Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[radorth]

Here's what we know. The order of publications of the NT were:

1. Revelation
2. The Epistles (about half of which are considered "authentic")
3. Mark
4. Matthew and Luke
5. John
6. Acts

Second, we know that there was not just one brand of Christianity but many. The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting.

I see here a clear contradiction in your thinking, FTR. First you tacitly admit these are the earliest manuscripts, (which is why they were chosen for the Bible BTW)

Then you say there are all these variant interpretations of Jesus' life and purposes. Granted, some things in the NT are not easy to understand, but if these manuscripts are the earliest, and they do not disagree with each other, you have contradicted your point. You have a case only if there are disagreements and contradictions within these manuscripts. Can we fairly assume you can't really find any, so you have to talk about disagreements among sects?

This appears to be a "guilt by association" argument and fallacy, i.e, "people disagreed on what the ms says, so therefore the ms must be faulty."

To make an honest and convincing case, should you not point out the contradictions in and among these manuscripts? Instead you make rather gratuitous assertions, like "The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting."

Even if that were true, which it is not, it is simply an assertion that misleads people into thinking there must be contradictions in the manuscripts because sects disagreed. And why would you simply take the word of Christians who disagree about the Bible, unless you can use those disagreements to cast doubt indirectly? Could I not quote Christians who agree and say that means the manuscripts all agree? There is no difference, logically Those who say the manuscripts agree, atheists write them off as dolts, while quoting those who disagree. You can't have your cake and eat it too friend.

And by the way, (speaking to others besides FTR), the "mystical Jesus" believers who claim there is no reference to the physical Jesus are just wrong. Paul mentions "James the Lord's brother" and his death on the cross in several places, so The Jesus Puzzle argument is just ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.