The Jesus story has details that is most definitely made up i just realized!!!

[GrandizerII]

Which would those be?  What thing crammed into the mouth of the character in magic book isn’t theology?  What is credible.

It’s not like he sat down and talked about how his sister annoyed the fuck out of him, or is ever recorded in the “historical documents”....of the gospels.....having a single human conversation.

How about credible things he did, in the gospels?  Such as what, stand up?  They’re looking for a guy who sometimes stood up when he was sitting down?  Or the guy who went Superman on the money changers?  The guy who booked massive crowds in the middle of nowhere in 0ad?

I really can’t stress enough that the particulars of a historical Jesus are a racket.  It’s well known that the gospels don’t provide any historic detail that can be taken as such at face value.  Well known to historicists.

If there ever were biographic, or lets just call them human, details in magic book...that part was excised, written out, edited into non existence as heresy.  It’s a story about a god, not a man.

---

Just to add another wrinkle.  The question between historicity and myth isn’t whether there was ever a man, but whether the story started out as myth that later authors casted for.

If we believe the establishment myth of Christianity, the three wise men knew right where to find the prophecied Demi-god.  People were waiting for him.  There was already a story about him.

This is both inconvenient and necessary to the historicists position.  Chiefly in that one line of argumentation is explicitly based on a preexisting myth of Christ, and the wild contortions made to make an (alleged) man fit that narrative.  This, famously, compelled people as hostile to Christianity as Chris Hitchens.

But it accepts the most important thrust of the Mythicists position without taking a single breath.  That there was a Christ myth before there was a “Jesus” legend.

Maybe it's all a racket, and maybe nothing from the Gospels can be taken with enough certainty that they're historical, but historicist scholars do nevertheless agree on some commonalities regarding what Jesus might have said or done.

For example, probably that he hailed from Nazareth, was baptized by a man named John, did some healings (interpreted as supernatural), talked to a group of people, said some cryptic mystical stuff, was crucified (for whatever reason), then died. You might not agree with the criteria they use to determine probable historicity, but that's the common general conclusion.

Matthew's nativity and Luke's nativity most probably are false stories (so the three wise men easily locating the Messiah would then make sense in such light), but this does not necessarily mean (say) the Sermon on the Mount started as a myth.