Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[Lumpenproletariat]

3 Debunkers UP -- 3 Debunkers DOWN. No runs, no hits, no errors.

Zip! Nada! Goose-eggs. 000

There were plenty of religious preachers, and yet none had miracle myths attached to them within only 1 or 2 generations. What is it about this one that so many different factions wanted to attach their teachings and mythical stories to him?

There are plenty of lumber jacks, and yet only Paul Bunyan had stories of miraculous deeds made about him. What is it about this one that so many wanted to attach their stories to?

You're proving my point, giving

no examples from the ancient world, and

no information about this modern example, showing any evidence or reports about his miracle acts.


There are no examples from ancient literature, 1000+ years ago, which is what I was referring to.

My wording, "none had miracle myths attached to them . . ." and "different factions wanted to attach . . ." and "so many wanted . . ." are past tense, meaning a time reference is contained there, and that time was 2000 years ago. You can enlarge that several centuries and stay within the context, but to be saying anything legitimate you must address a time period when there was not a massive publishing industry such as we've had for the last 200 or 300 or 400 years. Obviously there are a few more published stories in recent times than there were 1000 or 2000 years ago. If you cannot figure that out and take it into account, you show that you're not seriously addressing the topic.

If you want to get serious and stop supporting my point (while pretending to refute it), then you'll offer an example from the ANCIENT literature and culture, rather than having to use only modern examples. That you can only offer a modern example proves my point that there are no other examples from the ancient historical period.

So I welcome your confirmation of my point, or verification, by showing your inability to offer any parallel example from the time in question, such as before modern publishing.


Also, you're not being serious if you can't do your homework and provide any information with your example:

You must identify WHEN the HISTORICAL Paul Bunyan lived, at least approximately, and then also identify the date of our earliest sources about him, in the literature (not oral), claiming that he performed whatever miracles he did. And you need more than only one source dating near to the time when he lived (less than 50 (100) years), such as we have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracle acts 20-80 years from when the events happened.

And of course you must identify what miracles he did, quoting the source claiming he really did those things and claiming there were witnesses present who saw it.

Also, you must show that there are no other sources of the time claiming that it's only fiction, or at least that the sources saying he really lived and performed those miracles are more numerous than the sources saying it's only fiction. If the sources saying it's fiction are more numerous, then the evidence for the miracle claims is not serious evidence. There are no early sources saying that the Jesus miracle acts are fictional, fraudulent, etc. (probably nothing before 200 AD, definitely nothing before 100 AD).

Paul Bunyan is not Jesus so obviously Paul Bunyan's feats are merely products of folklore and legend.

/special pleading

Further verification that there are no other examples. If there were, a debunker could offer one from the ancient historical period, or from earlier than modern publishing.

This shit again. It takes ZERO time to write fiction. I am the Lord PHenaolCQE#@@, the one true God above ALL OTHER GODS.

There. I just did it, you fucking moron. "You" in the general "fucking moron" sense.

Another fucking moron confirmation, from another would-be debunker unable to give an example from the period of history referred to. This is further confirmation that there are no examples.


So the score now is 3-0. Three confirmationes that Jesus in about 30 AD is the only reputed miracle-worker from ancient times for whom there is any evidence, and zero refutationes.



modern times vs. ancient

This isn't to say that modern examples are excluded from consideration. But if you insist on introducing them and making the issue much more complicated, then the rules of logic have to be applied in such a way as to take account of the differences between the vastly different historical periods.

One adjustment is to take into account the number of sources which say the stories are fiction, and compare the percent of these to those claiming the stories are factual reports of what happened, as the Gospel accounts present the Jesus events as factual.

And there are other adjustments, to take account of the vastly greater volume of published matter in modern times.

If you're unable to find any ancient examples, then you have to explain why. I.e., why this one case only stands apart among all the ancient literature as one for which we have evidence, or multiple written accounts from the time of the reported miracle-worker events, such as we have written accounts from the time for other historical events.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for the Jesus miracle acts is not "standard stuff."

I think it is reasonable to agree that someone who now goes by the name of Paul was probably writing about someone (from Judea) and was doing it in the 1st Century CE (as it is now known). One question, regardless of the relative lack of biographical information, is, 'who was he referring to?'

It could have been someone from the dim and distant past, but that doesn't exactly tally with the urgency about this person's death being a signal for supposed end times and the reason for joining a new cult to be a follower. It could have been someone yet to come, but that doesn't tally with him being described as having already been (apparently recently) killed. It could have been someone who was killed in an 'upper realm' but quite honestly that's such an awkward and tenuous reading of the texts that it is arguably just plain daft and imo it is astounding that so many otherwise rational skeptics would even give it the time of day after studying what is written in them. Erich Von Daniken was more plausible, imo.

