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.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #0]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect?

Exactly, what "early Christian sect" are you talking about? Are you talking about the Apostles, who would have claimed to have followed Jesus, who did not really exist? Or, are you claiming there would have been those who created not only Jesus, but also the Apostles who would have been fictional as well?

Come now, you are depriving me of enough questions!

By the "early Christian sect" I'm referring to the first Christians and in particular those who wrote the New Testament. Although we don't know who they were except Paul and maybe Luke, they were obviously literate. Most likely they were rabbis who feared violence with Rome and were at odds with other Jewish groups like the Pharisees. They were hoping for a theistic solution to the Roman occupation in which God himself had sent a Messiah to conquer Rome and the whole world. Somebody like Jesus was just right for such a Messiah, so if there was no Jesus to fill that role, then it would have been easy enough to have created Jesus.

If you are saying the Apostles really existed, and they simply made up some sort of fictional story concerning some sort of Jesus which never existed, right in the face of those who would have known there was no such character in history, then it is truly an incredible feat on their part for this "Jesus" character to become the most influential character the world has ever known!

I'd say it might be even more incredible for a real Jesus to attain such notoriety. For a poor Jewish peasant to become a God worshipped by billions of people over twenty centuries is amazing indeed.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting the Apostles never existed, then you would have to be suggesting, there would have been those who would have not only made up the "Jesus" character, but also the Apostles. Not only would they have to make up the Apostles, they would also have to have a hand in creating the letters we have contained in the New Testament. This would mean that all the letters we have contained in the NT would have to have been fabricated in some sort of way?

Sure. Why not? I can make up apostles and write letters.

To make an extremely long story short, (which is rather impossible) we have those some 2000 years ago, who were somehow able to not only create a fictional character who would be "Jesus", they were also able to create all these fictional Apostles, along with all these 'fictional" letters, which goes on to cause this fictional "Jesus" to become the most influential character in the history of the world, which has consumed the lives of millions of folks, including yourself, who continues to talk about this fictional character, some 2000 years later.

The Hindus have gods older than the Bible not to mention stories about those gods that predate anything you believe. The Hindus talk of those gods to this day, but I don't see how any of that makes those gods real. Anyway, if you stick with your logic then you need to believe that Shiva and Krishna are historical people.

I don't care who you are, or whatever story you pick, this is the most incredible story I have ever heard! If you say, Jesus was a real historical figure who was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again, that is an incredible story. If you say that Jesus never existed, and the Apostles made this "Jesus" up in the face of those who would have known there was no such "Jesus" and this "fictional Jesus" becomes the most influential figure in the history of the world, then this would be even more incredible.

Actually, many people who were in a position to know if Jesus existed either didn't find him worth mentioning or didn't know anything about him. The large majority of Jews of that time never converted to Christianity. A fictional Jesus explains this silence perfectly, but a historical Jesus is a lot more problematical.

The whole point here is, there is no doubt something incredible happened some 2000 years ago, which has continued to consume the lives of millions, upon millions of folks, down through these thousands of years, whether they believe the reports contained in the New Testament or, whether they spend, day, after day, on a web site, attempting to cast some sort of doubt. Either way, it is an incredible story!

Many incredible stories are fictional. The situation in Israel in the early first century was fertile ground for legends to develop. One of the sects that emerged at that time got lucky and became a very large religion. The fact that we argue its claims today is a testimony not to incredible truth but the incredible inability of many people to recognize the truth.

[Realworldjack]

It is a fact, (not hearsay or unsupported claim) that we have in our possession numerous written testimonies of a resurrection. Now, you can insist that these testimonies are simply "hearsay, and unsupported claims", but does this in any way demonstrate the claims would be false?

More importantly, they don't demonstrate that the claims are true. That's your burden. It all hangs on that.

