Quest For The Historical Jesus: Exercise In Futility?

I've been reading a moderately interesting book on this -'Zealot' by Reza Aslan.

Seems that in 1st century Palestine there were several would be messiahs who ended up crucified.

Reading it has done nothing to convince me that we know much at all about JC as an historical person.

 

Someone or some collection of someones is responsible for the accounting but by virtue of a certain saying it does't matter who it is or what you say about them but it matters vitally to you if you cannot or refuse to recognize the divine or holy spirit in men.

All sins will be forgiven the sons of men and whatever blasphemes they utter and whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, (he wasn't a historical character,) will be forgiven, but he who blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven.

 

I think I understand what you're saying , but I'm never quite sure. Are you saying that if the message attributed to Jesus is true, it doesn't really matter whether or not the historical Jesus of Nazareth said it? Is the message the important thing?

 

Yes heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall remain forever.

 

So if you have answered the question you posed in the title of the thread, If it is an exercise in futility it is not because it is not a possibility but because it doesn't matter, just like the smoking gun in the chain of evolution doesn't matter, it is the gene that matters. So as this is sanctuary I would say that that effort kind of drags on conceiving the kingdom of heaven. We need to fill holes in understanding not win arguments where fools in fact contend.

 

There is no compelling evidence to support that Jesus was a real historical figure. I am inclined to believe that he, just like god and the Easter Bunny, is a mere figment of the imagination.

 

I know you are inclined to believe in imaginary figments. Thanks for sharing anyway.

 

So in answer to your "questioon" ....

No, there is little to nothing that can be said about Jesus that would "satisfy" an objective secular historian. Because the "objective" secular historians that I've talked to tend not be so objective about the subject.

 

academic inbreeding

 

I was trying to be tactful.

 

The correct tact is to tell the truth.
Stuffed inbred shirts
Got have a shirt and tie to get in.

 

I find a hand shake it was good enough for thomas

 

And you've really looked into it? What constitutes "evidence" and what one finds "compelling" are to a considerable extent matters of judgment. Bart Ehrman's arguments in Did Jesus Exist are compelling enough for me. In particular, I find compelling the facts that: (1) a crucified god went counter to Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, and therefore would not be made up; (2) the multiply attested baptism of Jesus by John the baptist is also not something his followers were likely to have made up;(3) Paul refers to his meetings with Peter and James the Just, the brother of Jesus and Josephus confirms the role of James the Just as brother of Jesus; and (4) the existence of Jesus is corroborated in a sizeable number of independent first century sources, including Paul’s letters, the canonical gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, and the non-Pauline epistles. More evidence than we have for the Easter Bunny, I'd say.