Jspear said:Yes some secular historians will deny the fact, but it is still a fact. Speaking from an objective point of view, thinking whatever you want about who he actually was, a man named Jesus did live 2,000 years ago.
You saying it is a 'fact' means nothing. I have previously mentioned that, based on the actual evidence (beyond the gospels) we have, the historians leave a margin for doubt.
Well, let's put it this way, certainly the New Testament was not written with a 'historical approach' in mind, but to establish a religion. As such we must look to other sources for the historical Jesus, the paucity of which, however, has led to some historians to place under scrutiny even the very existance of the Nazarean.
Of course this is rather beside the point, isn't it? As people of faith shouldn't need the rational historical aspect to believe what they do, since religion works within a confine of human consciousness that isn't bound to logical chronological and spatial realities, but fantasy, desire, emotion and hope.