Finn dAbuzz wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
BillRM and Merry disagree.
I think they full of sh*t, but so what?
This is a thread to allow them the opportunity to go off on a tangent and not derail another very interesting one.
Have at it.
In my opinion, it is possible that your point that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" is clipped speech, and should specify that, "...Jesus existed as an anti-Roman zealot." Meaning that only because history played itself out to make him a Messiah of a new religion (not to mention one of three forms God can take), do most people not subscribe to his anti-Roman zealousness. It was that anti-Roman zealousness that got him in the eyes of the Romans, and the Hebrew High Priests saw Jesus as someone that might bring down the wrath of the Romans on the Jews. In his new identity, as a loving (aka, Catholic divinity) Savior, his anti-Roman zealousness is conveniently forgotten, since that would indict the pagan Romans as quite the instigators of his cruxification, and that might make it harder to convert all those Romans around 400+ AD.
Plus, this question really reflects that hindsight should be 20/20 vision, since Jesus the person might have been only one face in the crowd in Jerusalem, not to mention all the Roman characters. Without the new religion emanating from his followers, after his death, the whole episode could have been one episode on many a current tv drama. Even ancient Israel was likely just a "hole in the wall" Hollywood stage set, and not something that biblical scholars like to believe was magnificent. So, there were some buildings, and a big synagogue. There are some big box stores that would compare today. One doesn't pray, in two-thousand years in the future, at the remaining wall of a Target of the 21sit century?