Considering Jesus independently from the Bible

[BSM1]

If it is different that the gospels, it is false.

Oh...well, okay then...

 

[allfoak]

@Meander_Z

The resurrection idea along with all of the other metaphors came from internal experiences.

 

[Thief]

however you consider the Carpenter.....
the one outstanding feature of His ministry.....He survived His death

outside of scripture you can say as you please
but if you insist that He is dead....
if you insist He never lived.....

what then of you in your last hour?

If Someone like Him, having such attributes....
if He failed to continue in Spirit.....
the rest of us have no hope of life beyond the last breath

and we are nothing more than dust
wandering about until we die

I have a Greater Inspiration

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If you were ever a Christians, you still are. You are now a prodigal son who will return one day.

I think a Buddhist work does this idea better.

Sun Wukong, a monkey trickster, insulted Buddha and so Buddha was all like, "Fine, bro -- hop up on my hand and if you can leap off of it, you win." So Sun Wukong was like, "Fssst. For realz, though." He shrunk himself, got up on Buddha's hand and then flung himself off and flew for miles and miles and miles before resting by some pillar-like mountains. He peed and did some graffiti to prove his location and then flew back to Buddha. However, Buddha proved by the stain on his hand that the monkey had never really left.

THAT'S how you deal with the topic of rebellion against an omnipresent foe.

Only liberal so-called scholars doubt the gospel records. When Paul died and went to heaven, God said to him, "well done good and faithful servant.

Did you get that from the gospel records? Who recorded it?

It came from the only source that is reliable---ALL Scripture is inspired by God.

Premise 1: All scripture is inspired by God.
Premise 2: All humans are liars, per scripture.
Premise 3: All authors of the books in the bible are attributed to various humans.

Conclusion: ....?

 

[omega2xx]

Such an angry fellow.

 

[omega2xx]

I think a Buddhist work does this idea better.

Sun Wukong, a monkey trickster, insulted Buddha and so Buddha was all like, "Fine, bro -- hop up on my hand and if you can leap off of it, you win." So Sun Wukong was like, "Fssst. For realz, though." He shrunk himself, got up on Buddha's hand and then flung himself off and flew for miles and miles and miles before resting by some pillar-like mountains. He peed and did some graffiti to prove his location and then flew back to Buddha. However, Buddha proved by the stain on his hand that the monkey had never really left.

THAT'S how you deal with the topic of rebellion against an omnipresent foe.

What ever floats your boat.

Did you get that from the gospel records? Who recorded it?

Men inspired by God.

]Premise 1: All scripture is inspired by God.
Premise 2: All humans are liars, per scripture.
Premise 3: All authors of the books in the bible are attributed to various humans.

Conclusion: ....?

Premise 2 - The Bible does not say all humans are liars. David said all men are liars. The Bible only records what
David said.
Premise 3 - The contents of all books of the Bible are not attributed to various authors.

 

[Meander_Z]

I enjoy all of the hypotheses put forth, but I do feel that a number of them are losing sight of some of the more subtle aspects of what is known.

Christianity was a Roman invention to gain power over Hebrews.

Problems. If we give any credit to the general timeline established by canonical scripture. Jesus died when Rome was on relatively good terms with Jerusalem, and Christianity did not begin to rise in popularity until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Plus the Romans were having more problems with early Christians than they had with the Hebrews previously. If the Romans had invented Christianity from some political motivation, they created a much bigger headache for themselves by doing so. There is a big gap in time between the emergence of early Christianity and the reconciliation through Constantine.

Christianity was invented by Paul... motivation for doing so questionable.

