For a start you could look at this 400 post thread on the topic. Or just do a thread title search for jesus and see 40 other tangentially related topics.
And IIRC I made a thread on the topic a few years ago on Free Ratio that should be archived, and which spanned for over a thousand posts.
Or we could do this:
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
The only explanation I've heard that makes me think a historical Jesus might have existed is the Criterion of Embarrassment. Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist kind of makes Jesus look less than godlike. Being hung or nailed to a tree is also usually the fate of the most worthless people according to Jewish tradition, so it's less likely to be made up. But it does seem a bit odd that none of the Roman historians mentioned this guy during his lifetime if he was supposedly performing miracles all over the place. If the story of Jesus is supposed to be the most important message from God that mankind ever received, you would hope God would make the story a little more different than all the other myths we have created.
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
Oh yeah...but the Kingdom of Colchis and the golden fleece are realIn spite of this there still could have been an original itinerant cult leader name Jesus who provided the original nucleus around which these mendacities were attached. But even if such a person existed the story is still manifestly fictional as a whole. This person didn't walk on water, levitate off the ground to disappear into the sky or cure lifelong paralytics with a mere touch. These sorts of fantastic things constitute most of the earliest version of this story we have (GMark).
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
A while back, someone sent me an email of a letter put out by the cops in Jacksonville. Someone was attaching HIV-infected needles to pumps at gas stations. It's hard to identify a way that profit could have motivated someone to perform such an act.How do you know that gain was the motivation?
A while back, someone sent me an email of a letter put out by the cops in Jacksonville. Someone was attaching HIV-infected needles to pumps at gas stations. It's hard to identify a way that profit could have motivated someone to perform such an act.How do you know that gain was the motivation?
Then someone else sent me an email showing that the title of the person allegedly writing that letter did not exist in Jacksonville. It's hard to identify a way the author of the hoax could have been motivated by profit.
certainly, profit was not the motivation for the people who forward me such emails or link me to Snopes pages.
'Q', yes. They are so different in style that they are clearly be different people however.Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
The gospels are not independent accounts. They are embroidered versions of some older text.
Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
How do you know that gain was the motivation?
The author of gMark, usually considered the first, created a blockbuster. But we know nothing about that author or his motives.
Socrates we know of through contemporaneous accounts. There are none for Jesus, advantage mythicists.
Mark who? The author of the Gospel of Mark is pretty much unknown. Whoever it was could have been part of a cult group and getting housed and fed while spinning his story onto papyrus. And/or maybe Paul was cutting him in on the fame factor. We know that very few people like to feel they are important after all....Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!
How do you know that gain was the motivation?
The author of gMark, usually considered the first, created a blockbuster. But we know nothing about that author or his motives.
Socrates we know of through contemporaneous accounts. There are none for Jesus, advantage mythicists.
How much was Mark paid?
How much was Mark paid? We know Socrates from Plato, and Xenophon's picture is hugely different. We have no independent evidence.