The other point is, why do these folks even care about the existence of some person whose characteristics DON'T match those of the NT Jesus?
It is illogical.
Theses folks can't seem to get this thru their heads, they're trying to palm off a historical Jesus on us that by definition cannot bear any relationship to the man-god character portrayed in the gospels. Like talking to a wall.:thud:
Again, they want to have their cake and to eat it to. The character of Jesus portrayed in the NT obviously has nothing to do with the historical Jesus they are trying to pawn off on us.
Keep going, you might convince yourself this argument from the negative makes sense, arguing that the LACK of contemporary historical evidence does nothing to diminish the idea of the historicity of a mythical Jesus makes perfect sense to me. :no:
The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle...
Again you distract from the issue. Exactly WHAT Jesus we are talking IS the issue. Was the NT based upon a real man, or made up? If based upon a real man, how many of the stories are real, and how many were fictitious? Obviously, the NT is full of made up stories, I don't know how anyone could...
I've probably heard more sermons than you in my lifetime, in any case, please point to a specific Jesus and prove to me he is the man that the writers of the NT were writing about. Exactly how many of the stories of the NT were actually about this man, as opposed to being made up, and where do...
Uh, I'm talking about the following sentence:
"There is a specific Jesus of Nazareth, born in 1st century roman palestine, who gathered together many followers including twelve central disciples, taught, and ended up being exectuted for his actions. ":thud:
I didn't really believe you were this misguided. To honestly believe these tales are 100 percent factual with no historical basis whatsoever is mindboggling.
ROFLMAO Again you push and push the "my scholars are better than your scholars" argument ad infinitum. You have nothing else. The idea that you think it is "foolish" that I expect at least one if not more than one contempary historian to write about a supposed Jesus is quite quaint. Especially...