Hi Pat, glad you enjoyed the read and found my argument plausible. Trying to disseminate it as best I can but it’s an uphill struggle.

Thanks for the link, Keith. Your blog is a good read. I totally see where you are coming from. Postulating a mortal Jesus does help us construct a theory of Christianity that doesn’t require divine intervention. Other theories of where the Jesus myth might have come from remain, but yours certainly has the benefit of simplicity and plausibility. Nice work.

Hi Pat, I agree that a potential “historic” Jesus would be a total historic non-entity and you make some excellent points about the lack of historical substance. I also agree that the relevant passage by Josephus was later subjected to extensive interpolation. However, it is generally accepted today that the reference to the crucifixion of a character called Jesus is genuine, although this character is obviously not the gospel Jesus. Your closing comment “It only confuses the issue to say this Jesus existed and that one didn’t. No, the only Jesus that matters, at all, to anyone today, NEVER EXISTED” is absolutely true but I have a vested interest in maintaining that an historical non-entity called Jesus did in fact exist. This vested interest will become apparent if you read my blog called “Could Christianity have evolved without God’s help?” which can be found at http://keebostick.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/could-christianity-have-evolved-without-gods-help-2/

The evidence is actually weaker than that, and the total absence of mention in the historical record more suspicious. Josephus is the only one of the writers you mention who actually mentions Jesus specifically, and much of what he did write (a whole two or three sentences out of a huge, multi-volume history of the Jews) is thought to be forged additions by later editors. The other three made reference to Christians, years after Jesus’ death, which is not the same as a contemporary reference to Jesus.

All in all, the near-total absence of any reference to Jesus outside the Gospels is actually a big problem for Christians. Multiple, mutually reinforcing references exist for much less important people – merchants, tax collectors and the like. Miracles aside, Jesus was supposed to have created large disturbances when he entered Jerusalem and appeared at the temple. He supposedly attracted the attention of the top rabbis and the Roman governor of the area. Yet none of this was noted by the historians living and working in the area at the time.

The only solution for defenders of the historical Jesus is to say he was much less famous in his life than the Gospels suggest and much of his legend was constructed by his followers later. Which is pretty much what atheists have been saying for years. And forget about him performing miracles that were witnessed by dozens or hundreds of people – such a thing certainly would have been noted by many contemporary writers.

I think the question becomes, at what point does the “history” of a person’s life become so divorced from the actual person’s actual life and identity that it is no longer valid to say we are talking about the same person. I don’t care if there was some rabbi named Jesus in ancient Jerusalem. If nothing about his life matches the stories that are told about him today, then his existence is almost perfectly irrelevant – a tree falling in an empty forest. It only confuses the issue to say this Jesus existed and that one didn’t. No, the only Jesus that matters, at all, to anyone today, NEVER EXISTED.

I think we need to be careful when claiming Jesus never existed. If you are referring to the gospel Jesus of the New testament I’d agree with you because the only evidence for a Gospel Jesus is that found in the New Testament itself. Many Christians would dispute this claim but both Christians and non-Christians often fail to differentiate between the Gospel Jesus on the one hand and any other Jesus that may or may not have lived around the same time. Most of the resulting disagreement about Jesus thus arises because of this failure to define which Jesus is being talked about.

The real question to ask is “was there ever any Jesus who was not the Gospel Jesus?” If there was a
historical Jesus then we have to accept that we are not going to find much evidence for his existence. If he did exist, and on balance I think that he probably did, he was only one of thousands of ordinary Jews around at the time and you would not expect him to leave much of a “historical footprint”. If thisJesus was a Galilean Jew with fundamentalist’s leanings, as were many from rural Galilee, there is a slight chance that he would have attracted the attention of the Jewish establishment, particularly if he proved popular with
fellow Jews. If his popularity eventually became a threat to the Jewish establishment this in turn would have increased his chances of being crucified to shut him up, but even if he was crucified, it’s doubtful that anybody bothered to record the event for posterity.

The only contemporary of any such Jesus to leave written records is Paul who put a lot of effort into establishing fledgling churches based on a character
called Jesus, but only after he had stopped persecuting the followers of a character called Jesus. This would suggests that a Jesus must have existed
around that time, unless of course you want to reject Paul’s evidence as unsubstantiated, in which case you need to substantiate why you chose to do so. We also know that the Jews ultimately rejected a character called Jesus on the grounds he was not their long-awaited savior Messiah, unless of course you choose
to reject this also. Couple these two aspects with the somewhat scant historical records that do exist [Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Younger Pliny],
records by the way, that you would not expect to exist without some basis for so doing, and you can just about conclude that a historical figure called Jesus
did in fact exist around the period of interest. However, none of this flimsy evidence remotely suggests that this historical Jesus was the Gospel Jesus cited in the New Testament. There is nothing other than this New Testament to indicate that this Gospel Jesus ever existed.

So on balance I think we can say that there probably was a historical figure called Jesus who was just an old-fashioned Jew with old-fashion views on Judaism, and the fact that we have any records at all of this historical non-entity is testimony to his popularity with rank and file Jews. We can reasonably assume that this popularity eventually led to his crucifixion. Of
the several historical mentions of this charismatic Jesus, only Josephus in his “Antiquities of the Jews” makes passing reference to his crucifixion. We can
also say with some confidence that this historical figure was not the Gospel Jesus mentioned in the New Testament.

I know this goes off tangent but I would still like to state this: We didn’t evolve from monkeys, we have a common ancestor with them and evolved separately.
Just wanted to make that clear.

True. Even if he did the fruits of his labours are destruction and pure evil.
I think Buddhism will surpass Christianity eventually, because most of the teachings were already in Buddhism, and the followers of Jesus were few, and the latter apostles never even knew the earlier apostles. Paul apostle makes most of the Bible he born perhap 1-2 A.D. Born in Turkey, traveled to Jesruselem around 18-19 years old, schooled by the Jews greates Zealot Pharisee teacher Gamiel. 40 years later Paul became a zealot Christian, conspiracy by the pharisee’s? who knows. and yet Christian’s existed hundreds of years before Jesus to Serapis the god Christ.
Point is. If something is importantant to God He should show it. If not. It’s not important.

You Believer in God are an ass.

Plus unlike hypocrite you. I the animal rights vegan. Can live with not justifying myself with God for the weakness of eating meat. Or murdered animals that you consider pain free.

Originally Athiest Communist Russia made by a Jew, son of a thousand Rabbis and a former Christian himself Karl Marx and his father was Christian, yet you couldn’t do what you listed there, and nothing unauthorised by the state. They were atheist. You’ll find with Athiest no difference from you. I find with Athiest a closet Christian most of the time. I am more like old west American of the outlaw unbibled west. God doesn’t stand in my way or make me weak.