Historical Jesus

[Politesse]

.isn't that the issue here?

It really isn't. Scholars who believe in that Jesus never call him "the historical Jesus"; the question from the time that the term originated in the 18th century, has always been what was or wasn't true about the historical figure at the care of the Christian mythos. That's what "historical" means: what could be discovered about him by the historian, as opposed to the monk?

 

[bilby]

(1) 99% of sensible people agree that a (minimal) Jesus DID exist

99% of sensible people agreed that nature abhors a vacuum.

, and
(2) "Who cares, anyway? If he didn't walk on water, he was just another nobody."

^This. Seriously. Why the fuck should we care about this one (perhaps mythical) individual, who if he ever lived, died two thousand years ago?

The chap who invented fire is far more interesting. Yet we don't waste time debating whether there was an "historical Ugh".

 

[Elixir]

we don't waste time debating whether there was an "historical Ugh".

Because his name was Zog, duh.

(per the scribe Gary Larson)

 

[bilby]

we don't waste time debating whether there was an "historical Ugh".

Because his name was Zog, duh.

(per the scribe Gary Larson)

Perhaps we need a thread on the historicity of Thag Simmons...