Well it’s “just” a name. Obviously people going by that name are bonds to have existed. But arguing that “He” existed while at the same time saying most things about “Him” are false doesn’t really have any meaning. It’s not the same person as described in writing, when most descriptions don’t apply.
Did Rasputin not exist because a lot of stories about him are embellished? What about the various Catholic saints, whose stories are almost certainly largely fabricated?
The point is, the hard and fast rules of Jesus’ life have consensus by scholars. He lived, taught, was baptized, and crucified, and a lot of people listened to him. How much of the rest was embellished is certainly up for debate, but those stories existing don’t change whether he existed.
The most important claims about him are obviously the supernatural ones. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and all. Everything about the religion hinges on them being true.
We’re not talking about the religion though, we’re talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “the religion.” Christianity is a broad category, and we have everything from “Jesus was literally God” (Catholics go as far as revering his mom as divine) to “Jesus was mortal” (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses). And his impact isn’t limited to Christianity, he’s referred as a prophet in Islam, and even some Jews consider him a teacher worth listening to.
What you accept from his teachings and whatnot (as recorded by others) is up to you. But his historicity is well established.
We’re not talking about the religion though, we’re talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.
The man wouldn’t even be historically notable if not for the religion. For all intents and purposes, he is the religion, the main cornerstone that set Christianity apart from Judaism.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “the religion.”
The subset of Christian denominations for which the statements make sense.
Well it’s “just” a name. Obviously people going by that name are bonds to have existed. But arguing that “He” existed while at the same time saying most things about “Him” are false doesn’t really have any meaning. It’s not the same person as described in writing, when most descriptions don’t apply.
How do you figure?
Did Rasputin not exist because a lot of stories about him are embellished? What about the various Catholic saints, whose stories are almost certainly largely fabricated?
The point is, the hard and fast rules of Jesus’ life have consensus by scholars. He lived, taught, was baptized, and crucified, and a lot of people listened to him. How much of the rest was embellished is certainly up for debate, but those stories existing don’t change whether he existed.
The most important claims about him are obviously the supernatural ones. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and all. Everything about the religion hinges on them being true.
We’re not talking about the religion though, we’re talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “the religion.” Christianity is a broad category, and we have everything from “Jesus was literally God” (Catholics go as far as revering his mom as divine) to “Jesus was mortal” (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses). And his impact isn’t limited to Christianity, he’s referred as a prophet in Islam, and even some Jews consider him a teacher worth listening to.
What you accept from his teachings and whatnot (as recorded by others) is up to you. But his historicity is well established.
The man wouldn’t even be historically notable if not for the religion. For all intents and purposes, he is the religion, the main cornerstone that set Christianity apart from Judaism.
The subset of Christian denominations for which the statements make sense.