Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[DeistPaladin]

One thing xtians love to harp about is that the mythical jesus theory was unknown in antiquity...

Unknown or successfully wiped out considering the only reason we even know of the names of critics of early Christianity, much less what they wrote, come to us as they are quoted in refutations. Celsus, Lucien and Thallus are examples. We have no writings of any of these early critics of Christianity. I'm sure the early Christians didn't burn them all or anything but they're still "lost to us".

The best example of early controversy regarding the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus comes to us in the Bible itself, concerning an early conflict between Christians themselves on the subject.

1John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Here we have not one but two letters (indicating that this was a big problem and not just a matter of a small group of schismatics) from the supposed disciple of Jesus who would have been addressing people that might have also lived within the time of Jesus' ministry. Notice how he uses the language of faith ("believe", "confess") to admonish his fellow Christians to reject those dastardly antichrists and to think instead that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person.

Now let's assume that these letters were in fact written by John, who knew Jesus personally. The admission of the problem of pseudo-epigraphy in the holy scriptures is something the Christians will not entertain anyway.

One wonders why John resorts to pleas of "have faith", something only used when there is no evidence, instead of simply referring to recent history and dismissing the unnamed heretics (presumably the Docetics) as crazy? Were there not relatives of Jesus, neices and nephews, who could have testified he existed as a person? Were there not neighbors at Bethlehem and Nazareth who would have remembered him?

Frankly, the whole theology of the Docetics, if they existed within the lifetime of a real person, should have seemed crazy from the get-go, even by religious standards of reason. How nuts do you have to be to believe a certain real man was just an illusion? ...unless it was either a long time ago or the said man never really existed? Christians maintain these letters were written by John the disciple, so that eliminates the first option. And how could followers of a man who recently lived ignore such recent history and instead invent a fantasy that he was never really a flesh-and-blood being but rather a spirit? And how could they have been such a large problem to warrant two separate letters?

I guess meaning that because ignorant goat-fuckers did not question something it must be "true."

Hence my whole "fact checking commandos" metaphor. It's like apologists have this fantasy that if any rabbi or other religious leader were to ever pen some exaggeration or bit of theological fantasy, that these commandos would suddenly parachute in, land in their temples, point their dreaded fingers and cry "false!" Any time that doesn't happen, the writings must be taken as an accurate historical account. Strange this line of reasoning doesn't apply to other religions of the relative time and place like Islam but that's religious special pleading for you.