Thomas II

But I said "Let's just suppose...etc."
I just mentioned a scenario,but that does not mean that we can not start from another scenario, even the one that the guy never existed.
So let me ask: what is the probability of each scenario?
Also, what are the scenarios that we should discard right away?
I would say that the least probable is the "divine" one...

gilly54

BBC did a documentary on this very subject. You can watch it on YouTube here.

Analyst

ISTM there are three possible Jesii:

1. Historical - he existed and performed miracles
2. Legendary - he existed but performed no miracles - they were later accretions
3. Mythical - he never existed and was created from whole cloth

I go for #3.

Analyst

Why? Why not examine Superman comics based on the assumption that he did exist?

Analyst

Baigent suggested that the crucifixion described in the gospels was very odd indeed and that possibly some people were bribed to arrange a fake crucifixion for Jesus to survive.

Joan of Bark

You can examine Superman comics from a literary perspective, just as we examine Hamlet or Gilgamesh that way. No problem.

The difference between Superman and Jesus is that I doubt any sane person believes Superman actually exists, whereas most Biblical scholars -- some of them skeptics, agnostics, and atheists -- do believe in a historical Jesus. You can't just dismiss them out of hand with a silly analogy.

And you should know that on this discussion board, we often start with the premise: assuming God exists, then why ...?

Transient

Well that's ok except that you have not stated what sort of Jesus we are to assume existed - which makes quite a difference as we have shown already.

Do we assume that the miracles are true as someone assumed?
Do we assume that the stories about him were true?
Do we assume that the sayings were actually spoken by him?
Do we assume that he was divine?
Just what sort of Jesus do you have in mind?
Because all these things make a hell of a difference as to what we might guess happened during and after a supposed crucifiction.
If indeed he did so many things that even all the books in the world could not hold then we should assume that almost Pilate himself would stand guard over the body - not really of course but you know what I mean - there would be no way that he could escape death.
Of course if he really did perform miracles then there must be a god and then all bets are off because he would have been resurrected.

Thomas II

These are all very good questions, except the last one.
Performing a healing of any kind does not imply he had to be a god. There are people who said to be "healers" and nobody says they are god. Healing is a tricky thing because there has to be proof that an actual healing took place, and we don't have that proof, nor can we get it, so the alleged miracles can not be used to prove anything else.

What about the stories about Jesus? Are they true?
That's hard to tell...
Which stories seem more probable?
Which stories seem to be mythical?
Which stories seem to have been altered?
And if they were altered,by whom? With what purpose?
Which stories have been simply invented?
Why aren't there other stories about his life, from age 12 to age 30?

Regarding the sayings, do they seem to come from different persons?

Do we assume he was divine?
It is irrelevant for the purpose of probable existence.
Besides, gods are mythical archetypes, and we are talking about an actual person, a man.

Regarding Jesus' personality, what can be said about it?
Well, since the person is not "in the flesh", the only thing we have is whatever was written about him. The four gospels would be first thing and then, what else?
What other written statements would be included as probable?
How accurate are the gospels?
So this would have to be the first priority because everything else would have to be based on these written stories.
Then there is the interpretation of these stories, and the consideration that there might have been other stories that were destroyed for whatever reason.

Transient

Actually it does matter whether "Jesus" performed actual miracles versus "healing".
If he was to cause such a stir as is suggested in the gospels and if we are to believe that anything in the gospels is true then whether or not he performed miracles is very important - it is the crux of the whole thing.
You cannot sort of wishy washy the whole miracle thingy - it is central.
He either did not exist, existed but was nothing like the stories, existed and was a total fraud, or was as is reported.

Since we are examining whether he might not have been killed in the crucifiction then it is important to understand who it is we are actually talking about.
If he did real miracles then it is game set and match for skeptics - they lost.
If we are to accept for this discussion that most of the stories are true, then which ones? because this greatly impacts whether the romans would have been lax with "Jesus" and his friends and not ensured death on the cross.

Get right in there with some logic.

Thomas II

But how would you prove that Jesus did some miracle? For example, the feeding of the multitude attending the sermon. How could it be proven that a supernatural event took place?