>>16906320>Most historians do believe there is enough evidence to say Jesus actually existed.Existed, perhaps. What do we mean by that though?
When you start to talk to them about things in more detail you'll find that its pretty murky. So while there may have been a historical Jesus that person:
Didn't do many of the things Jesus is supposed to have done as many stories appear to be adaptations of old testament stories, or stories from other cults intended to demonstrate the legitimacy or superiority of Jesus.
Didn't say many of the things Jesus is supposed to have said. Many of the sayings appear to be lifted wholesale from earlier sources, or are anachronistic dealing with church disagreements from much later.
May not have been born when commonly believed to have been born. Early church figures couldn't pin down when he lived with some even placing him up to a hundred years earlier.
May have been significantly older than depicted when killed. Origin a notable early church leader believed Jesus was in the 50s when he died.
Was likely not named Jesus as this seems to be a cult title / throne name. We have an early hymn that makes it clear that he only became Jesus after his death.
Imagine 2000 years from now, several hundreds of years after the end of the rule of the world by Scientology. That you were attempting to determine what the real historical L. Ron Hubbard might have been like with church documents and documents that passed through the church.
If there was a signal there for a historical Jesus, it appears to be gone now.
