Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[fredd bear]

Well, that's as clear as mud.

Are you saying you agree that the historicity of Jesus is likely?

I don't think that it is, no.  Even more fundamentally, assuming it were..I wouldn't expect to learn anything about whoever that was from any of the myths or legends we find today.  

Do you agree with the explanation given in the Wiki article I quote below? If not , could you please tell me your objections. Up to now, I have no problem accepting the existence of Jesus as most likely.  

I have always found your posts lucid and  reasoned. I do admit there have bene times when it has been a struggle to keep up with

you. I would appreciate your opinion.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

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]
Contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I bolded a bit, above.  I've commented on it before.  That sentence is doing alot of work with that kind of caveat at the back.    What the majority of scholars agree on is that the majority of scholars are wrong about their pet historical jesus.

 Ah, thank you for the rapid response .I saw that bolded bit, and it is also my position; that the New Testament has little if anything to do with an historical Jesus.

Seems I need to revise my position: that all that I can reasonably assert is that there was probably was a man, possibly called Yoshua ,around whom has grown a continuous mythology. This has been manipulated by massive, corrupt institutions for almost two thousand years.. I cannot reasonably assert anything about his life , background or his teachings..

This has been difficult for me. I've mentioned before that I'm a cultural Catholic. I had not realised the extent to which I have been clinging to Catholic mythology. By that I mean the very basis of Christianity, the reality of Jesus the man, about whom much may be claimed as 'most likely'

For me, being a skeptic especially means challenging my own beliefs. So I did that. Right now, I am intellectually  convinced  I was  probably mistaken .  However as far as I can tell, no truth statement is possible on this topic. I think it would be dishonest of me to cling to a position simply because it's comfortable.

I will need to think about this a bit more ,and do a lot of reading.