Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[King_Charles]

Yes, at least one, which only religious people are known to have commiitted.

I think I know what's coming, but go ahead.

Ok, well I was hoping I could get a better understanding from you by hearing your answer first, but that's alright.

Is there an unforgivable sin?

NO
Acts 13:39 and by him all that believe are justified from all things.

YES
Mark 3:29 but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Luke 12:10 but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Quite explicit yesses and no. Or maybe I've misunderstood something? I'm not sure.

That's easy, the holy spirit is the spirit of God at work in the world God so if you believe, as in acts, you are by definition not sinning against the Holy Spirit.

---

When discussing this topic you really need to bear in mind what the study of ancient history consists of, basically it is taking one or, if you're really lucky, two extant sources referencing an event or person, the said evet might still be over a hundred years before the time of the source, and trying to squeeze every last ounce of factual inference that you can possibly make from them. Then throwing it away and arguing something completely random that sounds interesting and plausible, because you realise that about a million people have already used occam's razor on that one.

Also, references to miracles, gods intervening in human action were often a standard part of how people understood the world, Herodotus There is no direct evidence for a lot of historical figures, we believe because only one or two accounts reference them, and nothing flat out contradicts it.

IMO, if you apply occam's razor judicially to the evidence there is you will have to admit that Jesus existed. That there was a holy man/ mystic/ madman wondering around Judea at that time that got executed by the roman state, which sparked a cult, which just happened to grow into a big religion makes far more sense than a load of people deciding to start a cult on somebody who didn't even exist, I mean sure, you can think that the cult was created or aggressively expanded by Paul, Peter and James, that's plausible. But is there enough time for them to make up a whole life story for this purpose given that what evidence we have point to there being a quite well established cult by 64 A.D., still within living memory of the projected life of Christ, when there was record of them being established as far as Rome? according to what sources we have (i.e. very few, but there is nothing that contradicts it so we have to go with it given the sparsity of the historical record)

Occam's razor people, don't let us rub off on you and take leave of logic as soon as Religion rears its head.

The very real possibility exists that there was an itinerant preacher called jesus wandering around Palestine, maybe more than one.
But so what?
That is no reason to think that he was the son of god.
And there is still no evidence for the miracles he supposedly performed.

So nothing. Are you posting in the right topic? I thought we were debating on whether or not there was a historical Jesus?