The Jesus story has details that is most definitely made up i just realized!!!

[The Grand Nudger]

A narrative device can. Which is what the character in magic book is. A vehicle for theology, not a biographical summary of a mans life and character.

[EgoDeath]

No first rate scholar doubts the existence of the historical Jesus.

This is a gross oversimplification of the issue. We have some reason to believe that there was possibly a man who was called Jesus during or around the time that the Jesus of the Bible was supposed to have existed.

Historical records weren't exactly so... historical, back then. It can't even compare to today; now we have a multitude of technological means that we can utilize to record historical, and quite mundane, unimportant, events. To call historical records of that time shaky wouldn't be an overstatement. A lot of people back then didn't even know how to read or write. The honest truth is, we can't truly know what happened back then; we can use what evidence (if you want to call it that) we do have and try to form some sort of coherent idea from that evidence.

I think that when asked about these questions, historians love to give concrete, solid answers, mainly because they have a lot of love for history, and probably sort of have their own narrative that they'd like to impart on people. That, and I think people who are watching stuff on the history channel, and the general public, like to hear definitive answers.

I think if we're being totally honest, we can say:

There is some evidence that a man named Jesus may have existed in or around that time.

That's probably the most definitive answer there is. A lot of people don't like to admit that and a lot of people don't like to hear that.

And, to be honest, we could even get into questioning that evidence, and the biases of certain historians (as well as the authenticity of their accounts), like Josephus, which more than a few people have done, but it's really beside the point isn't it?

[EgoDeath]

Also, are we really to trust the word of people whose academic expertise are in the area of the New Testament (people who often obtained their degrees from religious colleges and universities)? I'd sooner trust the word of a secular individual with academic expertise in ancient history. Excuse me if I believe Christians might be a bit biased in deciding whether or not Christ was actually real.

Not to mention, some scholars argue that Yeshua, Christ's romanized, given name, was actually very popular in that time period and region of the world. So it'd be like saying:

Once, in or around the period of 1913-2019, there existed a man named Mark.

Uh... so?

Either way, I'm not interested in debating the particulars, as I don't honestly care a whole lot. I think it's something worth doubting, in the sense that I'm willing to say, sure, maybe there was a man named Jesus that's the same one the Bible was talking about. Maybe. Not convinced. Not even nearly convinced. But maybe it's true. And even if it is? So what? Men don't walk on water. Or turn water to wine. Or wine to cheese, for that matter. Magic doesn't exist, and thousands of years later, Christians, and every other group of religious folks, have failed to provide any evidence for god. In fact, that haven't even defined what god actually is.

That's saying, they haven't even defined a thing that they haven't given evidence for yet. Talking about that's about as good as talking about nothing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is some evidence that a man named Jesus may have existed in or around that time.

I think we can take it as a fact that there were lots of men about with that name at that time. As you say,  'Yeshua' wasn't a particularly unusual or unique name, and would have been about as common then as 'Joshua' (to which it is related) is now.

But as we narrow down all the Jesuses of the first century to get one that corresponds with the Jesus of the Gospels, the field gets thinner and the picture gets murkier.  We need to have a Jesus who was a rabbi from Bethlehem, the son of a carpenter, travelled a fair bit (for the period), spoke to large crowds, was acclaimed by those crowds, got in trouble with the local authorities, and all the rest of it.  Even if we leave out the magical bits and bobs of the story, we progress to a vanishingly small probability that ANY historical Jesus would be fairly represented by what we find in the synoptics.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

We need to have a Jesus who was a rabbi from Bethlehem, the son of a carpenter, travelled a fair bit (for the period), spoke to large crowds, was acclaimed by those crowds, got in trouble with the local authorities, and all the rest of it.

The potentially historical rabbi of interest is supposed to be from Nazareth, not Bethlehem.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We need to have a Jesus who was a rabbi from Bethlehem, the son of a carpenter, travelled a fair bit (for the period), spoke to large crowds, was acclaimed by those crowds, got in trouble with the local authorities, and all the rest of it.

The potentially historical rabbi of interest is supposed to be from Nazareth, not Bethlehem.

Matthew and Luke both say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Micah also predicts the Messiah will be born there. 

Boru

[GrandizerII]

The potentially historical rabbi of interest is supposed to be from Nazareth, not Bethlehem.

Matthew and Luke both say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Micah also predicts the Messiah will be born there. 

Boru

The nativity stories were not part of the original tradition, though. They came about later on to fit with the Micah prophecy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Matthew and Luke both say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Micah also predicts the Messiah will be born there. 

Boru

The nativity stories were not part of the original tradition, though. They came about later on to fit with the Micah prophecy.

Immaterial, as the point is to find an historic figure that corresponds to the Gospel narratives.  And, according to the Gospel narrative, Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

The nativity stories were not part of the original tradition, though. They came about later on to fit with the Micah prophecy.

Immaterial, as the point is to find an historic figure that corresponds to the Gospel narratives.  And, according to the Gospel narrative, Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Boru

Corresponding, sure, but not to the bits that aren't accepted as historical by secular scholars. Secular scholars searching for a historical Jesus don't expect him to have been born in Bethlehem; they expect him to have come from Nazareth because outside of the nativity accounts (which were each an attempt to force fulfillment of the Micah prophecy) not one mention of Bethlehem exists in the New Testament.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Immaterial, as the point is to find an historic figure that corresponds to the Gospel narratives.  And, according to the Gospel narrative, Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Boru

Corresponding, sure, but not to the bits that aren't accepted as historical by secular scholars. Secular scholars searching for a historical Jesus don't expect him to have been born in Bethlehem; they expect him to have come from Nazareth because outside of the nativity accounts (which were each an attempt to force fulfillment of the Micah prophecy) not one mention of Bethlehem exists in the New Testament.

But there are (if I recall correctly), NO verses that claim Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why would historians look for his birth there?   He was called 'Jesus of Nazareth' because the family moved back to Nazareth after his birth.

Boru