Also, almost all cults, even if not all, who claim to have had a founder, usually seem to have had one, and especially those who claim to have had a recent founder. By the standards of ancient history generally, Paul is as close to a contemporaneous source as it tends to get when the figure is minor and/or has not written about or for themselves.

It isn't really a question of historicity as much as one of inspiration. We have an anonymous author writing about a person with superhuman powers, pretty standard stuff.

Aside from the fact that Paul is NOT anonymous, how is this "standard stuff"?

If it's "standard," then there must be other writings about such persons with superhuman powers. What are those writings?

If you mean Zeus or Apollo or Jupiter or Hercules, etc., all those writings date from 1000 years or more after those persons lived, if they lived at all.

Who are the "persons with superhuman powers" about whom we have written accounts some time near to when they lived? like less than 100 years? or even 200 years? There seem to be no examples, prior to 100 AD. After that point we start to get something like it, although we have to go 1000 years into the future to find anything for which there's more than one source.

It's not "standard stuff" if the only other such writings are limited to legends which emerged over many centuries of time during which myths could emerge.


2 simple rules:

We need more than only one source.

We need sources near the time the reported events happened (less than 100 (200) years).

And it seems like all anyone can come up with is Joseph Smith and other examples from modern times when every imaginable nutcase is published in multiple outlets/editions/copies.

Of course there's always "standard stuff" like King Pyrrhus and his Magic Toe, and . . .

Whoops! No, that's 400 years later than the reported events. Sorry about that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This shit again. It takes ZERO time to write fiction. I am the Lord PHenaolCQE#@@, the one true God above ALL OTHER GODS.

It takes the passage of time to enable someone to belatedly make unfalsifiable fact claims.

Always wrong. As you already know, I am the Lord PHenaolCQE#@@, the one true God above ALL OTHER GODS a fact that cannot be disproved. What you have not yet heard is that, a mere ten days ago I gave sight to a hundred blind men as witnessed by a thousand others honest and true. This post is the historical proof that what happened on that day truly happened, praise me.

Just yesterday, I discombotulated and passed through your shotrah to cleanse it and prepare its way for FELDSQNDEI3334! The holiest of all transfarbulations.

Done.

There. I just did it, you fucking moron. "You" in the general "fucking moron" sense.

I see you're still bringing your intellectual "A" game.

To a checkers match.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Zip! Nada! Goose-eggs.

Do you have no object permanence? When you cover your eyes with your hands, do you think the rest of us disappear? Is that it? We can see you. Nothing you have written means jackshit as has been painfully and exhaustively explained to you numerous times in numerous threads, all of which have you arguing the exact same nonsense over and over and over and over again and always blindly proclaiming victory.

What is the fucking point? Fiction takes zero time to write (other than the physical time it takes it to write, of course). The Bible itself is evidence that there were numerous miracle claims and fantastical divine beings with mystical powers hundreds of years before Jesus ever supposedly walked around.

No one could fact check back then and even if they did, so what? YOU DON'T LISTEN TO FACTS TODAY, so you defeat your own argument! You are living proof that no matter what idiotic claim is made, so long as it was made according to your personal beliefs, you will go to extreme measures to defend it at all costs, no matter how much you have to torture logic and language to do so.

In short, YOUR RESPONSE PROVES YOUR OWN ARGUMENT TO BE FALSE.

 

[Lion IRC]

There. I just did it, you fucking moron. "You" in the general "fucking moron" sense.

I see you're still bringing your intellectual "A" game.

To a checkers match.

And yet still Lumpy pwns you. Aren't you embarrassed?

 

[skepticalbip]

For something a bit more interesting... What is the best evidence for a historical Achilles? Or if you prefer, what is the best evidence for a historical Horus? Or What is the best evidence for a historical Mithra?

The Jesus stories were stolen a bit from these. We could throw in several other Greek, Egyptian, and Persian gods and demigods too.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To a checkers match.

And yet still Lumpy pwns you.

"Pwns" me? Is this 2007?

Aren't you embarrassed?

About your fevered imagination? No, that's entirely and pathetically your own.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For something a bit more interesting... What is the best evidence for a historical Achilles? Or if you prefer, what is the best evidence for a historical Horus? Or What is the best evidence for a historical Mithra?

The Jesus stories were stolen a bit from these. We could throw in several other Greek, Egyptian, and Persian gods and demigods too.

Or we could ask what is the best historical evidence for gods and heroes that possess and wield superman-like abilities and powers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whatever the question, the same answer always fits -- Jesus did actually perform the miracle acts.

Bingo! Mystery solved.


