Ah, I see the problem with our discussion. I should have made it more clear. I am not and have not brought miracles into it. I am asking solely about the main focus of the Italian trial.
So, perhaps, I should ask you clearly: Do you agree with historians in the basic fact of the existence of Jesus? That he existed in the time and place?
> Do you agree with historians in the basic fact of the existence of Jesus? That he existed in the time and place?
Don't know.
However, there's a problem: when it comes to characters like this, it's difficult to separate the man from the mriacles. Let's say for the purposes of arguement there *was* a feller named Jesus (Yeshua, whatever) who lived at that time and palce. Further, let's say he annoyed the local priesthood in some way... say, he nailed the head honchos daughter, or publicly argued with him on theological grounds. So they had him nailed up. A few of his drinking buddies got together and cobbled together the gospels over a few gallons of wine, passed them around and after a few years, BLAM! New religion.
This is a *very* different Jesus. But there was, in this hypothetical, a guy by that name in that place. Would it thus be fair to say that "Jesus really existed?" I woudl argue "no." When someone is so intrinsically wrapped up in a certain set of events, events that define him... you take those events away and the man ain't there no more.