[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]

Probably a guess, aka. the science known as history.

Jokes aside Vhawk, I def. get what you are trying to say, but I think you're being harsh. I think some of the debaters here are talking abit in circles and that a usable opinion lies somewhere in the middle, and that there is little value in quarreling about it.

For instance we could assume a historical Jesus gave birth to some of stories that would later become legends in the bible. Hence the legends to some degree could reflect on this character's messages/ideology.

I'm not saying it IS so, but it is a plausible theory that both these things can work in tandem. It certainly is something that one often assumes has happened before in history (Real historic characters growing into spiritual legends.) A typical example would for example be Gilgamesh, which many historians believe have existed, but who also is a character having 'godlike' abilities in the legends about him. You can also find much later examples, like for example in people made saints etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that Gilgamesh isn't universally venerated, and nobody is shocked when anyone suggests he might not have existed. If I say that Gilgamesh was probably a Mesopotamian warlord, the worst I'll get is a shrug. If I say that Jesus was probably a magician/con-man, everyone (regardless of religious belief) tends to take offense.

I think lucky is mainly saying that Jesus wasn't that influential during his own time. Obviously his ultimate influence was broad. But if you reject the "miracle" part of the Bible, there is no reason to keep the "wise man" or "spiritual leader" parts. Unless you would say the same of Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard.

Nobody is asking for outright rejection of Jesus - only a critical and rational approach to the figure, and an acknowledgement that the Jesus of the Bible is a character in a story from whom we can't derive any facts about the real man's personality or actions. Just like Gilgamesh.