Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Redbeard The Pink]

The evidence is:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.

No, Danny.  You don't get it...and probably never will.

There is one original story.  Mark.  The others are fanfics... extensions of the original by later authors writing for different audiences. 

"Paul" if he is real speaks of a non-earthly jesus.  "Paul" knows nothing of Pilate, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Caiaphas, etc.  That wasn't part of his story. He does not describe Jesus as a miracle worker, healer or teacher. Paul blames Jesus' death on Satan and demons, rather than the Roman government.  That wasn't part of his story, either.  Somewhere along the lines somebody noticed so when they forged the pastoral epistles they had someone write in 2 Timothy that Pilate and the Jews were involved...but only the dumbest of fundies thinks that 2 Timothy is written by whoever wrote the so-called authentic epistles of "Paul."

There are NO clear first century texts.  Much is wishful thinking or, worse, later forgery by the eventual winners.  We have no evidence that any Greco-Roman writer heard of Jesus until c 185.

The heretical writings are exactly that.  We know even less about them than we do of the canonical shit.

Don't start with Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.  We've been down that road before.  If you wish to accept that shit, go ahead.  Don't pretend to be a rational human being while doing it.

Modern peer-reviewed publications are fine as long as they agree with you.  If they don't you pull the No True Scotsman routine and claim they are not "real scholars."  That disqualifies you.  You are too invested in believing in your bullshit.

And yet we're the crackpots.

I also like how, when he mentioned the books by Ehrman and Carrier (I guess that's what he was talking about), he made a point of calling them academically questionable, but when he listed his own sources makes sure to throw the term "peer-review" in there. He started with argument from popularity and then turned around to dump poison down the well.

In the absence of any hard evidence, all we have is what's written, and there are mythicist interpretations that are about as likely as historicist ones, if not more so. The fact that you side with the consensus claim is up to you, but don't act like your position is better or more likely just because more people agree with you. Unless they're agreeing with you for really good reasons (which, considering the level of evidence, they basically can't be), the number of people who believe the same thing you do technically does not matter. For a long time Galileo was virtually the only person who believed the Earth orbits the Sun, and look what happened there.