[Mendacious]

My understanding is that there were many many historical accounts written about Jesus, that predate the Bible (which only contains 4 of these "gospels". See the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these accounts diverge widely but there are consistancies as well as other corroborating accounts that are not of a religious nature.

I would be surprised that amongst historians that there is any real dispute of the existance, however, I would agree that very little that is reliable is known about him-- other than he had followers, and he was put to death.

Historically, my impression was that Jesus did not claim to be a messiah or promise "eternal life" at least during his life, or even claim to be the son of God. Had any of these things occurred I think he would have been considered a much greater crackpot and never gained any traction at all. I also don't think there is any truly historic evidence of miracles. I do think he offered a tremendously populist message to the people-- which had the potential to resonate. But that doesn't explain the whole ressurection scenario. Is your supposition that the disciples simply made up the resurrection?

With respect to the monks you describe, they are trained and taught and indoctrinated to become what they become. My impression is that historically, Jesus followers took his teaching and were inspired. It really doesn't seem quite the same thing.

I would be interested in the piece you wrote.