If Jesus Existed, What Can We Know About Him?

I've found myself thinking of this thread today...

I know I've heard this (what I'm going to say) or something similar on a commercial...

Jesus's name is one of the most easily recognized names of all times, and is considered easily one of the most controversial.
____________________________________________


I thought there have been some discoveries of old (biblical times old) scrolls, papyrus or some such that had Jesus (or Yesuah) name on them. Hasn't Joseph of Arimathaea's name been found on something, too? I say this because it was this Joseph that gave his burial tomb for Jesus's body.

 

Just thought I would pass along a quote of yours in relation to your suggested course of action here,
“Wisdom is from revelation not publication “
When I talk to people my first point of reference concerning the verity of what is being said is whether the speaker is consistent in his premises. You may not be a parrot but you reveal yourself not exactly a straight shooter either when it comes to being objectively circumspect about what is the same and what is different. On the face it the bible is a historical document being a documented product of history. It doesn't matter that you don't believe in your interpretation of the content, it does not excuse the bible from being a historical document. Your beliefs about the truth of it's content or that it is a manipulated construction don't make it historically irrelevant on any level. Certainly you yourself suggest it is a document with a history.

 

Nothing is certain, not even that. But I think it's a good bet that Jesus existed.:
(1) The notion of a crucified god went counter to Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, and therefore would not be made up.
(2) The notion of a Jewish Messiah who was baptized by John the Baptist was inconsistent with the notions that (a) Jesus was superior to John and (b) Jesus was born without sin; the fact that this is reported in the gospels and strenuously explained away suggests it
happened.
(3) Paul refers to his meetings with Peter and James the Just, the brother of Jesus. Both men were thought to have been close to Jesus, and affirmed his existence first hand;
(4) Josephus, in a part of his Antiquities that most scholars think is authentic confirms the role of James the Just as brother of Jesus.
(5) The existence of Jesus is corroborated in a sizeable number of independent first century sources, including Paul’s letters, the canonical gospels, the Q-gospel, the L and M sources, the Gospel of Thomas, and the non-Pauline epistles.
(6) Many of the details of Jesus’ life presented in the earliest writings and traditions are plausible, mundane, and utterly unlike the life stories of pagan gods.
(7) Many of the earliest Christians didn’t think Jesus was a god, at least during his lifetime.
(8) Parsimony and plausibility make it easier for me to believe that he was real than to accept alternative explanations for which there is little credible evidence. The alleged parallels to Jesus in pagan sources don’t hold up under close scrutiny, and the mythicists have shown no evidence that they were in fact the models for the Jewish followers of Jesus.

These reasons don’t make the case airtight, but I submit they make a prima facie case that belief in an historical Jesus is not unreasonable in light of the available evidence.

 

quoting from any book of religion is seldom a logical answer to anything.

there are certainly no airtight answers to this question, only reasonable grounds for more or less logical speculation.

i too believe there was someone the roman empire executed for leading an insurgency against its occupation, who, may have made and even greater impression on those who know him, for preaching pacifism for the last three years of his life before he was killed. that he was an heroic figure, for his steadfastness in both roles, and that like moses and other religious leaders, before and after him, may have been chosen by that which we call god, to be a channel for it.

considering the deadly controversy of the mycean councils over, among other things, the pauline claims, i hope i can be forgiven for taking them with a large grain of salt as support for anything.

i merely follow what is to me a compilation of to me, seems logical and probable.

at the same time, i feel the entire question of one religion, christianity, is lent more weight in the popular western mind, then it in any way earns or deserves.