[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[Abaddon_ire]

If my claims are unsupported, you'll need to show contemporaneous accounts (meaning accounts written during his purported lifetime) of a figure who corresponds to the Jesus of the Gospel narrative.

You can, of course, list whatever accounts you think would support an historic Jesus.  I only asked that you not do so because these (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc) have been refuted so often that it becomes tiresome.

If being frequently written about is a basis for historicity, then King Arthur and Robin Hood are historic figures.  But perpetuation of the Jesus myth isn't all that hard to explain.  It perpetuated in the same way that any other religion does.  Are you claiming that the figures in Greek mythology and Hinduism are historic?

But I don't think the Jesus myth is a conspiracy in the sense you seem to be using the word.  I suspect that the great majority of Christians sincerely believe in an historic Jesus and aren't trying to fool anybody about it, which would seem to be required for this to be a conspiracy.

Boru

The historical Jesus is pretty well documented.

That is dishonestly misleading. And I think you know why.

 I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.

Really? Then you have not been looking. Richard Carrier springs to mind.

 Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Sheesh. Those gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What made you think they were?

The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.

Nope.

 No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period.

So what? Just because you refuse to look means nothing. Second, there is nothing unusual about a wandering apocalyptic preacher in the Levant at that time.

 That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

It doesn't matter either way.

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters.

Your gospels were written 40-200 years after the events depicted.

 Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.

 In much the same way that jesus could simply be a wandering jewish apocalyptic rabbi (we know there were boatloads of those in the Levant at the time) upon whom later myths were built, King Arthur may merely be a Saxon Chieftain (we know there were boatloads of those in Saxon England at the time) upon whom later myths were built. The historicity of King Arthur remains an open question.

They have two things in common. Both may well actually be historical persons upon whom later mythologies were constructed, and secondly, I really don't care a lot about either.

At least the fiction arising from King Arthur is entertaining. The jesus fiction is merely dull, unimaginative and internally inconsistent.

In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Thanks

Max

King Arthur and jesus are very similar cases. Both were likely real, historical people. Both have had a crapton of mythology heaped upon them post mortem. Both may be amalgams of multiple characters in play in their own times.

For example, Eleazar ben Simon was a contemporary of jesus and being raised in Galilee. Might even have me jesus for all we know. But he is not in doubt as a historical figure. He was highly ranked in the priesthood, led a war against Rome and generally ticked more boxes than jesus as a Messiah figure.