I'm afraid not my friend! I have made no claims which I cannot demonstrate to be facts. In other words, I am not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact. Rather, I am claiming to believe the claims would be true, based on the facts, and evidence. Therefore, I own no burden to demonstrate a resurrection has occurred. If you are simply claiming to believe the resurrection would be false, I have no problem with this in the least, and respect your right to hold any opinion you would like. The problem would come in when, and if you want to insist the resurrection did not occur, because at that point it would be you who would own the burden, and I am extremely confident you could not pull that burden. Another problem would be, if you would like to insist I have no reason to believe as I do, because again, I am extremely confident you could not demonstrate your case.

With this being said, if I am only insisting to believe the claims, while you are only insisting you do not believe the claims, then neither of us would own any sort of burden. However, this would also mean that you, and I are in the same boat together, where all we can do is to explain what we believe, along with why we believe as we do, while acknowledging that neither one of us can demonstrate the conclusions we have come to.

I am absolutely fine acknowledging this to be the case. However, it seems to me there are those on both sides of the equation, who are not fine with this in the least, and somehow want to insist their position is the correct position, but they cannot in any way whatsoever demonstrate their case.

[brunumb]

In other words, I am not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact.

That's good, because it is not a fact.

[Realworldjack]

In other words, I am not making the claim that the resurrection would be a fact.

That's good, because it is not a fact.

You see, now it is you who is making a claim, and you now own the burden to demonstrate this claim. The problem is, you can in no way demonstrate your claim to be a fact. Sort of strange coming form one who loves to preach to us about the "burden of proof"? In other words, there are those who love to point out when others own the burden, but somehow the rules to not apply the same in their own case.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #31]

By the "early Christian sect" I'm referring to the first Christians and in particular those who wrote the New Testament.

This really does not answer my question, since I cannot know who you believe the first Christians would be? Moreover, when you refer to, "those who wrote the New Testament", I cannot be sure who you are referring to here, since there are those who claim much of the NT would have been written decades after the events, with some even suggesting the authors could have been in distant lands. So then, the question remains, "what early Christian sect are you talking about"? What I really need to know is, are you talking about the, Apostles?

Although we don't know who they were except Paul and maybe Luke

This is exactly what I am talking about. Are you talking about early Christians who would have been alive at the time of the alleged, Jesus? Or, are you under the impression with others that much of what is contained in the NT would have been authored by those who would not have been alive at the time? As you can see, these are important questions you need to answer before any of us can respond to the question you have posed?

Most likely they were rabbis who feared violence with Rome and were at odds with other Jewish groups like the Pharisees. They were hoping for a theistic solution to the Roman occupation in which God himself had sent a Messiah to conquer Rome and the whole world. Somebody like Jesus was just right for such a Messiah, so if there was no Jesus to fill that role, then it would have been easy enough to have created Jesus.

I find it impossible to even respond to this, since you, yourself admit this would all be speculation.

I'd say it might be even more incredible for a real Jesus to attain such notoriety. For a poor Jewish peasant to become a God worshipped by billions of people over twenty centuries is amazing indeed.

This is exactly my point! In other words, any way you attempt to slice it here, you end up with an incredible tale, and it does not get us any closer to the truth, attempting to decide which would be the least incredible.

Sure. Why not? I can make up apostles and write letters.

Oh really? All I can say here is, this certainly seems to demonstrate one who is under the impression that it is all so simple, along with one who has not really read, and studied what is contained in the NT. The problem here is, we will not be able to take in consideration all that would have to be involved, because that would be impossible, but I will take a stab at it, understanding that I cannot possibly cover all that would be involved.

Have you ever read John chapter 4, where Jesus has the conversation with, "the woman at the well"? You may really want to read this. Because you see, we are not talking about an author who seems to be describing a fictional story, but rather one who goes into great detail, and any pastor "worth his salt" could preach upon this one passage for a "month of Sundays" because it is filled with theological content, and we are to suppose this would have come from an author who was describing some sort of fictional character? This is simply one passage, and I do not have the time or the space to even get into explaining this one passage, much less the rest of the content of the NT.

But let us move on to two other authors I will not have the time, or the space to get into all that would have to be involved in order for these authors two be attempting to describe events which would have been fictional. We have an author contained in the NT, who writes not one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual. In his first letter to this individual, this author explains to his audience, exactly why he is writing these letters to him, along with exactly how he obtained this information. The reason this author gives for writing out this information to this one individual, is in order for this individual to, "know the exact truth". The way in which this author explains to this individual, how he obtained this information was by "carefully investigating everything from the beginning" as if he would have been alive at the time, in order to have "investigated everything from the beginning."

Okay, in the second letter addressed to this one individual, we have very strong evidence which would suggest this author would have been a traveling companion with Paul. This would mean this author would have known Paul, along with the other Apostles, which would also mean this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have been able to know with certainty, if this Jesus would have been a real historical figure.

But, we are not in any way finished yet. Because you see, we have letters in which the author claims to have been Paul, and in these letters this author mentions one by the name of Luke who would have been along with him on his journeys. In fact, one of these letters would have been written while Paul would have been under arrest, and in this letter, Paul happens to mention, "only Luke is with me". Now, do you happen to know where the author of the two letters to Theophilus ends his second letter? Well, that would be while Paul would have been under arrest. Can you imagine why this author may have ended this letter with Paul being under arrest? Well, could it be the fact there would be no more to tell, since this author would have been with Paul, as he is under arrest?

Thus far we have only scratched the surface, because there is much more we would need to consider. The point is, if these stories are indeed fictional, then it is just as fantastic, as if the stories are actually true. In other words, either the reports are true which would be fantastic. Or, there were those who created all these things, along with the historical facts involved, which would be just as fantastic. The whole point here is, when one suggests Jesus may not have been a real historical character, it is not like we are leaving the world of the fantastic.

The Hindus have gods older than the Bible not to mention stories about those gods that predate anything you believe. The Hindus talk of those gods to this day, but I don't see how any of that makes those gods real. Anyway, if you stick with your logic then you need to believe that Shiva and Krishna are historical people.

I dearly love it when there are those who want to bring up other religions into the conversation about Christianity. The problem is, there is nothing about any of these other religions, which would have a thing in the world to do with whether there would be facts, evidence, and reasons in support of the Christian claims. In other words, one, would have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Next, you can pick any other religion you would like, and I would be more than happy to compare the real historical facts, and evidence as compared to Christianity.

Actually, many people who were in a position to know if Jesus existed either didn't find him worth mentioning or didn't know anything about him.

How in the world did you determine this to be the case? Allow me to share some facts with you. It would be a fact, Paul wrote other letters we do not posses. We know he wrote 3 letters to the Corinthians, not simply 2. We also know he wrote a letter to the Laodiceans which we do not have. Therefore, there may even be other letters written by Paul which we do not have.

Now let us consider this fact. It is a fact the overwhelming majority of the NT would have been 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. In fact, this could be the case with the entire NT. The point here is, simply because we do not posses anything written by others about Jesus, would not mean that no one else ever wrote a thing about him in letters such as we have in the NT, written by authors who were only concerned with communicating these things to folks at the time, just like the letters we have in the NT.

The large majority of Jews of that time never converted to Christianity.

And this is a somehow a shock to you? I mean the Jews have a tremendous history, and here comes Jesus preaching against these folks, and even predicts the destruction of their Temple, and you somehow think it is a shock that most of them would reject Jesus? GOOD GRIEF!

A fictional Jesus explains this silence perfectly

Right? However, you would think they would not have remained silent, but would have rather spoke up against the idea this Jesus would have been a real historical figure, before he became the most well known figure the world has ever known.

Many incredible stories are fictional.

None that I know of which would compare to Christianity as far as the real historical facts, and evidence we have in support.

The situation in Israel in the early first century was fertile ground for legends to develop.

Again, the thing is, we are not simply talking about some sort of legend which may have developed. There is also the real historical facts, and evidence in support of these claims being real historical events.

Allow me to end here with something I have said numerous times here on this site. There are those on both sides of the equation, believers, and unbelievers alike, who seem to be under the impression that it is all so simple. You know, like we have Christians who say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", as if the answers here were all so simple. However, I can assure you that it is not as simple as, a resurrection is impossible or, Jesus may have never existed. I can also assure you that simply pointing out the fact that most Christians were brought up in the faith, does not get us anywhere closer to the truth.

The reason why these simple answers do not work, is because the situation we are dealing with is far more complicated than this, as we have seen. However, there are certainly those who are satisfied with easy answers, and it does not take a whole lot to convince these sort of folks one way or the other. We know this to be true, because we have many here on this site, who freely admit they were convinced Christians at one time, and go on to admit that it did not take a whole lot to convince them Christianity was true. They now have rejected what they were once so convinced of, and are just as certain now concerning what they believe, as they were when they were Christians, but they cannot demonstrate what it is they now believe concerning Christianity, any more than they could demonstrate Christianity was true, when they were convinced Christians.

However, there are others of us who understand there are no easy answers, and are not satisfied with easy answers, because we understand there are no easy answers involved in this equation. With this being the case, we acknowledge these things, and simply explain what it is we believe, along with the facts, and evidence supporting what it is we believe.

[Mithrae]

No-one is obligated to pick up some arbitrary burden you try to lay on them.

You posted earlier that mythicism has been discredited. I just want you to back up what you say.

I said "That theory is marginal; it is widely discredited by serious historians..." a point which is easily proved:

• In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357]  . . . .
  
  In 1977, classical historian and popular author Michael Grant in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, concluded that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory".[360] In support of this, Grant quoted Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion that the Christ myth theory has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars".[361] At the same time, he also quoted Otto Betz's 1968 opinion that in recent years "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[362]  . . . .
  
  Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University[364] stated in 2008: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming".[365] . . . .
  
  According to Ehrman:
  "Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine.[369]"
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Of course mythicists can point to the likes of Robert Price, Richard Carrier or DM Murdoch, just as climate change deniers can point to their own experts (Spencer, Svensmark, Salby, Shaviv etc.). In a large sample size there's always going to be a few outliers.

Of course I've enjoyed debating climate science in the past too; not because it's an open question, and certainly not to convince those who hold to the fringe position Mostly just for enjoyment, but also because there's often something new to learn.

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.

I think you're begging the question here. If you wish to argue that Jesus existed, then it's a logical mistake to say that what he did is evidence for him. Here's the outline of your argument:

Jesus started religious and social movements.
Therefore, he must have existed.

Your argument is circular.

As I've explained previously:

• Mythicists and Jagella occasionally note that there are no writings by Jesus, no tomb of Jesus (well there is, but lacking early attestation), no artefacts of his carpentry days etc. etc., as if this were an important and compelling argument to make. But quite aside from being a very weak argument from silence in itself, I have pointed out to our friend before that such observations are further undermined when we see that any writings/tomb/etc. of Jesus would be instantly dismissed as 'circular' evidence because "you're assuming Jesus existed to write them/be buried there in the first place." As far as I can tell it would seem that literally any and all evidence of Jesus' existence, since it involves Jesus' existence, which is the conclusion we are pondering, would necessarily be circular and therefore inadmissible by this style of 'reasoning.'

On that earlier occasion it was the remarkably strong attestation to the existence of James the brother of Jesus by both Paul and Josephus which was dismissed as 'circular.' Literally everything will be dismissed by that sophistry in the case of Jesus, but in the case of Paul and anyone else pointing out the existence of their writings, churches etc. is correctly recognized as evidence of their existence.

Anyways, just on my break at work at the moment, but I may or may not bother returning to the thread later. Obviously you're still unwilling or unable to answer the question/challenge I originally posed: Your position is still nothing more than arbitrary scepticism. If and when you give some real consideration of a framework for assessing uncertainty by explaining a few examples along that probability range as I suggested, maybe some enjoyable discussion will be possible.

But "Convince me Jesus existed, bet you can't" simply isn't likely to be worth my time.

[Willum]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #29]

Sorry, Jesus is the Latinization of Joshua, many many Jesus’ existed.
And Josephus’, and Toms and Dicks and Harry’s.
No questioning Jesus and indeed many Jesus’ existed. The question is are any of them capable of quelling a sea storm, or raising the dead.

No serious scholar claims a Jesus other than a scoundrel or rabble rouser...

[unknown soldier]

No-one is obligated to pick up some arbitrary burden you try to lay on them.

You posted earlier that mythicism has been discredited. I just want you to back up what you say.

I said "That theory is marginal; it is widely discredited by serious historians..." a point which is easily proved:

• In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357]  . . . .
  
  In 1977, classical historian and popular author Michael Grant in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, concluded that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory".[360] In support of this, Grant quoted Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion that the Christ myth theory has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars".[361] At the same time, he also quoted Otto Betz's 1968 opinion that in recent years "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[362]  . . . .
  
  Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University[364] stated in 2008: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming".[365] . . . .
  
  According to Ehrman:
  "Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine.[369]"
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

OK, based on the opinions of these people we might conclude that mythicism is not a popular theory among some scholars, so you have shown that mythicism might well be marginal (a claim I don't really deny). However, I think you've fallen short of discrediting mythicism. Credibility does not necessarily depend on popular opinion.

Speaking of credibility, I've read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, and aside from Ehrman's terrible logic, he lied about DM Murdoch misrepresenting what she said about a statue in the Vatican. If that's the best that he can do to substantiate the historicity of Jesus, then it's no wonder that so many people question Jesus' existence.

Of course mythicists can point to the likes of Robert Price, Richard Carrier or DM Murdoch, just as climate change deniers can point to their own experts (Spencer, Svensmark, Salby, Shaviv etc.). In a large sample size there's always going to be a few outliers.

I avoid if I can appeals to authority, and I recommend you do the same. I do not argue that I'm not convinced that Jesus existed because Price and Carrier said he probably didn't exist.

Of course I've enjoyed debating climate science in the past too; not because it's an open question, and certainly not to convince those who hold to the fringe position Mostly just for enjoyment, but also because there's often something new to learn.

Like I've told you before, the evidence for climate change is far better than the evidence for Jesus, so there is no fair comparison between climate-change deniers and mythicists.

Mythicists and Jagella occasionally note that there are no writings by Jesus, no tomb of Jesus (well there is, but lacking early attestation), no artefacts of his carpentry days etc. etc., as if this were an important and compelling argument to make.

Come on, Mith; we all know that if any such evidence for Jesus was ever discovered, then apologists would crawl over top of a bikini-clad super model to get at it. Many people of the past are known to have existed because we have that kind of evidence for them, and people many times have claimed to have had solid evidence for Jesus only to be debunked. One notorious example is that of the Shroud of Turin which despite its being exposed as a hoax, is still cited by many Christians as solid evidence for Jesus. Christians want solid evidence for their Christ, but they have yet to come up with any.

But quite aside from being a very weak argument from silence in itself, I have pointed out to our friend before that such observations are further undermined when we see that any writings/tomb/etc. of Jesus would be instantly dismissed as 'circular' evidence because "you're assuming Jesus existed to write them/be buried there in the first place." As far as I can tell it would seem that literally any and all evidence of Jesus' existence, since it involves Jesus' existence, which is the conclusion we are pondering, would necessarily be circular and therefore inadmissible by this style of 'reasoning.'

