Here's an honest and brief take on how ancient history works, should give this a listen:

Except in the case of Jesus, there are good reasons to suggest there was a historical Jesus. You choose to dismiss that because you can't handle being fair and reasonable about Christianity, and denying even the historical Jesus is just another way out of having to do that.

Then I also have bias against old Greek religion because I don't find evidence that Zeus existed convincing although there are caves for which people claim he was born in.

If you say so. I have my doubts, however, and I say this based on your posting history whether in shoutbox or in the forum threads.

I don't have bias against Christianity, I just don't think there is evidence that Jesus existed as do many scholars.

and they're relatively late, so you can't call those sects "early" without qualification. I don't appreciate the way you use words in a disingenuous manner to mislead

that was the heresy referred to in the later "inauthentic" NT texts

And by the way, I was right. You've been presented with false information. Docetism isn't Jesus never existed; it's Jesus existed and was on earth but not in flesh

Then I go back to what I said earlier. Leave these analyses to scholars who study this for a living, since you're going the route of handwaving and outright dismissal just because of a bias you have against Christianity itself.

Now let's get to the real questions: was bigfoot on Noah's ark?

In any way it's not complicated to see that Jesus was invented since his story is filled with events that could not have happened & that it has every basic element of the Hero Myth established by Otto Rank. The only reason that there is so much discussion about this is because many people want Jesus to have existed, and not because there is some evidence.

I figured you were referring to that, FM. But what's news to me is the interpretation that these early heretical folks denied the existence of Jesus. That's not the interpretation I'm aware of. Rather, these folks denied that Jesus was in the flesh when he was on earth. It's been a while though since I read a book on that sort of stuff so maybe have misremembered something.

An ongoing revelation is nothing more than delusionists pursuing their imaginations.

Grandizer, we're talking very early. In the false epistle by Paul (one that he definitely didn't write) you can see that there was conflict among early Christians of whether Jesus existed or not, and of course 2 John 1:7 condemns people who didn't think Jesus really existed.

@Belaqua Do you think the historicity of Jesus markedly affects the state of Christianity today (or even the early rapid spread of it)?

At the same time, Christianity is not just what happened then -- it is the total of all the interpretations that have happened since. (Christians would say: the ongoing revelation.)

I think it depends on what you want from the debate. For scholars and historians, it would be wonderful to know what the real Jesus was like and what he did. Careful non-ideological work may yet push confidence one way or another.

Can't comment on the bit about past scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of Moses since I'm not read up on that. And yes, like I said, it matters for many whether Jesus was historical or not. I'm confused about the bit where you talk about Jesus not really existing according to some early sects. How "early" are we talking? And are you referring to those who denied Jesus came "in the flesh"? Because that came quite later and is irrelevant to whether Jesus himself actually existed or not. They still believe he existed.

But is it important whether Jesus existed in flesh or imagination? It wasn't so important for early Christians because there were sects of early Christians who didn't think that Jesus really existed, but then came the Papacy and everybody had to believe that Jesus really existed.