What motivated the Christ believers?

What do forum-dwellers view as the best evidence for a historical (as opposed to mythical) Jesus?

William Harwood (Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus) argues that the recording of Josh being baptized by John the Baptist in the Gospels casts such doubt on Jesus' claim to being the Messiah (why would the real Messiah need baptism by another, imposter Messiah?) that it was only included in the Gospel because the fact of his baptism by JtB was so well-known as to be irrefutable. He concludes that Josh must have been a real dude, and separate from the Righteous Rabbi, also named Joshua, who flourished ~ 100 BCE.

What's your take?

Ah yes, the embarrassment argument: they wouldn’t have written this and embarrassed their hero if it weren’t true [i.e., if it were not true that he was baptized by JtB]. That can be a persuasive argument for those who:

1. Haven’t read much fiction.

2. Have never known a good liar.

3. Have never been to an AA meeting to hear drunks try to outdo each other with their stories of how dissolute they had been.

4. Have never been to a (Christian) religious service where the preacher claimed to be a great sinner.

But if JtB was a real character (and I don’t know any major arguments against that) and had a real following, what better way to establish your hero’s credentials than to have him encounter JtB and then, lo and behold, JtB endorses your hero as the real deal, greater than himself? Then a miracle happens and seals the deal. Must be true.

So my conclusion is, the argument fails because it is no more plausible than its counter argument. It doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

good argument

The Jesus baptism story is not good evidence for or against anything, and it can easily be explained as either true or as fiction added to the account for the reason above, i.e., to win favor from the Baptizer's disciples in the 1st century (not just around 30-40 AD but also later when the Gospels were written). That some Christ believers could invent the story, or promote it without knowing if it was true, is easily explainable without undermining the general presentation of Jesus in the accounts, other than recognizing that there can be some fiction elements.

What needs explaining is why there is only one Messiah figure for whom we have miracle stories in multiple accounts, and written so near to the reported events. And why the gospel writers, or other Christ-believers, had a motive to promote him as this miracle-worker Messiah if he did not do anything special. Or, if he did do something special, then WHAT WAS IT that he did to cause this special attention they gave to no one else?

Some scholars, like Robert Eisenman, think that James (the "brother of Jesus") was actually held in higher esteem among Jews than Jesus was. So then why didn't anyone invent miracle stories for this James? or invent a story that he was baptized by John, if this would gain favor for a popular hero martyr? The probable answer (are you ready for this? it's not rocket science):

James did not do any miracles!
Whereas Jesus did. It's as simple as that.​

When someone really performs miracle acts, you say so, and when they don't, you don't.

Question answered -- problem solved. Call on me anytime you need help solving such a problem.



How was Paul able to "sell" his crucified Messiah?

As for the embarrassment criterion in general, Paul (I preach Christ crucified) made it the central pillar of his theology. If it didn't sell tickets Christianity would have closed on opening night.

Also a good argument. Makes sense. It did "sell tickets" right away. And why? because Paul's readers already knew about the crucifixion AND resurrection (and other miracles) of Jesus, and even though they may have been shocked at a crucified Messiah, they knew of the power he showed and that this must have come from a Power SOURCE of some kind, and so somehow he must be this "Messiah" even though they never expected a crucified Messiah. So the following has an answer:

Thanks for your comments. I especially appreciate you giving voice that Yeshua crucified doesn't exactly fit the Jewish concept of a Messiah. I'm interested in what brought Paul success in "sell[ing] tickets" to his interpretation, if you have relevant material to which you could point me, I'd be very grateful.

And the answer, why they were willing to accept a CRUCIFIED Messiah, instead of a Triumphant Conqueror over the Romans, is that he had performed those miracle acts, which Power had to be explained somehow. So this crucified messiah preached by Paul did "sell" because of the miracle acts he had performed. Except for that, there is no explanation how they would come to accept that kind of "messiah" instead of the Triumphant Warrior-Conqueror they had expected.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Same question. Same only one answer makes any sense.

If one does not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, I think it's absolutely possible also to criticize the efforts of gMatthew and gLuke trying to shoehorn Jesus into it.

Yes, but also one needs to explain WHY they tried to "shoehorn" him into it, and why this shoehorning worked for so many who were persuaded.

And the best answer (no one's offering any other answer) is that Jesus did those miracle acts, including his Resurrection, and everyone was shocked by it and needed an explanation of some kind. For Jews, this explanation had to be that he was the promised "Messiah" who would establish the Kingdom. Even though he was not exactly what they expected in a "Messiah" figure, he was too conspicuous to ignore. They had to incorporate him into their traditional beliefs somehow.

