Did Jesus exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's about a disagreement over what constitutes evidence. People who don't study history demand better evidence, but the problem is 95 percent of ancient historians see what evidence we have for Jesus as good evidence.

 
If the evidence on offer is only acceptable by reference to an absurdly low standard.......then again I have to suggest that we aren't having a discussion of any historical jesus.  Sounds like further fan fiction.  

And it's not because they're Christians looking to prove Christianity as true. Ancient historians can be Christian, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist, but their training still tells them what to look for and how to find it in order to better paint a picture of the world's past.

It's probably more than a little bit naive to assume that 2k years of christian cultural hegemony isn't a factor in those disciplines with low standards of evidence.   History was, until very recently, bible and spade asshatterry.  Higher standards of evidence, and better methods of investigation leaning heavily on hard sciences have been a godsend to the discipline.  As has our ability (which had to be created and then protected by law) to discuss the narrative as a work of fiction.

I see little more, so far, in this conversation than people asking me to side with the bible and spade over hard science, appreciation and understanding of devotional literature and fiction, or even reason...as we'll see below.   

Jesus being a real person DOES NOT mean he performed miracles. Jesus being a real person DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY give the whole "God" thing any better of an argument. The fact that a Jewish man who believed himself to be the Messiah preached to a town of people and then got executed IN NO WAY "proves" Christianity, and I just don't understand why some people are so quick to ignore historians' judgments on the matter. Him existing =! him being the son of God and all that jazz. 

Jesus the miracle worker isn't even a consideration in a historical jesus.  I don't take issue with historical jesus because I don't believe in mythical or legendary jesus, or because I worry that a historical jesus makes christianity true.  I take issue with the historical jesus because the evidence -conforming to a lower standard in the first place- appears to be,..alot of people believe in a historical jesus. When I ask what evidence this conclusion is based upon other than bare tradition, I'm pointed to a book written about the mythical or legendary jesus. That's unhelpful. I'm pointed to passages which describe the beliefs of devotees of the mythical or legendary jesus. That's unhelpful. I'm presented with poor inference, that's unhelpful.

Again, it's all just weird to me. It'd make MORE sense that people were duped into believing Christianity if there was an actual prophet figure to base it all on. 

The problem is that to argue this proposition you will invariably fall into fallacious arguments.  Not exactly a "standard of evidence" issue......and ultimately irrelevent to the question of a historical jesus. Do you also think that there was a historical Zues, Thor, or Quetzecoatl? Are they needed to explain their respective faith traditions? Do you think that people had to be duped into these traditions by a living conman? That would make more sense? More sense than what.....that people tell stories?

See how easy it is to create a religious cult around a living person, even in modern times: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfOmk

Arguments like this one, see.  I'm not disputing the ease of starting a religion or cult.  Comments to that effect have no bearing on a historical jesus.  -If- there were a historical jesus then sure, we can imagine how easy it might have been to start a cult around him...but we have assumed, in that -if-, what we are being asked to demonstrate.  Again...not a standard of evidence issue. Imagining a cult figurehead gets you no closer to a historical jesus than reading about the miracle worker does.