(January 18, 2010 at 1:27 am)chatpilot Wrote: Basically, it is my opinion that if you were to take all the evidence for the existence of an historical Christ and weigh that against all of the evidence against that assertion, you would find the evidence against his existence far outweighs that for his existence.Cumulative evidence makes the case against the existence of an historical Christ every time.
Totally agree, I was never aware of the Jesus myth theory until a few months ago when i became interested in the topic - It started out as looking at the bible for the moral and immoral teachings and developed into my researching the historicity of Jesus. It was the total lack of contemporary historians that first opened me to the idea and the more research I have done on the subject the more I see the formation of his entire life story developing with time from something that did not exist with the early Christians through to the gospel stories of his entire life. I have taken special care to look at all sides of the argument, especially the formal debates between experts both historians and theologians, like Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn and William Lane Craig.
I am fairly convinced at this stage that the historical Jesus never actually existed.
.
