Whoa there! There are a few major things that seem to be ignored in the article. The biggest is the Gospels' emphasis of the Resurrection. Not only is this one of the most important elements of Christian belief, but it also gives great meaning to some of the statements and actions of Jesus before he was crucified. And while non-Christians and pseudo-Christians might claim that the Resurrection was either fabricated or some sort of non-physical, mystical experience, the Gospels clearly teach in their narratives and in other ways that it was a physical, historical event. For instance, Luke attests to eyewitnesses of the Resurrection. So if one is looking at "the historical Jesus," the Resurrection requires more of a response than Geza Vermes offers here. In reading the totality of the New Testament, Jesus can't be dismissed as only a prophet or great teacher, unless one rejects the central points of the redemption on the cross and the Resurrection, which are associated with much else of what Jesus is reported to have said and done. One might claim that, well, the Resurrection is just a matter of faith, so as a historian I can't consider it. But if you are using the Gospels to prove your historical point, you can't deny that the Resurrection is testified by them also, as a historical fact. While the Gospels might not have been written as purely historical documents, they certainly contain history. And they were written more closely to the actual time of Jesus than were sources about other ancient figures, upon which we rely heavily without much concern. Just because the Gospels were not written during Jesus's lifetime on earth doesn't mean they are without value in informing us about his life. Also they were written during a time when many people who were contemporaries of Jesus were still alive, and would be in a position to be critical of them.

May I recommend Pope Benedict's book 'Jesus'? In it he enters into dialogue with Jacob Neusner's book 'A Rabbi Tals with Jesus' - in a most respectful way - and brings out the way that the Gospel texts present Jesus' divine status.

Indeed you are all so very well read... and your writings are informed and articulate... All of your own beliefs - that is to say... all your own 'dis beliefs' are based upon 'interpritation' of someone else's writings and someone else's investigations... is that not simmilar to believers of the gospel and it's interpritation of the words of the christand his followers? I'm not a scholar... but I know this... (And history will atest to this). whatever good there has been on this earth... whatever wonderful ideals man has dared to dream of... If those dreams and ideals somehow shake or disturb the masses 'comfort' zones... They seek to destroy or undermine it, in the most ruthless manner possible until it is in disaray. This then apparently makes them feel 'safe'. I'm therefore compelled to prefer to live whole heartedly in the 'fear' of something worth believing in and that it just might be the most positive and wonderful 'entity' this universe has or will ever know. If I'm wrong... I lose nothing... but in believing 'now' during my life time... I carry something inside me that provides a feeling nothing else or no-one else can.. I do not feel threatened by anything I have read here and my little attempt will, I know, be torn to shreds... I just sincerely wish you were all brave enough to feel the wonder of 'blind' faith and unquestioning belief... I care less if I am indighted with remarks of being brain washed...foolish...needy...unable to be simply content with my little existance, that I need someone or something guiding me... I am actually really quite happy inside... truly and wholely... Are you... are you really? God Bless you all... and I ask this in the name of the Christ Jesus. Its just a name...and God (Jehova or any other names you want to call him) - knows who I mean so that's just cool.

The book everyone must read in order to understand what are the Canonical Gospels and who is the Jesus Christ in them really is is "Caesar's Messiah" by Joseph Atwill. Having a new perspective gained from that book, I am able to tell you that the real Messiah of the Jews, who was indeed the spirit of Elias returned (see Malachai 4:5). The Son of Zakariya is the Son of Mary. Elisabeth is not a woman, but the belly of Mary. (hidden for 5 months, with Mary from month 6-9). The Qur'an practically screams this to us, but at the same time letting the illusion continue for those who don't want to see it. The Qur'an tells us the Mary is given unto Zakariya's care and lives with him. He is too old to make children. He visits Mary in her Chamber and prays for a Child from God. Mary is a virgin and chaste, so she cannot have children because the man in her life, Zakariya is physically too old. But God grants his prayer and Mary's son is conceived, but not announced by the angels until the 6th month when her belly begins to grow. This is the appearance of Elisabeth, or "house of Elias". John the Baptist is the Son of Mary.

"Helloooo J-e-s-u-s never existed..." Have you a time machine, Eli? It's very hard to prove the existence of anyone so far back in time, but there are plenty enough contemporaneous (or very-near contemporaneous) references to Jewish by Jews and non-Jews to make most serious historians accept his historical existence. The same cannot be said of the "Prophet" Muhammad, documented references to whom are sufficiently late to cast doubt on his existence.

The thing that has always fascinated me was that his followers continued to meet and preach some kind of message that drew others to it even though all faced potential persecution. Jesus was a remarkable figure as his parables reveal. BTW many questions were asked of the Buddha which he refused to answer. This wasn't from his own perspective: he had nothing personally to hide. But he considered satiating these questions as worthless in the pastoral sense. Jesus taught in a Socratic way - Who do men say that I am? Who do you say I am? He turned the other cheek... he brought the question back to the questioner. That was his way.

An interesting article but it leaves out some key points of translation. Translations of the ideas "believe in" and "I am" should be included in a historical treatment of Yeshuah's teachings.

Well, I agree with Anonymous on one thing, "jesus's" resurrection is as historical fact as Jesus curing the leper. That is, Both are 100% pure fiction. The only real question is was there a historical "jesus" at all, and the evidence is pretty strong that there was not.

See also : http://listinfo.blogspot.com/2008/07/gabriels-revelations-dead-sea-scrol...

'Veracity vouchsafed by faith' is all well and good, but I still think there are two variables basic to any belief. First, a person has to be carrying the 'religion gene'. Following that, place imposes its reality. That is too say, have the 'gene' and come from a christian influence, and guess what? Dollars to donuts, people will fall somewhere along the bible line. Have the 'gene' and come from some other influence, and, bob's-yer-uncle!! This is as simple as it gets.