Methodology of these Articles

In this section I have a number of articles that cover two related areas. These are two fallacies that are commonly held by Christians, and many non-Christians. The first fallacy is that there are no doubts of the historicity of Jesus, and that there exists non-Christian sources to verify this. When I say ‘historicity’ I mean more then just that a person named Jesus actually existed at some time, but that he lived in a certain period and his beliefs and actions are ‘historical’, and ‘historically verifiable.’ The second is that the character of Jesus is exceptional and worthy of praise. He is to be rated among the greatest and wisest of the Jewish people specifically.

To deal with the first fallacy, I will survey the non-Christian sources that exist to see how much (or how little) they can really tell us. We shall also deal with some of the historical issues that the New Testament itself poses, and how they would relate to this question. My view, as we shall see, is that we know very little about Jesus from non-Christian sources, except for saying that he existed and that there is a possibility of his having lived and died in a certain period. We cannot say more than that without first accepting the truth of Christian sources.

As to his character, we shall find that Jesus has some serious character faults. Even when compared to other saints of Judaism he is found lacking. He certainly does not always act in a godlike manner. You probably wouldn’t want him to marry your daughter.

There is an obvious objection to my approach which I would like to answer. It would seem that I am being contradictory and hypocritical. When dealing with the issue of the ‘historical’ Jesus, I am arguing that the New Testament is not trustworthy. However, when dealing with the character of Jesus, I am accepting the New Testament stories at face value.

This objection is quite valid, and I need to clarify what I am arguing. We cannot talk of the ‘real Jesus’ as there are no unbiased reliable sources for his life. Whatever we claim as historical ‘fact’ is at best speculation, or assumes that those who have the greatest incentive to exaggerate did not. What we can do is discuss what type of person the ‘mythical’ Jesus of the New Testament was. He is the one that Christians (and many others) consider the ‘real’ Jesus. It is the character of this Jesus, the messiah or the god/man or the supposed ‘great Rabbi’, who I am exposing here. For that I do not need to accept the New Testament as true. I just need to treat it in a fair and accurate manner, without distortion. I am only analyzing a ‘fictional’ character. (Fictional in the sense that the ‘history’ that the New Testament claims, is fictional.)