What other explanation is there, except that he did the miracle acts, which made it necessary for them to do something with him? They could not simply ignore it, if he really did those acts. But except for that, they could have ignored him. If he was just another rabbi or prophet, etc., they could have treated him like the dozens/hundreds of earlier prophets and rabbis who were mostly forgotten.

The differing ancestral lines, Matthew's annoying habit of seizing any lines in the OT that might possible show Jesus fulfilling prophecy (I doubt that a Yahweh-worshipper such as Jesus would ever have been called "Emmanuel" ("Allah is on our side")).

OK, that's reasonable. But then, why? Why was this one person seized upon by Mt and Lk, and others, and made into the "Messiah"? Why did they choose only this person, instead of several others who also had a following? Why didn't they make up stories about JtB fulfilling prophecy? or James the Just? etc.? There were plenty of other candidates for this role -- so why did everyone grab onto this one only?

Why does no one answer this question?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's one thing if you're telling your own story, it's another when you're trying to say that Jesus was the awesomest Messiah and so much better than all the others, and you have these things he did that are so well-known that they cannot be denied, are easy to criticize and thereby tend to call his Messiahship into question.

Yea, sounds like the same question again: He obviously was NOT the "Messiah" because he didn't meet someone's criteria, etc., so how could anyone buy this claim that he was this "Messiah" which he obviously was not, based on those criteria?

I.e., it's so "easy to criticize" the Messiah idea in his case, so how can we explain that anyone took him to fit this role?

The best answer is that he did the miracle acts, which threw off everyone's criteria and theories about the "Messiah" role and caused an upheaval, such that some changed their previous belief, or modified their expectations about this and placed him into this "Messiah" role, even if it was artificial. Yet they had to, because they could not ignore the unusual power he demonstrated.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's one thing if you're telling your own story, it's another when you're trying to say that Jesus was the awesomest Messiah and so much better than all the others, and you have these things he did that are so well-known that they cannot be denied, are easy to criticize and thereby tend to call his Messiahship into question.

Yea, sounds like the same question again: He obviously was NOT the "Messiah" because he didn't meet someone's criteria

It's not just "someone's criteria," it's the Jewish prophets' criteria.

The best answer is that he did the miracle acts

That's nowhere near an answer, let alone a "best" answer.

which threw off everyone's criteria and theories about the "Messiah" role

Then he could not have been a "messiah," but more importantly, you're simply throwing away every part of the NT that specifically refers back to the prophecies and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled them as proof that he was the one prophesied. That includes Jesus' own (alleged) words, btw.

So, which is it? He was prophesied and therefore a messiah or he wasn't and therefore something else, which instantly renders all previous prophecy completely irrelevant at best?

Prophecy is supposed to be a revelation from God, remember? Not some cheap parlor trick. So you'd be arguing that God revealed a bit of this and a bit of that as signs for the "chosen people" that their salvation was at hand, but then when it came to the actual reveal, nothing of God's previous revelation was materially applicable to Jesus. If God tells me, the Prophet Koyaanisqatsi, that we shall all know the messiah has come because of (1) he will ride a donkey, (2) he will feed people and heal the sick and (3) he will kill all of our enemies with a flood and desolations in preparation for God's appearance on an Earthly throne and all some guy does is ride a donkey and give out some fish and bandaids, then no, he's not the person God told me about.

You don't get to have it both ways in spite of the fact that ALL you keep doing is contradicting yourself in regard to key components--just like the synoptics--in a desperate attempt to have it both ways.

Iow, yet more "evidence" that you simply want to believe whatever the hell you personally want to believe, so just do that and stop with all of this other drivel. It only fools fellow cult members.

 

[funinspace]

It's not just "someone's criteria," it's the Jewish prophets' criteria.

The best answer is that he did the miracle acts

That's nowhere near an answer, let alone a "best" answer.

which threw off everyone's criteria and theories about the "Messiah" role

Then he could not have been a "messiah," but more importantly, you're simply throwing away every part of the NT that specifically refers back to the prophecies and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled them as proof that he was the one prophesied. That includes Jesus' own (alleged) words, btw.

So, which is it? He was prophesied and therefore a messiah or he wasn't and therefore something else, which instantly renders all previous prophecy completely irrelevant at best?

Lumpy is really a rather eccentric version of a Christian...He has in the past pretty much thrown out much/most of the OT, along with other parts of the NT. Back in 2018, he even suggested that his Miracle Max healer could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl, if the timing was right or sum such noise... A minor reminder of Lumpy and his mysterious/hidden MHORC (his MHORC is much like the paisley sofa in the Hitchhikers Guide, where one can't see it if one tries to look straight at it):

Yeah, Lumpy also requires his idea of a viable god to be some sort of miracle max healer. And it has to be possible that the people being healed and the witnesses were not followers of said cult at the time, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith still fits this narrative no matter how much Lumpy disassembled. Of course, from the NT no one can really know about the people who purportedly witnessed these events as any outside details are lost in the dust bin of time; but Lumpy insists it is so. But Lumpy never explained why a god needs to be a miracle max. It's all in his Mythical Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC)...


