Is a historical Jesus historically necessary?

Upvote:1

Almost overnight, the followers of a virtual nobody changed from dejected, cowering virtual nobodies whose leader had just been brutally executed into evangelists boldly facing persecution and death to spawn what is arguably the most significant religion in history.

Contemporary historians strongly point to the involvement of an individual known as "[the Christ]" who aligns on multiple key points with the Jesus of Scripture.

The existence and rapid rise of the Christian religion certainly qualify as historical events, and ones which demand an explanation. Is the existence of "Jesus" absolutely necessary as part of that explanation? Perhaps not... but the available evidence (Scriptural and otherwise) strongly points to that as the most rational explanation.

The Question is akin to asking whether there are any events that cannot be explained without a historical Alexander. Someone devoted to conspiracy theories could probably make a case that no such man existed... but believing in such conjectures be similarly irrational.

More post

Search Posts

Related post