Benjamin Creme - Matreiya - Tokyo

reply to post by cosmicpixie


Actually- No. I am not arguing that the mentioned sources of yours may indeed have very good points, but the facts remains that the majority of evidence and also the majority of Scholars, points towards Jesus having been a real, historical person.


For instance, from Wikipedia;

A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity was Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Non-historicity was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. (The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity then were summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ (in 1944); they were based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[141]) More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by authors such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of popular works promoting the non-historical hypothesis.

Nevertheless, non-historicity has been rejected by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.

Maybe, after all, the overall material can be concluded as leaning more towards that;

"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

en.wikipedia.org...