Other opinions on sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

Says the religion famous for burning books.

Though Lumpy really isn't so much a Christian, as he is sort of a deist who is enthralled by Jesus as the mono miracle max god. Lumpy even said that he could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl...

 

[Politesse]

It's not just "someone's criteria," it's the Jewish prophets' criteria.



That's nowhere near an answer, let alone a "best" answer.



Then he could not have been a "messiah," but more importantly, you're simply throwing away every part of the NT that specifically refers back to the prophecies and how Jesus supposedly fulfilled them as proof that he was the one prophesied. That includes Jesus' own (alleged) words, btw.

So, which is it? He was prophesied and therefore a messiah or he wasn't and therefore something else, which instantly renders all previous prophecy completely irrelevant at best?

Lumpy is really a rather eccentric version of a Christian...He has in the past pretty much thrown out much/most of the OT, along with other parts of the NT. Back in 2018, he even suggested that his Miracle Max healer could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl, if the timing was right or sum such noise... A minor reminder of Lumpy and his mysterious/hidden MHORC (his MHORC is much like the paisley sofa in the Hitchhikers Guide, where one can't see it if one tries to look straight at it):

Yeah, Lumpy also requires his idea of a viable god to be some sort of miracle max healer. And it has to be possible that the people being healed and the witnesses were not followers of said cult at the time, notwithstanding that Joseph Smith still fits this narrative no matter how much Lumpy disassembled. Of course, from the NT no one can really know about the people who purportedly witnessed these events as any outside details are lost in the dust bin of time; but Lumpy insists it is so. But Lumpy never explained why a god needs to be a miracle max. It's all in his Mythical Hero Official Requirements Checklist (MHORC)...


Other opinions on sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

Says the religion famous for burning books.

Though Lumpy really isn't so much a Christian, as he is sort of a deist who is enthralled by Jesus as the mono miracle max god. Lumpy even said that he could have been the son of Quetzalcoatl...

Oh boy, atheists pulling reverse No-True-Scotsman arguments on Christians who shy from their personal imagination of what orthodoxy looks like, haven't seen that one in a while.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh boy, atheists pulling reverse No-True-Scotsman arguments on Christians who shy from their personal imagination of what orthodoxy looks like, haven't seen that one in a while.

I do not believe your assessment is accurate.
No one gives a rat's if Lumpy does or does not salt his wafer.
But he has made it clear that he only needs a few, very specific partsvof the gospel to be true in order for him to achieve eternal life. Lumpy accepts the healing miracles, believing them to be evidence that the healer has a line to the divine. If he's got connections there, then his promise of salvation is true, too. And all Lumpy must do is accept the healing as historical, to gain Heaven.
Lumpy has no logical basis for his beliefs, thus his attempts to logically support them fall flat. Time after time after reiteration after repeat.

His arguments thus boil down to 'These miracles are true cuz they just gotta be! They gotta!'

We're nott questioning his authenticity with respect to our estimate of orthodoxy, we're highlighting his efforts to prop up ONLY those parts of the gospel needed for his own, personal ascending, and his willingness to go to fucking ridiculous lengths in that propping.

 

[steve_bank]

Look at the religious and political turmoil in the region today. Same turmoil 2000 years ago, different actors. Factions, lrsfers, followers.

It is known there were a number of people claiming to be the messiah, some bandits. There may have been a single person on which the tales were spun, or it may be a composite of a movement.

A wandering rabbi walking around preaching doom and gloom for Israel was probably not unusual. Insurrection was in the air. It was what Jewish prophets always did.

If there was an HJ the Romans had no recode. If he did exist he did not rise to the level of a threat. Others are known. The leader of the Jewish rebellion and Masada.

 

[funinspace]

Oh boy, atheists pulling reverse No-True-Scotsman arguments on Christians who shy from their personal imagination of what orthodoxy looks like, haven't seen that one in a while.

I do not believe your assessment is accurate.
No one gives a rat's if Lumpy does or does not salt his wafer.
But he has made it clear that he only needs a few, very specific partsvof the gospel to be true in order for him to achieve eternal life. Lumpy accepts the healing miracles, believing them to be evidence that the healer has a line to the divine. If he's got connections there, then his promise of salvation is true, too. And all Lumpy must do is accept the healing as historical, to gain Heaven.
Lumpy has no logical basis for his beliefs, thus his attempts to logically support them fall flat. Time after time after reiteration after repeat.

