Headache

This is easy to resolve... Show me the extra biblical evidence that unequivocally support a historical Jesus the way he is portrayed in the bible. That is all you have to do.

Shi no Meshii

I voted maybe, mostly because there's no way to prove it either way.

At any rate, I don't see how it's important. Even if it were to suddenly become possible to prove that Jesus was a real person, which frankly wouldn't suprise me, I would still never believe that he was the son of the Christian God. That can't be proven.

aa5874

At so late a date, I do not think proof of Jesus is required, all that is needed is to make a reasonable assesment of the available evidence or information.

If there is no credible historical record of Jesus, believed to be the son of God of the Jews, the Messiah, the Christ Lord and Saviour, does this lack of information make the HJ the weakest position of the three choices?

I consider "Maybe" to be strongest position before any investigation is done on the matter, and "No" as the best option after the matter has been reviewed.

I have found too much fictitious, contradictory, inconsistent and apparent forgeries surrounding Jesus of Nazareth to consider him human in any way.

angelo

I keep repeating myself, I think. The evidence for an historical Jesus outside of the N/T, is practically non existent. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written at roughly the time Jesus was supposed to have lived don't mention him. So, why should we have any doubt that the man never had any existence?

spin

Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack. You are making a logic error. Repeating it doesn't make it any less an error.


spin

aa5874

What is evidence of lack?

If Jesus did not exist there would not be any evidence of his existence and so far that criteria has been satisfied for about 1900 years, now. Therefore, it is MOST RESONABLE to consider Jesus as non or never existant until further information to the contrary can be obtained.

Nismo

Right here!:wave:

Phat Infidel

I voted Yes. It takes a charismatic leader to start a movement, especially when the possibility of death is involved.

Christianity really took off after Constantine, though.

What gets me about the whole issue of Christ is that he alone, among past historical figures, is attacked and scrutinized closer and held to higher standards of proof than anyone else.

To me, the whole issue is simple, but I guess I am one of them unthinking believers. :huh:

Toto

How often do we have to listen to this canard that "Christ" is alone among putative historical figures, held to higher standards of proof?

aa5874

But Jesus, even according to the NT, did not really start Christianity, he did not want anyone to know who he really was.

Matthew 16.20 If Jesus was a real human being, it doesn't seem as though he started Christianity.