robtex said:
Actually the difference between the "historical Jesus" and the "biblical Jesus" may be a red herring. You say different but assume that both exist. We non-christians are looking for historical evidence that Jesus existed. Do you have any?
If you conceed that parts of Jesus were invented than why is it so inconcievable, espcially in light of lack of evidence of his existance, that not part of him was invented but all of him.
As I said in another post: We Xians seek belief, faith and truth -- not evidence, proof, and fact. The trap y'all try to get us to fall into is goading us into playing the "prove it!" game. Here's my take on your position:
If it could be proven, how much proof would you require? What would you
do with that proof, once presented with it? Did you need proof of the existence of air before you claimed its benefits? Did you need proof of the healthful properties of good food before ingesting the vitamins and minerals? Did you need proof that girls could make you feel wonderful before becoming interested in them? God doesn't beg proof, but participation.
the question is interesting, but it's really a smoke-and-mirrors thing. Again, if you had proof, what would you do with it? Would you seek to participate in God, or would you seek to make God participate in you? In other words, having that proof, would you require
more proof, subjecting God to an existence no larger than you are able to understand, or are you willing to participate in something beyond your understanding?
Proof ultimately seeks more proof. That's not the business God is in. God doesn't prove God's self to us. God
reveals God's self to us so that we can participate more fully in God.
did Jesus really live? I believe he did. Can I prove it? Don't need to. Can you prove he didn't? Why do you seek to?