tanya

Not quite the way it should be juxtaposed, in my opinion.

Rather, one should write:

If one acknowledges the possibility that the gospel character could have been a genuine, biological human, ....

The alternative is not to deny "the possibility of the existence of a real man", but rather, to acknowledge that there is (a) no evidence that Jesus was a genuine, biological human, AND (b) there is abundant evidence of a fictional character, not a genuine human, performing a plethora of supernatural feats, including vaginal birth from a mother, without rupture of her hymenal membrane, aided by a ghost supplying the paternal DNA, and resurrection after death, regaining the precise phenome acquired just prior to death, including an unhealed, fatal, abdominal wound from a spear.

Somehow, the gospel stories don't seem to convey the notion of a genuine, biological human, Iskander.

Iskander

OK

jdboy

This is about men that came in the name of christ. Not that any were actually ordained.

"Eleazar ben Simon was a Zealot leader during the First Jewish-Roman War who fought against the armies of Cestius Gallus, Vespasian, and Titus Flavius. From the onset of the war in 66 CE until the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, he fought vehemently against the Roman garrisons in Judea and against his fellow Jewish political opponents in order to establish an independent Jewish state at Jerusalem. Days prior to the siege of Jerusalem, Eleazar ben Simon was betrayed by John of Gischala and killed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Simon

Toto

Population discussion split and and merged here