Problems. There definitely seems to have been a rift between Paul as a pro-gentile Hellenistic Jew, and James who seemed to be following a more traditional Hebrew style of early Christianity. The source on this is also canonical. Paul himself references this conflict with James, who seemed to hold more authority with early Christians in Jerusalem, and Paul spends a good deal of time disavowing those apostles who knew Jesus in life as having less true knowledge of Jesus than he himself possessed, even though his conversion came later. The hub of the disagreement seemed to be around to what degree gentiles should be included, and to what degree Hebrew laws should be maintained. James was conservative. Paul was liberal. But references to the resurrection are included in non-cannonical writings attributed to early Hebrew traditional sects of Christianity. So it seems likely that James would have believed in (or at least spread rumor of) the resurrection independently of Paul. Paul was most certainly exposed to Hellenic spirituality with its dying and rising gods, but the Hebrews were openly at odds with this style of metaphorically interpreted belief. The Hebrews believed in their God quite literally, while Hellenic culture had long been drifting toward metaphorical interpretation of their cultural religions. There is no question that Paul exerted a huge influence over the later church after his death. Many of his thoughts have shaped modern interpretation of the significance of the resurrection, but I sort of doubt that he had enough authority in the Hebrew community to convince them to add a metaphorical Hellenistic motif to their literal understanding of God.

The marriage between Hellenic and Hebrew thought in early Christianity is complicated and contentious, but without each Christianity would not be what it is today. Even if we argue now that the truths revealed by Jesus are metaphorical in nature, this was not the way that early Christians understood these truths. They were willing to die for their beliefs, as Jews had been willing to die for theirs. Hellenic culture of that age is not marked by this passionate dedication to a religious ideology. Its hard to die for a metaphor. It's much easier to die for a literal God who is more powerful than the armies of men. The Hellenic influence is a little harder to pin down in regards to the earliest expressions of Christianity. Except that the dying and rising god motif was well established in Hellenic culture, and this motif is essential in differentiating early Christians from their Jewish contemporaries. The Hebrews had no need for such a motif. Their God literally created the world. He did not need to die and be resurrected, this was a pagan idea. For all of the prophecies and beliefs about the Messiah, bodily resurrection was never suggested in any of them. Yet Christians fixated on this motif, not as a metaphorical concept but as a literal occurrence.

I'm aware that to a Christian believer my interest in the historical Jesus may seem like plain old stubbornness. The Bible tells you what to believe and you see no good reason to doubt it. The trouble is that while I do believe there is some historical value to canonical Christian texts, I don't believe that these texts are more divinely inspired than their non-canonical counterparts. The early Christian church is not the same as the modern Christian church of any denomination. Most Christians avoid looking at early Christian history because it so clearly contradicts the orthodox myths about early Christianity. The early church was divided. Early scriptures did not agree on the details and purpose of Jesus' life and death. Agreement was achieved by a committee who acted under the authority of a Roman Emperor. Cannon was established and everything outside of that cannon was suppressed, and yet many examples of non-canonical Christian writing still exist today. If Jesus lived and died, which I believe is likely, I don't believe that the Council at Nicaea had any special divine insight in choosing how to portray Jesus for their newly unified church. For all you and I know the most sacred of all scriptures was cast aside in favor of something that was easier to understand, and served the political needs of the Roman Empire.

 

[pearl]

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways.

As do the Gospels themselves. I think all scholarship is predisposed to an extent.

Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian.

To a degree, probably all the above.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person?

A holy man, one who is experientially in touch with another realm, the realm of Spirit, a mediator of power from the world of Spirit to this world, a charismatic. At the heart of the Torah is the charismatic strand of Judaism, Moses and Elijah.
A sage; as with teachings of other great sages, Lao Tzu, Confucius, the Buddha, and Jesus, revolves around the themes;3the nature of ultimate reality, a portrait of the human condition, and the way of transformation.
A prophet, renewal movement founder.

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

The Resurrection is the aspect of faith. The disagreements were 'family squabbles' among Jews. There was no attempt to describe the Resurrection, it was an interpretation of an empty tomb after Christ's appearance to his disciples. It is the earliest confession of faith, that Jesus was raised and he appeared. It is the insight of faith that shaped the narratives.

 

[sayak83]

I enjoy all of the hypotheses put forth, but I do feel that a number of them are losing sight of some of the more subtle aspects of what is known.

Christianity was a Roman invention to gain power over Hebrews.

