social or religious 'good news.'

For an interesting point of comparison consider the historiography of Alexander the Great. I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but off the top of my head I would guess that besides Julius Caesar there are probably few if any other figures in ancient western and near-eastern history whose existence is more certain than Alexander's. And yet the earliest substantial extant source regarding Alexander (Bibliotheca historica) was written some two hundred years after his life, in Sicily, hundreds of miles from anywhere Alexander visited. And the stories about him? The son of Zeus; his birth so important that Artemis attended to it rather than her own burning temple; taming a horse which no-one else could; untying a knot which had defeated all others; fulfiller of a prophecy to become the ruler of Asia; conquerer of the largest empire the world had yet seen, in a single decade! But of course, such a great empire must have been a lasting legacy to his greatness...? No, supposedly after the demi-god died the vast empire he had created all fell apart. Critics of the existence of Jesus should be having an absolute field day with this nonsense, right?

I rather suspect that the main thing which makes the existence of Alexander so certain is obviously not the legends which grew up around him, nor the extant written accounts of his life and deeds, nor even towns or coins dedicated to him (much like other mythic heroes and gods have had similar honours): Rather, we know that Alexander existed because of the impact on history which he had, the vast social, cultural and political developments of the late fourth and subsequent century which are best explained by an origin point or initial causes similar to the later biographical outlines of Alexander... contradictions, discrepancies and legendary embellishment notwithstanding. Obviously being a teacher rather than a king Jesus' impact on the history of his subsequent century was much smaller than Alexander's, but by virtue of that comparison - social influence versus written reports - it would seem reasonable to conclude that the religious/social movements produced by Jesus are stronger evidence for his existence than the mere written documents produced by Paul are for his.

And of course, on top of that there are obviously also written reports directly or indirectly about Jesus also - with considerably better provenance than those available regarding Alexander, for what it's worth - including contemporary information from Paul and the possible evidence of a close disciple in the fourth gospel.

So Jesus appears to be in the same class as Moses; he's a Biblical figure who obviously had, as you say, overriding mythic utility.

I can see why that might seem to be the case on first blush, but again I would argue that quite the opposite is the case. Not all early Christian sects viewed Jesus in the same way, such as for example the Jewish-Christian Ebionites who considered him a human man who was not the virgin-born Son of God and, crucially, had not died for the sins of the world. I think you would be correct that within what became orthodox Christianity (and in particular, what was originally just Pauline Christianity) there is immense mythic utility in the sacrificial death and resurrection theology: But the fact that this theology was not shared by all Christians - and in particular was apparently far less common among Jewish Christians, those of Jesus' own culture, than among Gentile Christians - would mean that this mythic aspect to the stories of Jesus did not historically overwhelm or replace or exist in stead of the historical attributes of the man. Paul's mostly (though even then, not entirely) mythic Christ-figure came to dominate the theology of orthodoxy, but even that emerging orthodoxy still had to accommodate the man Jesus as portrayed by other early Christians in Mark and the Q source (or Matthew)... and some marginal sects which evolved perhaps more directly from Jesus himself possibly had an even more grounded, less fantastic view of Jesus than even those works!

Furthermore - as I'm sure you're already well aware - that human sacrifice/resurrection theology in itself seems rather incongruous from a self-described former Pharisee taking his message initially to diaspora Jews. However fantastic that theology in itself may be, one of if not the best explanations for how it came to be developed rests solidly on historical grounds: That the messianic cult of Jesus needed that rationalization to account for his crucifixion and failure to redeem Israel in more literal/political terms. I have yet to see any mythicist theory which explains Pauline theology as well as the fact that Jesus actually existed and died, leading to that rationalization among some of his followers; and specifically/particularly for a self-proclaimed apostle at odds with Jesus' own brother (Gal. 1 & 2), an extreme emphasis on that mythic side rather than on the life and deeds which he hadn't closely observed.

