As well as these commercially successful books exploring the identity of jesus there is an ongoing academic argument related to the historicity of Jesus. This academic argument should not be concerned with whether any of the contributors to the argument believe that Jesus existed. Rather, it should be concerned with the Dispassionate philosophical examination of the evidence for and against his existance as a historical figure.
The best contributions to this kind of debate examine both sides of the argument without fear of favour. Sadly in many instances the contributors fall well short of this standard.
Not that I set a good example.
I mentioned at the beginning of this discourse on alternative theologies that in reading about the Cathars two phases caught my eye; “Jesus is not god but a most remarkable man” and “The cruxifiction was an illusion”.
I decided to challenged myself to search for scenarios which would enable these statements to be taken literally.
A remarkable man takes part in a illusion which makes it seem that he had died. Why would he have done this, how could it be stage managed and perhaps most importantly who was he?
I do not set a good example because i have made my own personal decision that Jesus or someone who was eventually called Jesus did exist somewhere between 50BC and 66 AD as there was a step change in the greater Roman Empire and in Judaea in that period.
The Roman Empire rose in power and Judaea to a great extent was destroyed.
I have reviewed all the theories and strung them together to form a coherent if somewhat incredible story. Therefore, somewhat reluctantly I join the long list of those who have contributed to the discussion of the Jesus myth starting with Constantin de Volney and Charles-Francois Dupuis in the late 1700’s which have continued to the twenty-first century with Alexander Jacob and Ricard Dawkins.