Did Jesus exist?

[Aegon]

The "embarrassing details" defense. There isn't enough conformity to the preceding myths or legends? If it was myth or legend they would have simply written it in a more confirming way? Do you think that the people who wrote the gospels actually -knew- the older myths that well? If I write a book that doesn't stick close enouigh to Star Wars cannon as a sequel, does that mean that my book is no longer sci-fi?

Do I think that they knew the Torah well? Yes I do. Jewish mythicism is what we're talking about. And that's a poor analogy. Star Wars would be the only major sci-fi story anybody in the area cared about, and you'd have to make a sequel close enough to Star Wars for it to garner any attention. There was never any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah would be killed, so it seems improbable that a Messianic sect would make up a dead Messiah.

um...no.....we didn't forget, though there was an attempt to eradicate the notion.........people point -constantly- to the confusion among early christian sects in criticism..........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

What are you giving me that link for? All that matters there would be the bit about Serapion of Antioch. I'm not sure why it says that he denied the human/historical Jesus though (unless I'm misreading it.) He never denied it. He accepted Christ's existence and the word of Peter being Christ's word. He said the Gospel of Peter as he read it was a forgery. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself."

If you read my latest post, your 5th point means Plato didn't exist.

I think you meant to say "Socrates," not Plato.  Generally when believers trot out this silly argument they use Socrates as the example of a figure who only shows up in a handful of written works.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus

No, I meant Plato. Like I said, the only evidence of him were his philosophical followers and the name of an academy. Everything else is pieced together by ancient historians, just like Jesus is pieced together. Over a millennium passed between Plato's life and any evidence of said life. But reading this article is funny, because it doesn't seem the evidence in favor of Socrates is much stronger. Two of the writings serving as evidence are straight pieces of fiction. What makes them different from Paul? And then Plato (if he even existed) wrote about him after when he would have been alive, so now according to you that shouldn't count. The author himself seems dubious until the end. This helps prove my point more than anything. ANCIENT HISTORY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE.