People in bible never existed according to head of Theology at a university in UK!

[CapnAwesome]

To require details to match exactly seems pedantic.  I'm an Atheist, obviously I don't believe in miracles. However Alexander the great, Ghenghis Khan, even modern people like Geranimo have miracles associated with them. I don't not believe they existed because people associated miracles with them.

Not speaking for Boru, but "miracles" are why I don't believe in the christ myth.  I don't believe in the jesus legend because it's no better supported than the christ myth and has problems all it's own.  It;s the same reason I don't believe in the Paul Bunyan legend, regardless of whether or not there was a mythically large blue ox.

Alexander, Ghenghis, Geronimo...these were real people with legends and myths attached.  Each very well established. With "jesus"..the reverse seems to be true.  Myths and legends with a man attached as an afterthought.

As far as what you specified as the core, as it were, of some jesus the man....well, why bethlehem, why nazereth? We were willing to negotiate on so much of the other particulars how about these as well? If not...why not, honestly? Early christians were certainly divided over the details of the "mundane" jesus...and even whether or not there was one. The man we know as the hypothetically historical jesus is just as much of a story as the supernatural stuff. Their are, in fact..entire genres of fiction with no ghosts and ghouls in them (I find it ironic that we're even discussing that in the context of a story that -is- about ghosts and ghouls).


So long as we're willing to race to the bottom in search of even a single similarity I'm sure we could find 100's of jesus' (can we call them je-si, lol?) in the ANE. Just as we'd be able to find a bunch of french lumberjacks applying a pthalo blue pesticide and antifungal to their oxen. Tics, there are metric shotloads of tics in trees. They have a tendency to jump ship when you cut one down. They'd really cake in on to prevent the spread of disease. Will we believe either story is more or less a biography after having done so?

Not for nothing, the human origin of the bunyan myth -and- legend as having a proto-paul who atually lived is on more solid ground than the historical jesus narrative...and neither rise to the level of Alexander, Ghenghis, or Geronimo.

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan? Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus. The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

I don't really have a bone in the fight, except as a historian. I think if you looked at the evidence for a lot of ancient people, you'd find it relies on I'm not much and is riddled with supernatural stuff.

I know people like to bring up the dna when I mention this about ghenghis khan, but does that mean it was rational to disbelieve in him before the 1990s? I'd say he's no more well established then Jesus really and he had way way WAY more impact on the world at the time.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Also, by your standard, none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.