Did Jesus exist?

[Homeless Nutter]

Poor, relative to today, yes. Not incredibly poor, though. And certainly, relatively good evidence for those times.

No - poor by the standard of a political organization, which controlled the flow of information in large part of the world for millenia and actively destroyed historical documentation, that disagreed with its interest. I'm talking, of course, about RCC. The few bits of "pulp fiction" they chose to represent the origin of their ideology are laughable.

And why compare to Batman? Why not to Sai Baba? [...]

It doesn't matter. With some luck - if long enough time passes, it could be either. Which is the point - if Jesus did exists, he needn't have bothered his a*se.

But the books of the Bible weren't brought together from day one of being written, were they? So each should be treated by default as an independent work unless shown to be otherwise.

And they have been shown to be based on one another. We also have many "heretical" gospels - even now, after all the christian book burning - that show often very drastically different accounts of events. So why should I assume that the christian committee, few hundred years after the fact, chose the only books that were "historical" and not simply the few that were convenient for the church and "happened" to be based off of one another? Because "scholars"? Bah. Biblical scholars are paid to study the bible. If they concluded, that it's all horse-sh*t, they'd be out of a job...


The problem with Jesus, is that he's conveniently "low key". Like god of the gaps, that retreats whenever we obtain actual knowledge, so does the significance of Jesus. He used to be "King of the Jews". Now, that we have no independent, credible accounts of his existence - he's just some dude in the desert, that nobody important ever thought to write about, so we're supposed to allow for a lower treshold of evidence...