Was Jesus of Nazareth a religious loon?

[Vicki Q]

Okay, you're a literalist

Not at all, and focussing on my last sentence has rather sent you off in the wrong direction, I'm afraid.
To repeat and hopefully clarify- there are strong arguments which say the Matthew pre-resurrection return from the dead didn't happen, and strong arguments which say that it did. I'd go non liquet.
If you're planning on discussing this further, please review the arguments and you'll no doubt see why the alien reference fails.

But, why did the pagan philosopher Seneca never once, in all of his writings (124 letters, plus a bunch of other stuff) never, even once, mention the existence of Jesus:

If this is heading towards Mythical Jesus, I'm out.
I'd rather spend the time picking fluff from between my toes again than waste time on that silly nonsense.
Where to begin? Probably that Xianity was a minor Jewish sect and as such barely registered on his radar. Possibly he did and the work never survived. Probably because most of the time Jesus doesn't feature in the plays he's writing any more than on my shopping lists. I mean, he got close enough to Paul's thinking to be called 'Our Seneca' so perhaps he did know something about Jesus but chose not to go with references that could be too obscure to his audience.

Why did Josephus, in his The Jewish War never once mention Jesus' existence, but yet, discuss, at length, Pontius Pilate??

Saving it for Antiquities? Despite the controversy over the references, it seems very possible that some sort(s) of comment(s) got made in Antiquities, by which time the Church was actually getting noticed.
Furthermore, Josephus had made up his mind that God had gone over to the Romans, hence the claims of Jesus to be enacting the Kingdom of God must have been false. Nothing to see here.

By the way, was Jesus crucified on Friday (as recorded in the Synoptics) or on Passover (a Thursday), as recorded in John's Gospel?

My, we're really flying around with our topics!
N.T.Wright gives a detailed argument (JVG p555) supporting John, and I think it probably works with the synoptics skipping over timing details to emphasise it as a Passover meal theologically.

Do you understand why, as a former believer, now atheist, that I do not take the existence of Jesus as being some first-century miracle worker who traveled about Palestine raising people from the dead and giving sight to the blind as a serious historical possibility??  Instead, is it not far more probable that Jesus was just some early first century apocalyptic loon whom the Romans crucified at the behest of the Jewish authorities who were in Jerusalem after Jesus started an altercation in the Temple on the Day of Passover?

Both really. Jesus was undoubtedly seen as rather unhinged for what He was claiming- to be the one through whom the Kingdom of God is enacted, especially given the way He was steering people away from the conventional military victory. The Temple action probably sealed His fate as He was getting too big to ignore.

However there is little doubt historically that those closest to Him believed that he did things they considered miracles. And there's still the not small matter of why this small Jewish sect got started with the belief set that it did. Why would they think the almighty Kingdom of God had begun, when the counterarguments- their wannabe Messiah dead on a cross, Romans still in situ, etc, are so utterly compelling?

[The Grand Nudger]

"Jesus" wasn't seen at all, that's the problem.

The people who believed the myths weren't close to any jesus, let alone a christ. No closer than you are.

[Jehanne]

However there is little doubt historically that those closest to Him believed that he did things they considered miracles. And there's still the not small matter of why this small Jewish sect got started with the belief set that it did. Why would they think the almighty Kingdom of God had begun, when the counterarguments- their wannabe Messiah dead on a cross, Romans still in situ, etc, are so utterly compelling?

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure who existed; I do not believe that the canonical Gospels fall into the category of being "ancient biographies" of his life.  As for Paul, who shows little interest in the historical Jesus, I believe that he was an apocalypticist who advanced his own theology about Jesus, as did Paul's competitors in the diverse set of religious traditions that scholars have come to refer to as ancient Christianities.

[Vicki Q]

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure who existed; I do not believe that the canonical Gospels fall into the category of being "ancient biographies" of his life.

I'm surprised that you think that, given it is the consensus of scholarship that they are. Indeed, so assumed is it that writers are using that as a basis for implications

To be fair, they are widely recognised as being far more than simple bioi. Luke subverts the thrust and context of pagan bioi by proclaiming his monotheistic theology. Matthew tells it as a conclusion to the Jewish story. Etc.