His arguments thus boil down to 'These miracles are true cuz they just gotta be! They gotta!'

We're nott questioning his authenticity with respect to our estimate of orthodoxy, we're highlighting his efforts to prop up ONLY those parts of the gospel needed for his own, personal ascending, and his willingness to go to fucking ridiculous lengths in that propping.

^This! As well as Lumpy makes twisted arguments to suggest his Miracle Max historicity is not like any others, such as the birth of LDS via Smith. He also makes vacuous claims about his Miracle Max Jesus via the Gospels to argue the Jesus miracle healing's are a critical and a evidenced fixture of history, and then ignores what the Gospels have in them at dozens of other points.

 

[steve_bank]

p1 Jerusalem is in the gospels
p2 we know Jerusalem existed
p3 gospels say Jesus was in Jerusalem
c1 Jesus must have existed

 

[Politesse]

p1 Jerusalem is in the gospels
p2 we know Jerusalem existed
p3 gospels say Jesus was in Jerusalem
c1 Jesus must have existed

Ah, but you should ask some atheist sorts about Nazareth sometime.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Christ-belief is based on the evidence in the historical record --

while DISbelief is based on instinct that the evidence must be wrong.

fact vs. feeling

To say that it is intellectually lazy to give consideration to the possibility that the Jesus character is a complete fabrication is just plain wrong.

It's never intellectually lazy to consider any possibility (even whether the earth is flat, e.g.), as long as it's done seriously, looking at all the evidence and reasoning about the probabilities, etc. Many/most accepted historical facts can be questioned, despite the abundant evidence establishing them. Such questioning and reconsidering might lead to some new understanding of the facts, even though most of the facts would likely end up being reconfirmed.

The most intellectually lazy thing to do would be the opposite: Simply believe without investigation the stuff that has been passed around for centuries.

Yes, like most Christ-DISbelief is based on disregarding the ancient written accounts and instead just believing modern professional Jesus-debunker crusaders who are paid to concoct reasons why you shouldn't believe the evidence and are cited as absolute infallible authorities we must believe without fact-checking them from the ancient written sources. Yes, just believing those debunker pundits, like Richard Carrier and Matthew Ferguson, etc., and citing them as authorities without investigating the stuff they claim is intellectually lazy.

I personally do not think Jesus was completely fictional. But I know many of the extraordinary events described in the canonical gospels (healing of paralysis/blindness/death, transforming water to wine, walking on water, feasts conjured up from mere morsels of food, levitating off into the sky never to be seen again) did not occur.

But you understand that some will be skeptical of your claim to have a time machine to take you back to the past to view the ancient events being replayed and witness what did and did not happen. Why haven't you shared this invention with others and patented it, to make a profit while allowing others to have this ability to witness the events and "know" what did or didn't happen?

I know these things with the same degree (and for the same reasons) that I know there is no man living at the North Pole who gets in a sleigh . . .

What same reasons? The only "reasons" you can offer is your dogma that miracle events can't ever happen despite any evidence that they did happen in some cases though not in others. In the case of the North Pole character there is no evidence, or there is contrary evidence, i.e., there is reason other than just the dogma that it can't be, because there is no written record of his acts saying what particular events were witnessed, such as we have a written record of the miracle acts of Jesus, dating from the time those events happened.

. . . no man living at the North Pole who gets in a sleigh pulled through the air by eight magical reindeer who can fly. These are all equally ridiculous claims and . . .

No, one is about a particular event or set of events in history, at a particular time and place, reported in documents from that time, just as mainline historical events are reported in documents from the time -- which is how we know historical events -- telling us what happened, written by educated people reporting the events they heard of or read about from oral or written accounts of their time. You have no evidence that these accounts are false other than your dogma that no miracle events can ever happen. But you "know" the North Pole character is ridiculous because there is no written account from anyone telling about the witnessed events at a particular time and place. If there were any such serious record saying what was witnessed, you'd cite that record, or those written accounts, and quote to us the reported events.

These are all equally ridiculous claims and there is absolutely no evidence to support them.

Just because you wish the evidence didn't exist does not mean it isn't there. By "absolutely no evidence" you only mean your pontification that no such events can ever happen and so therefore no such evidence can ever exist. But the written record cannot be erased by your proclamation that it can't exist, or that it's "ridiculous" and that "no evidence" is possible, according to your dogma, regardless of any facts showing otherwise.

What's more, with the claims about Jesus, many of these things were allegedly done in front of large crowds often populated with hostile witnesses. Yet not one of these skeptical people ever managed to record anything about these incredible events.