Problems. If we give any credit to the general timeline established by canonical scripture. Jesus died when Rome was on relatively good terms with Jerusalem, and Christianity did not begin to rise in popularity until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Plus the Romans were having more problems with early Christians than they had with the Hebrews previously. If the Romans had invented Christianity from some political motivation, they created a much bigger headache for themselves by doing so. There is a big gap in time between the emergence of early Christianity and the reconciliation through Constantine.

Christianity was invented by Paul... motivation for doing so questionable.

Problems. There definitely seems to have been a rift between Paul as a pro-gentile Hellenistic Jew, and James who seemed to be following a more traditional Hebrew style of early Christianity. The source on this is also canonical. Paul himself references this conflict with James, who seemed to hold more authority with early Christians in Jerusalem, and Paul spends a good deal of time disavowing those apostles who knew Jesus in life as having less true knowledge of Jesus than he himself possessed, even though his conversion came later. The hub of the disagreement seemed to be around to what degree gentiles should be included, and to what degree Hebrew laws should be maintained. James was conservative. Paul was liberal. But references to the resurrection are included in non-cannonical writings attributed to early Hebrew traditional sects of Christianity. So it seems likely that James would have believed in (or at least spread rumor of) the resurrection independently of Paul. Paul was most certainly exposed to Hellenic spirituality with its dying and rising gods, but the Hebrews were openly at odds with this style of metaphorically interpreted belief. The Hebrews believed in their God quite literally, while Hellenic culture had long been drifting toward metaphorical interpretation of their cultural religions. There is no question that Paul exerted a huge influence over the later church after his death. Many of his thoughts have shaped modern interpretation of the significance of the resurrection, but I sort of doubt that he had enough authority in the Hebrew community to convince them to add a metaphorical Hellenistic motif to their literal understanding of God.

The marriage between Hellenic and Hebrew thought in early Christianity is complicated and contentious, but without each Christianity would not be what it is today. Even if we argue now that the truths revealed by Jesus are metaphorical in nature, this was not the way that early Christians understood these truths. They were willing to die for their beliefs, as Jews had been willing to die for theirs. Hellenic culture of that age is not marked by this passionate dedication to a religious ideology. Its hard to die for a metaphor. It's much easier to die for a literal God who is more powerful than the armies of men. The Hellenic influence is a little harder to pin down in regards to the earliest expressions of Christianity. Except that the dying and rising god motif was well established in Hellenic culture, and this motif is essential in differentiating early Christians from their Jewish contemporaries. The Hebrews had no need for such a motif. Their God literally created the world. He did not need to die and be resurrected, this was a pagan idea. For all of the prophecies and beliefs about the Messiah, bodily resurrection was never suggested in any of them. Yet Christians fixated on this motif, not as a metaphorical concept but as a literal occurrence.

I'm aware that to a Christian believer my interest in the historical Jesus may seem like plain old stubbornness. The Bible tells you what to believe and you see no good reason to doubt it. The trouble is that while I do believe there is some historical value to canonical Christian texts, I don't believe that these texts are more divinely inspired than their non-canonical counterparts. The early Christian church is not the same as the modern Christian church of any denomination. Most Christians avoid looking at early Christian history because it so clearly contradicts the orthodox myths about early Christianity. The early church was divided. Early scriptures did not agree on the details and purpose of Jesus' life and death. Agreement was achieved by a committee who acted under the authority of a Roman Emperor. Cannon was established and everything outside of that cannon was suppressed, and yet many examples of non-canonical Christian writing still exist today. If Jesus lived and died, which I believe is likely, I don't believe that the Council at Nicaea had any special divine insight in choosing how to portray Jesus for their newly unified church. For all you and I know the most sacred of all scriptures was cast aside in favor of something that was easier to understand, and served the political needs of the Roman Empire.

