rationalskepticism.org

MS2 wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

We all agree the final product we see in the Gospels is a fantasy.

Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?

Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale. I'm not asking anybody to prove their opinion is true. I'm just asking where people think they fall on the scale.

My opinion is:
The best (and therefore most likely) of the various possible explanations for the origin of Christianity is it began with one man gathering a group of followers who, after he died, morphed into various groupings that had various beliefs and 'memories'* about the guy it all began with, and some of those beliefs and 'memories' can be found in the ancient writings that still exist. A small portion of the beliefs and 'memories' are reasonably likely to have their origins in things he said and did. The majority though are better explained by what happened later.

*the scare quotes are there for a reason!