I'm surprised that people who argue for an historical Jesus tend to overlook the best evidence for his existence: analysis of the Gospels. A fictional messiah would have been easier to match to messianic expectations, many Gospel passages seem to be attempts to refute ways in which Yeshua didn't match those expectations. Why was his mom already pregnant when she got married? Why would the son of God need to be baptized by John? Why would the son of God allow himself to be crucified (a particularly shameful death by Hebrew mores of the time)?
I'm not sure whether to put the odds of there actually being an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua on whose teachings and (exagerrated) deeds the Gospels were based over or under 50%; but I don't think there's a slam-dunk for either case.
I'm not sure whether to put the odds of there actually being an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua on whose teachings and (exagerrated) deeds the Gospels were based over or under 50%; but I don't think there's a slam-dunk for either case.
