Caramel Frappe said:
This Thread is ridiculous, with people wanting to kill Jesus (...seriously? You wouldn't kill a regular person but to kill Jesus to justify your morals?) Plus with the 'Jesus isn't real spite that more then half of the historians agree he existed'... there's only one thing to do now-
P.S: Note that I don't care if you believe in him or not, but trying to bash on us saying he doesn't exist, trying to tell us we're fully wrong isn't a cool thing to do. There is a difference between 'opinions' and 'spatting out hate or disbelief'.
You do not seem to realize that "half of historians" you cite without a source tends to be more related to
theological historians whom claim the Jesus of the Bible existed as he was, not
Secular historians. One has a bias to prove certain claims coming from a book they already believe in, or also known as a Confirmation Bias, and one has a bias, although comes at the topic from a more or less objective standpoint - the truth, either way, is all that matters. Guess which one goes with which type of historian.
Also, telling you there is a good chance that the character of Jesus did not exist as a historical person is not "hate" or "cool". It's simply the non-Christian response to the Christian assumption that the character existed, and was exactly as he was and lived according to the Bible. You are showing your bias clearly by taking the matter (too) personally (and a perceived "hate" where it does not exist), when you should be focusing on taking a more objective view on just how historically accurate or inaccurate your belief's actually are. Anything else, and you get into the dangerous territory of letting your belief's rule your thoughts. Not the other way around.
Also, "Zeus probably did not, and probably has not ever existed as he has been described in stories from Greek literature." Now then, why I am allowed to make an apparently objective statement regarding the existence or non-existence of Zeus, King of the Gods, yet the character of Jesus gets a seemingly free pass to "assumed truth"? I think that is rather unfair for concepts that are equally without much supporting evidence beyond the texts that they appear in, no?
tl;dr - You find this thread ridiculous because people will not let an assumed existence of your Jesus character (more or less as he is described, though by non-witness accounts) go without question or criticism, and you feel threatened to come up with actual sources to support your belief's that people wont dismiss for being too theologically dependent.