[orionblamblam]

> Are you saying that He never existed?

Khans existence is pretty definitive. Jesus is described at best by hearsay, and much of it vastly unreliable and fantastical.

[agere_contra]

So your reasoned, scientific approach to historical figures you don't approve of is to attempt to airbrush them from history?

Hmm, must try this myself. I don't like Mohammad. He is the father of a deathcult only too well known to FReepers. And so I apply your method to history and - shazam! He's gone! Mohammad never existed! What a satisfying way to deal with uncomfortable facts!

[muawiyah]

No, Jesus' existence is attested to with a greater body of personal eyewitnesses than just about anyone for the next thousand years.

[eddiespaghetti]

Jesus is described at best by hearsay, and much of it vastly unreliable and fantastical.

Didn't Josephus describe him in detail in "The Jewish War"? Do you deem Josephus unreliable on this point, and if so, why?

Tx

es

[MitchellC]

Khans existence is pretty definitive. Jesus is described at best by hearsay, and much of it vastly unreliable and fantastical.

Are you seriously taking the position that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure?

That's a view that seems to be held only by an extreme minority of historians. Extreme in size and ideology.