Chili

But wait a minute here please, historically existed is not limited by a guy like John baptizing about in a camelhair coat, nor by a guy they called Jesus preaching the good news to everybody who want to hear, but contrary to this, it is about defining the intricate details of how to get to heaven or hell in a hurry, and for this the physical roundabout of Jesus bears no witness at all.

So if you are looking to believe or to deny you are reading it wrong for the existence of Jesus is not part of this world, or he would not be the transforming agent he was, still is, and always will be in Christendomain.

So if he was just a preacher you are looking for he would tell you to let the dead bury the dead, and would have no time for you either, as you will die and will bury the dead. But, he said, if you are looking for life and never die, he will be the one you need and not just because he showed you (impersonal always), how it is done, but he told you to follow his way.

So now don't ever think that he was not real because heaven is packed with those who believe, and just because you are not one of those does not give you the right to get a hard-on for him, as you will be blowing yourself in the eyes of those who do believe in his name, and that my dear friend, is all that you need.

srd44

Albert Schweitzer, is that you?

This is very similar to Schweitzer's position. Thistorical man ranked a distant second to the experiential Jesus. But Schweitzer, as well as yourself, seem to miss the precarious nature of this position. What if it were the case that the Jesus one experiences and permit me to even say, knows, is not the Jesus of history? In other words, what if Christ as a religious/experiential symbol is miles from who, or what, Jesus the historical man was or taught? Or, in other words, do religious symbols, real experiences, religious narratives rest on historical fact, claim, or evidence? And if not, what are the implications?

Concerning the original OP, there seems to be some confusion in this whole historical/mythical Jesus debate. To claim that Jesus NEVER existed or was a mythic creation and to claim the the portraits of Jesus in the gospels are non-historical are two radically different positions.

Indeed, the historical evidence for Jesus' historical existence may be lacking, but so too with numerous other ancient figures. One should not automatically conclude that Jesus did not exist.

Second, read Plutarch's "biography" of Alexander the Great, where it is stated that Alexander's mother was Aphrodite (or read Ceasar's for that matter). Since this is historically inaccurate, should we then conclude that Alexander did not exist? This, and numerous other parallels from antiquity, enables us to see some of the literary techniques employed in describing men who were perceived in exceptional terms.

aa5874

One should not conclude there was an historical Jesus without evidence.

Right now we are NOT on a QUEST for an historical Alexander the Great. The existence or non-existence of Alexander the Great needs a separate and independent inquiry and the results cannot be transferred to the QUEST for an historical Jesus.

All we have about Jesus are Myth Fables that he was born AFTER his mother was pregnant by a Ghost, that he was God the Creator, that he was with Satan on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that he Walked on sea water, Transfigured, Resurrected, Ate Food after the resurrection and then Ascended in a cloud.

No Apologetic writer ever admitted that they saw Jesus of Nazareth.

Paul saw him AFTER the resurrection.

The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a total waste of time and resources.

The Jesus stories are 2nd century or later Myth Fables like those of Plutarch's "Romulus" and Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Bible.

srd44

And there I had thought you were an intelligible correspondant.... my fault. You can't have a discussion if you can't see your presuppositions, and if you continuously rely on your presuppositions as starting point. Kirk out.