Good post. Here is what I would consider are reasonably probable historical facts about Jesus
1) He was born around 4 BCE around the time of Herod's death.
2) He came from and lived most of his life in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee.
3) He joined the following of John the Baptist and was baptized by him.
4) After John was arrested by Antipas, Jesus struck out on his own.
5) He made disciples and initiated a preaching and charismatic ministry in the villages and small towns of Galilee. He avoided the cities.
6) He preached the coming Kingdom of God.
7) Eschatological expectations of the onset of the Kingdom led him to go to Jerusalem for Passover around 30 CE.
8) He created a sir and disturbance at the temple which led him to be arrested at night.
9) His followers dispersed while he was sentenced and crucified to death by the Roman governor (Pilate) of Judea, Pontius on charge of treason for claiming to be king of the Jews.
10) At least a few of his disciples saw him after death in some fashion which generated the belief that God has vindicated Jesus and he will be returning very soon to found the kingdom of heaven. This led the disciples to continue the charismatic ministry in his name expecting his imminent return.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How do you know it s a metaphor? If anything it is an allegory, but all Biblical allegories are based on a literal event, making it literal.

Because a physical resurrection is illogical and is rationally indefensible. A spiritual resurrection in light of the symbolism of the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ makes profound sense. It accounts for the 'ascension' of the Christian faith or ascendancy of the body of His faithful believers through trials and tribulations. Besides Paul who insisted on the resurrection as an indispensable aspect of Christian belief claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ himself never did literally. He has blinded and heard the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

The story is literal, unless you have something besides your biased opinion.
You do not understand what a metaphor is.

Please demonstrate the power of your of your Christian Faith through respectful courtesy, clear arguments, and scripture.

 

[pearl]

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2
7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

There are two different 'creation' accounts because there were different traditions and the final redactor kept both.

 

[Meander_Z]

I'm very in favor of the spiritual/mystical interpretation of Jesus' actions leading up to his death, and I'm not against the notion of resurrection either literal or metaphorical. Either way it's deeply significant, and without it Christianity never becomes the huge powerful religion we know today.

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan, proposes a number of ways that the resurrection might have been faked, but his theory centers around Jesus as a faithful Hebrew political activist with no intention of starting a new religion. Without a spiritual motivation the whole resurrection become nonsensical to me, and Aslan does not do a very good job of connecting the resurrection back to his version of the historical Jesus. He treats the resurrection as an accident and afterthought in what is otherwise a very compelling piece of writing.

If Jesus was personally involved in the resurrection (either by literally being resurrected, by involving himself in a hoax, or by instructing his followers to spread specific rumors and teach specific lessons about his death after the fact) then I think the only reasonable explanation is that he understood the significance of resurrection in mystical spiritual terms. What he did wasn't just breaking the physical rules of reality as we know it (something that is far more upsetting to modern scholars than it would have been to people of that time) he also broke with Hebrew faith and tradition to incorporate an element that would have been blasphemous to those who bore witness... except that such a miraculous event could only be interpreted as an act of God.

I find both literal and metaphorical interpretations to be deeply fascinating. I'm just disappointed in the Christian tendency to read Biblical accounts as factual, without any critical view of the moralistic assertions imposed when the church shifted from a community of diverse spiritual seekers to a powerful authoritarian organization. In my opinion it's Christians more than anyone who ought to be seeking answers about who Jesus really was, but it's only as a pagan that I find I'm able to consider all sides and all possible implications without risk of endangering my soul. I'm already good and damned by all orthodox standards.

 

[Fool]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person?

jesus was a person and the worship of a person is a cult of personality. the scriptures attributed to him, says to call no man good. a person referred to him as good and he basically told them not to do that; which didn't exclude himself.

What were his primary goals and motivations?

to return the lost sheep of israel to the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

raising one's self from the dead had long been a practice in hinduism by holy men practicing samadhi meditation.

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

resurrection and regeneration are both used in the text. one is not the same as the other.


regeneration = palingenesis = metempsychosis = reincarnation

 

[omega2xx]

It's because of man's flesh that causes him to be a liar. Man thought his flesh was his true reality because he didn't understand this;

Genesis 1
26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2
7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Man was created in the image of God as the invisible Kingdom of God first, then formed in the visible flesh like the visible earth.

Right on. It is amazing how many miss that. It is overlooked mostly by those trying to show errors in the Bible

 

[omega2xx]

Because a physical resurrection is illogical and is rationally indefensible.