History doesn't start and stop with the early Christian movement; it's a broad, coherent discipline whose purpose is to gather, analyze and draw conclusions from any available data about the past. Someone who is unwilling or unable to situate their opinions even loosely/informally within a broader framework is obviously failing to engage in that pursuit: Whatever it is that you are doing, it's obviously not history! That doesn't necessarily mean that the opinions of arbitrary scepticism are incorrect of course, any more than the opinions of dogmatic faith are necessarily incorrect; but if someone is not even making a credible attempt at coherent historical analysis, it's difficult to see why anyone else would take their historical opinions seriously.

Again, you are shifting the burden of proof. You think Jesus existed? Then you prove it. Besides, I never said that I am "unwilling or unable to situate (my opinion) even loosely/informally within a broader framework" or that I am "obviously failing to engage in that pursuit." We (myself included) are waiting to see what historical expertise that you or anybody else can post regarding the historicity of Jesus. Maybe then I can engage in some dialogue regarding historical disciplines. . . . .


So is that the best you can do? I thought that you can discredit mythicism. But honestly, I knew full well that you couldn't do it. Real-Jesus apologists tend to engage in a lot of bluster and braggadocio, but when all the smoke they blow into people's eyes clears, we are still left looking for Jesus. I suppose Christians derive some comfort from it which appears to be the reason for it all.

No-one is obligated to pick up some arbitrary burden you try to lay on them. If your idea of how this thread should go is "Convince me that Jesus existed; go on, do it, I bet you can't!" then it's really not going to hold much interest for me or I imagine many others. But that attitude in itself discredits mythicism or whatever position it is you hold as being nothing more than arbitrary scepticism (and that's using the worthy term scepticism in a rather loose sense!). I have no interest in telling you for the umpteenth time the various lines of evidence suggesting a strong probability that Jesus existed; an interesting dialogue require two participants, and if you're unwilling or unable to outline the kind of broad historical framework from which you intend to approach the discussion it seems likely that all I would have to look forward to is a regular refrain of "Nuh-uh, not good enough."

As Miles suggested, what can be asserted without evidence can also reasonably be dismissed without evidence, and so far as we have yet seen the 'burden of proof' or criteria of historicity which you are promoting have zero evidence and zero utility.

[unknown soldier]

When we do that, we see that the evidence regarding Jeus' existence seems to be far closer and in some cases even better than the likes of Socrates, Paul, Pilate, Hillel the Elder, Josephus, Muhammad and so on than figures (which arbitrary sceptics nevertheless continually invoke) like Herakles, Krishna, Robin Hood etc.

I've noticed that apologists love to compare the historicity of Jesus to that of Socrates. It would be very helpful if you would post the evidence for Socrates and explain why you think the evidence for Jesus is on a par with the evidence for Socrates and why we should believe either one of them existed.

A big problem with that comparison is that when we read of Socrates, we find his story to be that of a philosopher. We know philosophers exist. The story of Jesus, on the other hand, is the story of a wonder worker from the sky, and such wonder workers are a lot more iffy than philosophers. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," so if you seek to make a case for the Jesus of Christian hope for immortality, then you'll need that extraordinary evidence.

You do have the option of making a case for a purely human Jesus, a Jesus who was never divine and worked no miracles. Would you like to do so? If you do, then comparing him to Socrates would be a much better approach, in my opinion.

[brunumb]

Have you in any way demonstrated that all these "Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Hindu gods" are indeed "fictional"? Or, is this simply your opinion? In other words, you hold the opinion these gods must be false, and therefore in your mind this somehow translates into all gods, and religions must have somehow been created in some sort of way, which goes on in your mind to somehow demonstrate Christianity must be fiction as well?

You're missing the point. The belief in all those religions and their gods was accepted by people simply being told it was all true. Unless you want to claim that there were facts and evidence that these people evaluated that led them to the conclusion that what they believed was true. Your position is that people do not simply accept what they are told as true when it comes to their religious beliefs. I put it to you that they do. Most are inculcated with their beliefs and most never scrutinise them closely or critically. The same applied to when the religion was just emerging. How often have I heard the question asked "What would change your mind about the truth of Christianity?" and the reply was "Nothing". All faith, not evidence.