Who says no one did? It's likely someone did write something and it perished, like 99% of all writings perished because they weren't copied. At first little or nothing may have been written because most of those in the crowd couldn't even read, let alone write, so any writing was only by a tiny minority who had that ability, and whatever was written by them simply perished.

There almost certainly was something written during the years before Mark in about 70. The Gospels and Paul's epistles were more ambitious and treated as especially important and were copied, whereas most writings were not copied and perished.

Instead these stories just appear out of whole cloth decades later (and . . .

They're mostly based on earlier reports, some oral and some written. They are just as connected to the original events as most of the accepted accounts we rely on for ancient history. Virtually all our ancient history comes from writings separated by many decades from the events reported in them.

. . . later (and geographically 1500 miles removed).

All the writings except Mark were written either from within Judea/Galilee, or from very near there, also Asia Minor, while Mark might have been written from Rome, but much of the content must have been taken from earlier accounts which were from the location of the events, or very near. And since the events were of special importance, it's appropriate that the "good news" traveled far during the 30s and 40s and got written about in places hundreds of miles away.

I know that the people who invented these stories about Jesus the Magic Jew also invented "historical details" to their stories that . . .

What you know is that we have miracle stories about one person only, and about no one else, so that ALL miracle stories being "invented" and published are being connected to this one historical figure only, and you have no explanation for this. I.e., you cannot explain why no one was inventing miracle stories about John the Baptist the Magic Jew, or about James the Just the Magic Jew, or about the many other prophets and rabbis and "messiah" heroes of one kind or another. You know we have more than 30 miracle stories, including the Resurrection, about only this one "Magic Jew" and about no others even though there were plenty of others who were at least as noteworthy as this one, and you are baffled to come up with any explanation why no one wanted to invent miracle stories about anyone else, which they should have done if your theory is correct.

You can give no reason why all these diverse writers would attribute their miracle stories to only this one historical figure, even though these writers did not agree on their religious and political beliefs and had no common mission or crusade forcing them to focus in on this one only and to make this one their Son of God or their Messiah, when there were so many others to choose from who could just as easily serve as the object for their invented miracle stories.

. . . who invented these stories about Jesus the Magic Jew also invented "historical details" to their stories that never happened, such as the slaughter of the innocents and . . .

Yes, you deduce that some later stories, perhaps invented, were added to the earlier true stories, about real events or miracle acts, that must have happened as the starting point, which explains why this Jesus in Galilee-Judea is the only one to whom any miracles are attributed in the literature, since everyone claiming any miracles thought they were done by this one only and by no one else, because there were so many reports of him doing these acts -- apparently because he actually was doing it -- which explains why everyone believed it but did not believe there were any others doing it.

And you can congratulate yourself for figuring out that some additional "miracles" or "magic" legends of one kind or another might have been added to this miracle-worker, who is the only one to whom any invented miracles could be added, because he was known to be doing such acts, as real events, and there were no others reportedly doing such things. That is the only explanation why no one was inventing miracles for anyone else, even though there were many other "messiah" types available to invent miracles for.

. . . such as the slaughter of the innocents and the insane census that required people to travel to the land of their ancestors to be counted.

Which can easily be explained, once you recognize that this one person only was recognized as a miracle-worker to whom stories needed to be added to explain where his miracle power came from. And they assumed it came from the same God who chose David to be King, and who promised a "Messiah" who would descend from David and be born in David's town of Bethlehem and therefore had to get placed there as his birthplace.

It all adds up when you put the pieces together, but only if it begins with the fact that Jesus did actually perform the miracle acts. Because if he did not, then there's no explanation why they thought he was special and had to be this "Messiah" promised to them, and why they would invent any "magic" legends or miracles for him, in addition to the real ones he actually did. The invented stories make no sense unless there was something there originally for them to be added to, and if there was no one else but this one person only to whom such stories could be added.

There had to be something special or unique about this Jesus person that they would "invent" any stories for him but for no one else, even though there was every reason to also invent miracle stories for many other similar prophets and heroes who, if you're right, stood out as much as Jesus did. If you don't identify what this uniqueness was, then you have not accounted for the "invented" stories, which should have been assigned also to others than only this one, and even more so to others who were even more noteworthy than he was, from all the evidence we have other than the reports of his miracle acts. (E.g., among other scholar-pundits, Dr. Robert Eisenman is one who insists that James the Just was much more popular and more recognized as a Teacher-Authority than was Jesus.)

The birth narratives and genealogies are also suspect at best.

As "invented" stories they are easily explained as needed to put Jesus into Bethlehem as his birthplace, and into David's lineage, in order to make him be the promised "Messiah" and thus explain the miracle acts he was doing. It's those miracle acts which are the starting point for all of it, explaining these written accounts and the "good news" being reported. Without those miracle acts as real events happening in history, and especially his Resurrection, none of this makes any sense. He must have done those acts, and then all of this falls into place and nothing is left unaccounted for (such as why James the Just or John the Baptizer are not also credited with miracle acts). He's the only one who did those acts, and so he's the only one reported as a miracle-worker and to whom some additional miracle stories could be added, including the "messiah" birth stories and prophecy-fulfillment, etc.

Without the miracle acts as real events which started it off, the whole picture of him is incomprehensible and unexplained and impossible.

The zombies walking around Jerusalem on the day Jesus was supposedly crucified is another obvious fabrication.

But why did no one fabricate zombie stories about any of the other Messiah-prophet-rabbi martyr heroes who also had disciples who mourned them and commemorated the moment of their being murdered and assassinated and executed? Why did educated writers invent such stories only about this Jesus victim and no other innocent hero martyrs?

Leaving us with a series of incredible tales every bit as extraordinary as a magical sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, unsupported by even the barest of witness, archaeological evidence, artifacts, etc.

You mean like 99% of our ancient historical events are unsupported by evidence? other than the written accounts which say the events happened? If archaeological findings and artifacts (other than the written accounts) are what is necessary as evidence for the events, then you can kiss 99% of your ancient history good-bye.

These extraordinary events simply did not happen.

Maybe not the zombies and the Star over Bethlehem, inconsistent with the other accounts and reported in one source only. But if we believe the evidence, the miracle acts of Jesus did happen. These are reported in 4 (5) sources, not only one. But you can reject the evidence, if it makes you feel better. You're entitled to base your beliefs on your intuition that miracle events can't ever happen, rather than on the evidence from the written accounts of the time reporting that such events did happen in this case.

Which means what remains (the historical Jesus, assuming one actually existed) bore little, if any resemblance to the legend fabricated through decades of story-telling.

Like 99% of our ancient history, which is dependent on decades of story-telling between the reported events and when the first written accounts appear -- even 100-200 years of story-telling in many cases. So most of our real ancient history remaining after the story-telling is discounted bears "little, if any resemblance to" the history you know of the Romans and Greeks etc. which is all "fabricated through decades of story-telling" by Herodotus and Josephus and Tacitus and Plutarch and other story-tellers? Interesting that, in order to get rid of this historical Jesus miracle-worker, it's necessary to do a hatchet job on at least 90% of our ancient history along with it. Well, whatever it takes to get rid of this pesky Jesus miracle-worker reported in the evidence but which we have to expunge from the record one way or another. If it means tossing out 90% of all the ancient history record, then so be it.

Perhaps one day authentic evidence will surface that does, in fact, corroborate the actual existence of this human being whose influence inspired the eventual legend that developed.

The evidence we already have corroborates his existence better than the evidence for many/most other ancient historical figures. But it's true that much of the detail is not corroborated, or some even discredited. So the accounts corroborate his existence, including the miracle acts which made him noteworthy and explain why we know anything about him at all, while leaving much in doubt about the details. As with all reported historical figures, there is a difference between the part which is corroborated by evidence and the part which is dubious.

But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he never existed.

You could say that about many/most of the ancient historical figures we assume existed. Again, toss out 90% of our ancient history record.

The only thing beyond the realm of possibility is that the stories about him performing all those miracles are true.

Based only on your dogma that such events are impossible and could not have happened. Not based on any evidence. You have to assume that anything unusual can never happen, so there can be no singular events in history which stand out from others.

The world is filled with tall tales and fantastic mythology.

It's not filled with written accounts of such events reporting what was seen by witnesses and dating from the time of the reported fantastic events, and not contradicted by other evidence or written accounts from the time. When we have written reports of events from extra sources near the time the events happened, not contradicted by other evidence, it's referred to as "history" or "the facts" about what happened. And when the events are highly unusual, we need more than only one source.

That is not extraordinary at all.

It's extra evidence that such events happened in this one case only (whether you call them "extraordinary" or not), and there are no other cases for which there is such evidence.

Flying reindeer and people who can defy the laws of physics by walking on water are the things of myth, not reality.

Yes, when there's no evidence it's myth, or fiction, like the flying reindeer. Whether it's fiction or reality depends on whether there's evidence, and in the case of reported superhuman acts we need extra sources dated near the time of the reported events, corroborating the reports and not contradicting them, such as we have extra sources for the Jesus miracle acts but not for the flying reindeer and other miracle myths which evolved over many generations or centuries.