True historians do not make the claim that Jesus definitely existed. They are persuaded to think that he 'probably' existed and so am I. But there is not enough proof for a true historian to make the statement that it is a definite.<quoted text>
I can't take you seriously Kaitlin. Too many historians with much more training and education than either you or I say differently. Like it or not, Jesus existed. Saying he didn't is just lazy.
If you don't want to accept the deity of Jesus or any of the reported miracles, that's fine. Even though I disagree, I could respect that argument as it's debated often in much more scholarly discussion forums than this one.
Even early Jewish and Islamic literature don't deny that he existed as a person. Do you know the reason you deny the existence? I do.
If he existed, then that raises other questions that are just too much for your psyche to handle. It's easier to deny Jesus existed and then go find a book that agrees with you. I've read Archaya S. which is where you got your info. Have you read Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Real Jesus?" You see Kaitlin, I read the opposition. I bet you don't. It would challenge you too much.
I've seen your posts that claim we don't want anything to challenge our faith. It seems the opposite is true. Come back when you've read the Case for the Real Jesus and we'll talk. Until then, your argument (not you personally) deserves nothing but contempt and derision. In the interest of civility, I'll ignore your future myth arguments until you read an opposing book. If I can do it, so can you. Of course it will require an open mind. Kind of like a parachute. The human mind works best when open.
I have seen nowhere in Jewish literature where Jesus Christ was written about during his lifetime, which would be the kicker if you were looking to them as confirmation. Not a single line. Not a single little note on the itinerant rabbi who wreaked havoc with them to the degree that their priests had to go before the Sanhedrin to cure his malfeasance. Not a single record of his life exists anywhere but in the writings of the NT. No Roman records, now Jewish records, nothing. And even these were written decades after his death, not during his life. This is what true historians will tell you.
Yet, there is enough outside the writings of the Bible to suggest that this man Jesus lived. It's not overpowering, but it is there.
Islamic literature is useless, as they are just another branch of the Abrahamic faith, and came along decades after Jesus' death. They use the same source Christians as the base of their religion...the Jewish scriptures. They were exposed to Christianity and came up with...you got it...yet another God.
I do not hesitate to say that most of those reading your posts who have been Christians in the past do not see the open mind in you that you so quickly suggest others to keep. It goes both ways.
Everything anyone has said that challenges you with actual facts, you summarily dismissed while telling others to look up the word ethnocentrism or something that says you are right by belief and they are wrong by honest facts they have presented.
It isn't like you and I have not had this conversation in the past. While you haven't gone off the deep end in this conversation, I keep waiting for the other shoe to fall. There are many who will not even attempt a civil conversation with you about religion (or much else). So we are at a tentative peace only because you have thus far been civil, if somewhat arrogant.
You don't wish to talk with people who do not take part in your religion. You make no offer to have a 'human' conversation with them. That is because you are not here to do anything but promote your religious views and do not wish to have people say that your Jesus/God is a myth, even thought that is their belief and just as valid as yours.
Most here see that as a problem.