Was Jesus Christ a historical person?


Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
Iowa USA
Well. We really read that differently!

And... I don't see at all what you are providing is evidence of your position, either.

Kookaburra Jack

Ad Honorem
May 2011
Rural Australia
It's pretty clear from what they were writing that the NT writers were heavily data mining the Greek LXX as well as Greek versions of other Jewish writings. As one might expect from Romans and Greeks investing themselves in a cult based on Jewish writings.

Paul told them himself that Jesus was to be found in personal revelation and clues found in the Torah=Greek LXX.
The investment that the Romans and Greeks made in the Christian cult that Eusebius describes as "new and strange" and Ammianus describes as "plain and simple" included the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca. This letter exchange was accepted as genuine for a thousand years or more. Seneca was painted as a closet Christian. The Christian regime published the writings of Seneca prefaced with this "Paul's" letter exchange.

Correspondence of Paul and Seneca - Wikipedia
What sort of investment was this?

The Bible and Interpretation - Did Jesus Exist?
Did Jesus Exist?
By Emeritus Professor Philip Davies
University of Sheffield, England
August 2012

Does this matter very much? After all, the rise and growth of Christianity can be examined and explained without the need to reconstruct a particular historical Jesus.2 The persistence of Christianity owes most, in fact, to Constantine, who opted for it as the imperial cult, and endowed it, creeds and fancy dress included, with imperial trappings.​
Next to him, we should credit S/Paul and his missionary and literary efforts, and finally Jesus, in whose name all this was done, but who might not have wanted to answer for the consequences. And it is how he was understood that matters, it is that which created Christianity. And clearly, he was understood in many different ways, many of them obviously wrong since not all can be right. All of the historical Jesuses can explain what follows, or are made to explain what follows. Does it matter to the historian who or what he was, beyond mere curiosity?​

If next to Constantine we should credit the literary efforts of Paul then it follows that we must question the existence of Jesus and Paul before the 4th century.
When was the first literary comparsion authored between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana?