General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You know for those who celebrate Christmas, [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)in the form of contemporary accounts from the time of his alleged existence, as opposed to retroactive stories told centuries later.
You seem far more emotionally invested in this "debate", such as it is, than I am. I don't need to believe "Jesus" DID "exist", or didn't. Actually, I think it's a compelling story, which -regardless of whether or not a man like that actually followed that story trajectory in Nazareth/Galillee/Jerusalem, or not- I am sure contributed to its popularity in the ensuing centuries.
But my predisposition towards the scientific method and evidence-based analysis means I am not inclined to give "special treatment" to ANY idea or assertion, and if the assertion is that "Jesus" had an objective existence roughly akin to that which is told in the NT, the evidence outside the bible just isn't there.
That doesn't mean he DIDN'T exist- and the huffpo article you link is far more focused on debunking arguments comprising "no he definitely did not" than it is providing any additional evidence that, yes, he did. Saying "Oh the arguments saying he didn't are ideological and the people making them are silly pooopy-heads" does not contribute one factual iota to any claims that yes, he did.
I don't know, that's the bottom line: these alleged events were 2000 years ago. I do find it interesting, from a psychological standpoint, any time I see what I perceive as clothesless emperor freaking-outage.