Who is saying that that kind of evidence is "circular"? I'm not arguing that a tomb or a writing would be circular, but we would need to know that they belong to Jesus, of course. I accept some of the epistles as evidence for Paul, so why not a writing as evidence for Jesus?

On that earlier occasion it was the remarkably strong attestation to the existence of James the brother of Jesus by both Paul and Josephus which was dismissed as 'circular.'

I think there was a James, the brother of the Lord who had some notoriety in the early church. We just don't have enough information about him to say if he really was the blood brother of Jesus. It's important to note that Paul wrote that all his knowledge about Jesus came from revelation and not from any human source. If this James was Jesus' blood brother, then Paul would surely have learned a lot about Jesus from him.

Anyways, just on my break at work at the moment, but I may or may not bother returning to the thread later. Obviously you're still unwilling or unable to answer the question/challenge I originally posed: Your position is still nothing more than arbitrary scepticism. If and when you give some real consideration of a framework for assessing uncertainty by explaining a few examples along that probability range as I suggested, maybe some enjoyable discussion will be possible.

I'm not sure what you're asking. For one thing, my skepticism isn't "arbitrary" whatever that means. I'm not sure that King Arthur existed either, and for the same reasons I'm not sure Jesus existed.

But "Convince me Jesus existed, bet you can't" simply isn't likely to be worth my time.

If you think you cannot convince me Jesus existed, then why should I think you can convince me? So far all you've done is shifted the burden of proof with no arguments of your own for Christ's existence.

Let me help you there. A really good argument for a historical Jesus is to recognize that the Romans who occupied Israel in the first century crucified many young Jewish rebels. A large number of these rebels preached an impending apocalypse, and a lot of them could have been named, "Jesus," a popular Jewish name at that time. One of these "Jesuses" caught on and became the figurehead of Christianity.

See that, Mith? That wasn't hard at all. I came up with a concise and logically valid argument for Jesus based firmly on historical evidence. Why has this argument not caught on? I think the answer is that it does not rely on the Bible. Christians want a historical Jesus revealed by sacred scripture, and even many non-Christian Bible scholars want a Jesus revealed by the Bible. The Bible, after all, is their bread and butter, and if the Bible can be demonstrated to be irrelevant even to inform us about Jesus--well--that just isn't acceptable!

Another reason my argument isn't popular is because it substantiates a Jesus who is not unique. He was just another loser who got himself killed by the Romans. That's not the kind of Jesus most people want. People want to know that Jesus the wonder worker existed. To prove that my version of Jesus existed just wouldn't be very satisfying.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #29]

Sorry, Jesus is the Latinization of Joshua, many many Jesus’ existed.
And Josephus’, and Toms and Dicks and Harry’s.
No questioning Jesus and indeed many Jesus’ existed. The question is are any of them capable of quelling a sea storm, or raising the dead.

I agree! I've posted that there probably were many Jesuses but none of them miracle workers who can grant immortality.

No serious scholar claims a Jesus other than a scoundrel or rabble rouser...

Christians don't seem to understand that when they harp about a historical Jesus, they are harping for a Jesus they really don't want. Apologists know that it sounds good to assure the faithful that "Jesus" existed, though; they're just careful not to let the faithful know which Jesus presumably existed.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #39]

Christians don't seem to understand that when they harp about a historical Jesus, they are harping for a Jesus they really don't want. Apologists know that it sounds good to assure the faithful that "Jesus" existed, though; they're just careful not to let the faithful know which Jesus presumably existed.

I do not think the above is correct. When scholars argue for the historical [Jesus], I believe they are only dealing with those things that can be asserted via the historical method. Such as did the man exist. The historical method does not speak - one way or the other - to the miracles (the resurrection, walking on water, Christ being the Son of God, etc).

So it is not one or the other. It is simply 'we can establish the likelihood of the one - that the man existed (and some things that man did and said) - via the historical method'.


Peace again to you.