Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Bucky Ball]

My main point re: my other posts is -

COULD there have been a person of which the Jesus myth is based around? Absolutely. Does it matter now? No - because no living human being could possibly live up to the story's that are in place. [Actual physical acts Vs the Magic of the bible stories]

Do I personally believe a human being that is the actual or inspiration for Jesus. Like I said before, it's certainly possible. Archeological evidence does not exist. Even what anecdotal evidence we have, out side of the bible, is going to be dodgy at best:

From History Channel website:

"The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text."

So the above suggests that one of the best people to "know" about this was not physically present during any of this, and is going off of third party accounts. Is that enough evidence? Possibly, but also possibly not.

Then we have:

"Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus"

Tacticus wrote this in 116 - some time AFTER jesus was supposed to have died, and I imagine most of his direct followers had died as well. So again, going off of third/fourth/fifth hand stories while also just listing stuff people had "heard" about.

Again - I'm not saying a person didn't exist at all, that is the basis for the myth itself - BUT I am saying that unless concrete evidence is found, you shouldn't just believe somebody was 100% real either. And YES I do think that is that case for anybody we directly say existed without evidence to prove otherwise.

And also, again the main point is for me - IT DOESNT MATTER, because nothing a real person could have said or done will match up to the "magic" that is depicted in the bible stories.

You suggest that it doesn't matter whether an actual historical Jesus existed or not. That's really just an opinion, and others are drastically different.

So here's my opinion on why it matters.

We all know that people don't resurrect from the dead, walk on water, etc. But there are about two billion Christians who believe it. Therefore we have about two billion Christians involved in a cult-like religion who govern their lives and who influence the powers that be to govern OUR lives under the principles of Christianity. We have the evangelicals fighting tooth and nail against abortion, and Christians everywhere denying science in general. This Christian religion stands as an adversary to reason, as they obstruct the progress of humanity all based upon their beliefs.

Therefore, it's not like we can go back to the past and prove to those Christians that Jesus was a myth, or that the person depicted in the Gospels actually existed in that state. We cannot disprove that he was a myth, or disprove their beliefs that Jesus was all that and a bag of chips as depicted in the Gospels. And since we can't do either of the aforementioned actions, nothing gets done, and things will remain the same. And trying to prove the Jesus of the Gospels was real or a myth fails because both approaches have exactly the same problem; zero evidence.

So what can we do?

We take the evidence that we do have, which totally favors the historicity of an ordinary man, and make a reasonable argument with that evidence to demonstrate that Jesus was not who he was depicted as in the Gospels, nor was he a wholesale myth. But rather, the evidence indicates that he was a religious leader who likely went a bit too far in Roman occupied Judea, and ended up being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Now that is something we have evidence to demonstrate, and as we build a history of this man over time with all the evidence, facts, and clear reasoning available, we provide the most likely truth and then slowly but surely the myths about this man disappear, and with it also the religion. But we cannot do it by denying Christianity is a problem, or denying the most likely reason for its origin. The best we can do is approximate the truth with what we have.

And that's why it matters to me, and perhaps others.

That is of course just your opinion, and others are drastically different. 
What you accept as evidence is not accepted necessarily, by others, interested in the subject.

I seriously doubt that there are 2 billion people that actually believe that stuff anymore. There may be a few thousand. 
Most Christians are just cultural this or thats who happened to be born into their culture. 
Birth culture is the best predictor of what religion a person will adhere to. 
Virtually all the religionists I know are totally disinterested in religious matters, even the ones who go to church. 
All they want is to remain members in good standing of their cultures. They have no clue of the issues involved in this discussion, and absolutely no interest at all in them. 

both approaches have exactly the same problem; zero evidence.

But rather, the evidence indicates that he was a religious leader who likely went a bit too far in Roman occupied Judea, and ended up being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Those two positions are not compatible.