The most compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus does not come from the gospels, but from Paul's letters. He claims to have met with Peter and James which he calls Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. We can assume that James did exist since Paul writes about disagreements he has with him. Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views. Moreover, if James did exist, it seems far-fetched to believe that he were able to assume the title "brother of Jesus" without actually being the brother of Jesus. People would have known whether his brother had been publicly executed or not.
In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.
> Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views.
Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience. It makes a lot more sense if you consider the writing is intended to outlive the author. You have to present all possible arguments because there's no going back, republishing, or even talking to the audience.
You see strawmen like this a lot in scriptures. It's a pretty obvious tool when you think about it.
But I have no real reason to doubt James existing. The evidence I've seen is convincing enough that I don't doubt that a man named Jesus existed and did historic things. Whether he was a Messiah is a different question.
Always remember that the Bible is a collection of stories. It was intended to be passed down orally and to the illiterate. Oral histories are always dressed up. Either intentionally or mutated through the generations, the stories become more memorable over time, and thus more embellished. It is unwise to treat any religion's scripture as a literal, factual, historical document. They aren't, none of them are. They're all stories meant to teach lessons, and not a technical manual.
> Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience.
It's apparent from Paul's letters that his audience knew who the leaders in Jerusalem were (James, Peter, John), and had contact with them or their followers. He is writing letters responding to some issue(s) a particular group is having. Such as whether Paul was a proper apostle like those who new Jesus when he was alive.
As such, there's no reason to think Paul could get away with creating a fictional leader and family member after Jesus's death. The people he's writing to would know better.
You’re totally right, I mean that Jesus we crucified was probably made out of straw or 3 kids in a really long tunic. And that’s why I still worship scarecrows.
Well, you don't make up straw men that makes you inferior. Paul never met Jesus, James did and also was the leader of the (clearly) very important Jerusalem church. Paul knew and admitted that he lacked authority, hence he had to sell his ideas very hard to the readers of his letters. Nothing suggest that he intended for those letters to outlive him (the vast majority probably didn't) or become the backbone of a new religion. It just so happened.
The Pharisees in the gospels are good examples of straw men, though.
In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.