MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Mister Agenda]

I see at 25 pages in, we've established that Jesus may or may not have really existed

Well yeah...but the same can be said for any historical figure, that he/she may or may not have really existed. You don't know what is an actual fact or what is actually fiction in history...all you can do is go by what you were told, by people that may or may not have been trying to push an agenda...the same thing you would probably accuse Christians of doing.

I'm happy to go with the normal accepted standards of historicity, utter certainty isn't needed to reasonably establish an historical figure. Jesus is less well-supported than many, but I consider an historical Jesus more likely than not...but not based on anything that you have presented.

Bullshit.

I'm sure that settles it in your mind.

Paul was part of the early Church writing to the church in Corinth some 20 years after the cross..it was a church, so obviously a Christian Church would be based on the teachings of Jesus.

Based on the teachings of someone (or more likely, multiples someones), certainly. Since it was an oral tradition, even if there was an historical Jesus, we can't be sure what in the Gospels were his words and what were someone else's. A compilation of stories about and sayings of various mendicant rabbis fits the bill as well...maybe better, considering some of the inconsistencies in the Jesus stories.

Know your history.

I know what's history and what's speculation. If Jesus was historical, the most certain things about him are his baptism and crucifixion...everything else is clear as mud. Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not obliged to swallow the whole thing: I prefer the Jesus who was a compassionate moral reformer to the Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher. I suspect they're not the same person.