Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Aractus]

And, so, there is substantial doubt about all of it.  We know that Jesus existed, that he was an historical figure during the early 1st century Palestine, but even then, the Romans did not bother to even mention his existence, let alone anyone else.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that his influence on the cultural of his day was "unremarkable".  To me, this means that the Romans viewed him as yet another apocalyptic loon whom had a doomsday prophecy, and after his disturbance in the temple in Jerusalem (at the end of his ministry and not at the beginning, as John puts it), they arrested him, and some Roman official (probably, not even Pilate) sentenced him to die.  The rest, as they say, is "history".

Historians will tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. To the Romans, Jesus was not worth mentioning. There were plenty of apocalyptic preachers of the time, and many thousands of people crucified under Roman rule (the vast majority of them with their identities never recorded). Look we don't really know how great his influence in Palestine was while he was alive, but we do know that he drew the attention of the Jewish authorities - and that he amassed great audiences at times. Pilate would almost certainly have been the one to sentence him to death, though not "at the request" of the Jewish "authorities". Note that even Josephus says that Jesus was executed by order of Pilate and there is no conflicting report, thus I'm not sure what your scepticism here is on?

There are at least four possibilities for what happened once Jesus was executed:

1. He died, was laid in the tomb, and was resurrected as Christians believe.
2. He died, was laid in the tomb, and reburied.
3. He was lifeless but had not died and revived in the tomb, and survived at least for a couple of days.
4. He died, was laid in the tomb, and the stone wasn't 'rolled away' on the third day by an angle.

[Jehanne]

And, so, there is substantial doubt about all of it.  We know that Jesus existed, that he was an historical figure during the early 1st century Palestine, but even then, the Romans did not bother to even mention his existence, let alone anyone else.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that his influence on the cultural of his day was "unremarkable".  To me, this means that the Romans viewed him as yet another apocalyptic loon whom had a doomsday prophecy, and after his disturbance in the temple in Jerusalem (at the end of his ministry and not at the beginning, as John puts it), they arrested him, and some Roman official (probably, not even Pilate) sentenced him to die.  The rest, as they say, is "history".

Historians will tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. To the Romans, Jesus was not worth mentioning. There were plenty of apocalyptic preachers of the time, and many thousands of people crucified under Roman rule (the vast majority of them with their identities never recorded). Look we don't really know how great his influence in Palestine was while he was alive, but we do know that he drew the attention of the Jewish authorities - and that he amassed great audiences at times. Pilate would almost certainly have been the one to sentence him to death, though not "at the request" of the Jewish "authorities". Note that even Josephus says that Jesus was executed by order of Pilate and there is no conflicting report, thus I'm not sure what your scepticism here is on?

There are at least four possibilities for what happened once Jesus was executed:

1. He died, was laid in the tomb, and was resurrected as Christians believe.
2. He died, was laid in the tomb, and reburied.
3. He was lifeless but had not died and revived in the tomb, and survived at least for a couple of days.
4. He died, was laid in the tomb, and the stone wasn't 'rolled away' on the third day by an angle.

Other possibilities exist as well.  Professor John Dominic Crossan, a high respected scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, has advanced the hypothesis that Jesus' body was tossed into a common grave for criminals and/or eaten by wild dogs.  As you yourself admit, "Jesus was not worth mentioning", and therefore, it is very improbable that Pilate, even if he condemned Jesus himself, would have granted a request for a burial.  More here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_...istoricity

[Jehanne]

And, then, these very early manuscripts were written at least a generation (40 years) after the death of Jesus

No they weren't. I find it near inconceivable that Matthew could have been written to Jewish Christians after the fall of Jerusalem. But let's ignore the gospels for a moment, we have at least two letters of paul that reliably date to 51-54 AD, and the Epistle of James which almost certainly was written before 50AD.

I would agree with you that the Gospels contain some of the words of the historical Jesus, but even scholars themselves cannot agree on which ones Jesus actually spoke!

Incorrect. The Sermon on the Mount is pretty much universally accepted as being genuinely delivered by Jesus, especially given the number of times James makes direct reference to it before any of the Christian gospels were written (he directly cites it something like 14-19 times, in addition to citing other things Jesus said as well). If he didn't give the Parables of the Rich Ruler and the Good Samaritan then it's up to you to prove where they came from, not up to me or others or Christians to prove it. I think that most sceptics would agree that the Parable of the Good Samaritan was one of Jesus's best teachings - if not the best. It was not at all aligned with the conventional wisdom of Judaism in the first century, which is what really makes it interesting.

That said, I don't think he ever claimed to be the Messiah. I'd agree with other sceptics that when Jesus talks about the "Son of Man" he is not referring to himself in the third-person, but rather looking towards the celestial being prophesied by Daniel. Those are great points of difference between us and Christians, but ultimately I'm forward looking, so of course it could one day be shown I'm wrong and that Jesus was referring to himself as the Son of Man - and if that was the case, as a sceptic, I have absolutely no explanation for it.

Certainly Q has been advanced as an historical source but the Gospel of Thomas is also a "sayings Gospel", like Q.  I will grant that the Sermon on the Mount contains some authentic sayings of Jesus, but it is not a true historical account; no one was there taking notes, as virtually everyone there was illiterate, and there is no evidence that the Gospels were first written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus, his followers and early 1st-century Palestine.  As far as the Gospel of Matthew, yours is truly a minority position, as most scholars date Matthew as being written between 75 and 100 AD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_...g_and_date

[Minimalist]

So now we have descended to trotting out the Josephus fraud?

A historical jesus is no more vital to the story than a historical Hercules was.   Mythology does not work that way.

[Jehanne]

So now we have descended to trotting out the Josephus fraud?

A historical jesus is no more vital to the story than a historical Hercules was.   Mythology does not work that way.

The early medieval Christian's altering of Josephus is certainly a fine example of believers lying in the name of their religion.

[Minimalist]

Nothing compared to Eusebius' forgery of the whole passage.