It's that his historicity is "unquestionable doctrine" that raises issues.

(April 6, 2016 at 1:32 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: It's that his historicity is "unquestionable doctrine" that raises issues.

...and that's irrelevant. Historians aren't theologians. The people researching this, for the most part, aren't out to prove Christianity. They research to find out whether or not a guy named Jesus existed at that time and was known as some sort of prophet figure. That's it. His historicity. If people want to say "He existed and if you don't think so you're a blasphemer and you should die at the stake" that's a separate problem and, again, irrelevant to whether he really existed or not.

Socrates probably never existed, maybe old Shakey didn't either.... who cares it's what they're known for that demonstrates what they're worth, whether they existed or not.

Sample applies to fucking cunts like Yahweh. Sure 'he' never existed but that cretin's words splattered all over the Bible fucked history up.

Right. Nor should we, as amateur historians, expect Jesus to have anything that matches that of a person like Socrates, which makes what we do have about Jesus all the more impressive.

(April 7, 2016 at 2:21 am)Mudhammam Wrote: Right. Nor should we, as amateur historians, expect Jesus to have anything that matches that of a person like Socrates, which makes what we do have about Jesus all the more impressive.

All we have about "jesus" is the pious blather of the later writers who invented him and put whatever words they wanted him to say in his mouth.  But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

I have no idea. Never looked into it.

Like I say to the Jesus question: I can't know for sure, and, IMO, it's irrelevant except that people aren't threatened with burning into eternity for not believing Shakespeare existed.