(February 23, 2019 at 7:52 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person; he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, one of many of his day. That is why no pagan author took notice of him or even considered him worth mentioning; they recognized him as being just another crank.
The crank bit, agreed.
I did a bit of searching:
Scholars tend to agree the the historicity of Jesus is 'effectively certain'. I'm perhaps being a bit pedantic to claim otherwise.
I post the quote below for Brian37
The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]
The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]
While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
