Jesus Christ Probably Did Not Exist

[DeistPaladin]

Personally, I've come to regret the amount of time and energy I've spent on the Jesus Never Exited debate. It's not because I'm convinced there was some kind of poorly-defined "some religious leader named Yeshua" that was the basis for later deification and fanciful myths. Neither is it because I have now any less respect for Humphreys, Price and others who do champion that position. It's more a matter of time management.

I now focus my attention on the Bible and what a crock it is. After all, it really makes no difference to us whether or not there was "some guy named Yeshua". The real question is "Are the Gospels based on a true story?"

Bart Ehrman and all his "historists" are welcome to sit in their ivory towers chasing through dusty tomes after their precious "The Historical Jesus" for all I care. I shall not disturb their devotion.

I would like to ask them, "What, if anything, we can ever know about this guy and what do we base this knowledge on?".

Yeshua was a common name. Doomcriers and messiah wannabes were found on every street corner in Judea. I have little doubt that if your only criteria for "The Historical Jesus" are these traits during the 1st century CE, you could likely find several to fit the bill. To quote Thomas Paine, "it could be so, and what then?"

We have no writings from this guy, not even attributed unlike with "Paul" and "Moses" (though I also suspect pseudo-epigraphy in these cases but still, at least we have written works with the claim of their authorship). We have no way of knowing what his teachings were. Since we discard the miracles, we've pretty much gutted the Gospel stories. Since the supposed earth-shaking, popular, controversial and fabulously successful ministry generated no attention outside JC's following, it stands to reason that the ministry, if it existed, was in fact so small and insignificant as to escape anyone's notice. What's left?

But then I get caught up in the "scholars say" shuffle and wind up wasting a lot of time riding that predictable merry-go-round.

So fine, these "historists" insist there simply MUST be a "historical kernel" to be found in the Gospels but we just don't know what. It reminds me of the joke about the kid who gets a room full of horse manure for Christmas and excitedly tells everyone, "Santa got me a pony for Christmas. I just haven't found him yet." Let them have it. It seems to make them happy or something.

My focus is now on the Bible. The Christians have never told a coherent story. Their Jesus was born before 4 BCE AND after 6 CE. After his put-down of John the Baptist, he immediately went to the wilderness for 40 days AND stayed for a few days to gather disciples and attend a wedding. He was crucified in 28 CE (John), a year before JtB even started his ministry AND in 36 CE (synoptics). He rose up into the sky the day of his resurrection AND 8 days after his resurrection AND 40 days after his resurrection. The "whats", "whens" and "wheres" all vary wildly depending on which version of the story you read and yet none of them are wrong.

Ehrman can have his "mortal Jesus" who is an enigma wrapped in a mystery buried hopelessly under a mountain of myth. I am certain that Jesus Christ, the wonder-working godman, never existed, and that's what really matters.