All spiritual truths are rationally indefensible unless there is an omnipotent God.

A spiritual resurrection in light of the symbolism of the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ makes profound sense. It accounts for the 'ascension' of the Christian faith or ascendancy of the body of His faithful believers through trials and tribulations. Besides Paul who insisted on the resurrection as an indispensable aspect of Christian belief claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ himself never did literally. He has blinded and heard the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

The Lords Supper is not about Jesus's resurrection. It symbolizes His death.

Paul did not claim to have seen Jesus, only heard Him speak,.

Please demonstrate the power of your of your Christian Faith through respectful courtesy, clear arguments, and scripture.

I usually, but not always, post the Scriptures for what I believe. Non-Christians will not see my arguments as clear. If you have anything specific in mind, ask, and I will say what I believe and give he Scripture I think support it, or say I don't know.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All spiritual truths are rationally indefensible unless there is an omnipotent God.

But not all events in the phenomenal world pertaining to our sacred texts are literally true. For example the earth being the centre of the physical universe, the earth being literally created in 7 days, and events that transpired in the Garden of Eden. Just because God is omnipotent does not make these events literally true. We must consider the spiritual reality not the physical. The same applies to the physical resurrection.

The Lords Supper is not about Jesus's resurrection. It symbolizes His death.

Its about the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) as well as life and resurrection. There is no death in Christ my friend.
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"
Matthew 26:26-28

"But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee." Matthew 26:32

Paul did not claim to have seen Jesus, only heard Him speak,.

He claimed to have seen Him as well
"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1Corinthians 15:7-8

 

[whirlingmerc]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

It did happen and extra biblical material supports that Jesus died and somehow the tomb was empty and the disciples were convinced Jesus rose. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona documents this. Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

I also see that the Old Testament supports Jesus dying and rising. We see the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus in the Psalms, the notions of the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep and other themes that speak of Jesus death and resurrection. The Judas epic is seen in Psalms 109 and 110

 

[Meander_Z]

All spiritual truths are rationally indefensible unless there is an omnipotent God.

Hold up right there. That's a mighty big assertion and one that doesn't hold water in the least. Why does God have to be omnipotent in order for spiritual truths to be rationally defensible?

God being omnipotent is one example of a spiritual truth.

You might as well say All spiritual truths are rationally indefensible if one very particular spiritual truth is rejected or disproved.

This is very bad logic. It's rationally indefensible.

Spiritual truths would be spiritually true even if no God (of the omnipotent variety) exists at all. A spiritual truth is a subtle profoundly meaningful truth derived from spiritual experience. One could reasonably argue that God is the source and substance of all those truths, therefore spiritual truths cannot exist without God. But then one is defining God as little more than "that which one encounters while having a spiritual experience."

The requirement of God being omnipotent becomes irrelevant in light of this other definition, unless the particular spiritual truth you are examining is the omnipotence of God. In which case I can agree with the following statement.

The spiritual truth that God is omnipotent is not rationally defensible unless there is an omnipotent God.

 

[David T]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

The text is art So discussing the text is a bit like people discussing who dylan is only accessing him through music through 2000 years of critics called theologians and scholars. Take it all with a grain of salt starting with biblical "experts" . The text is easy but not easily explained.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

I have no problem with the concept of Jesus as a historical figure, and I'd probably err on the side of thinking he existed rather than not.

However, the amount of evidence of his existence, much less his nature, which is not religious in nature, is very low.

Ultimately, you can accept Jesus as a messiah-figure and buy into Christianity. Or you can believe he existed but not buy into it. If the latter, you have to accept you'll never know much about his nature, and are instead idolising a particular archetype he represents to you.

There's nothing inherently wrong in that, and nothing really different to idolising other major historical figures. Getting information on the nature of Alexander, or Hannibal, or Scipio, or whomever is kinda tough. You'll never 'know' what they were like. I can respect Cato's consistency, even whilst accepting that if I met him I might have found him a hardline traditionalist unwilling to reason.