But they are all for sure within the category of bios.

As for Paul, who shows little interest in the historical Jesus,

Really? He is writing pastoral letters, so he could be forgiven for not saying much about Jesus' history. But that's absolutely not the case- his writing is grounded in who Jesus was and what He did. For example, start right at the beginning Romans 1:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—  the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe that he was an apocalypticist who advanced his own theology about Jesus, as did Paul's competitors in the diverse set of religious traditions that scholars have come to refer to as ancient Christianities.

I agree there was immense friction between the various factions within the Early Church. The NT is very open about this.

Paul's problems were about the continued insistence by some on following Torah. There's nothing to debate about: Jesus' mission, death, resurrection, relationship to the Father etc.

(In the writings towards the end of C1 gnosticism becomes a problem, but Paul was long gone by then.)

[The Grand Nudger]

The inevitable shoe falls. Vicki is even using the phrase "consensus of scholarship" in a novel form. It's impossible to have a productive conversation with a person when you're using such a phrase to refer to wildly disparate things.

[Fake Messiah]

As for Paul, who shows little interest in the historical Jesus,

Really? He is writing pastoral letters, so he could be forgiven for not saying much about Jesus' history. But that's absolutely not the case- his writing is grounded in who Jesus was and what He did. For example, start right at the beginning Romans 1:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—  the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Still there is not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching. In fact, in Romans 15:3-4 Paul all but tells us there are no stories about Jesus to draw upon – nothing but what we read about in the Jewish scriptures.

But then again it seems that Paul wrote those scriptures by looking at "secret" messages in the old Jewish writings and thus Paul himself invented Jesus(?)

Galatians 1:11-12   I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-16  But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

[The Grand Nudger]

Paul certainly invented the form of christianity that would win the culture war which played out in the vacuum of late roman civil organization. It would be more accurate to say that the Pauline tradition won, though..what with "paul" being as much of a real boy as "jesus". Both searches for these hypothetical individuals began at about the same time, and neither has borne any fruit.

[Jehanne]

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure who existed; I do not believe that the canonical Gospels fall into the category of being "ancient biographies" of his life.

I'm surprised that you think that, given it is the consensus of scholarship that they are. Indeed, so assumed is it that writers are using that as a basis for implications

To be fair, they are widely recognised as being far more than simple bioi. Luke subverts the thrust and context of pagan bioi by proclaiming his monotheistic theology. Matthew tells it as a conclusion to the Jewish story. Etc.

But they are all for sure within the category of bios.

The reference from your Wikiipedia article is from 2004, but, fine, then I am happy to reject the "scholarly consensus"!  The scholar whom I trust, Professor Bart Ehrman, is the author of the following (now in its 7th edition):

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th Edition

Can't recommend Professor Ehrman's writings enough!!

[Abaddon_ire]

I'm surprised that you think that, given it is the consensus of scholarship that they are. Indeed, so assumed is it that writers are using that as a basis for implications

To be fair, they are widely recognised as being far more than simple bioi. Luke subverts the thrust and context of pagan bioi by proclaiming his monotheistic theology. Matthew tells it as a conclusion to the Jewish story. Etc.

But they are all for sure within the category of bios.

The reference from your Wikiipedia article is from 2004, but, fine, then I am happy to reject the "scholarly consensus"!  The scholar whom I trust, Professor Bart Ehrman, is the author of the following (now in its 7th edition):

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th Edition

Can't recommend Professor Ehrman's writings enough!!

BWAHAHAHA. Two or three days ago, I saw a religious cretin in debate with Bart actually accuse him of not understanding the bible (Licona I think).

They don't care about truth. At all.

[Jehanne]

The reference from your Wikiipedia article is from 2004, but, fine, then I am happy to reject the "scholarly consensus"!  The scholar whom I trust, Professor Bart Ehrman, is the author of the following (now in its 7th edition):

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th Edition

Can't recommend Professor Ehrman's writings enough!!

BWAHAHAHA. Two or three days ago, I saw a religious cretin in debate with Bart actually accuse him of not understanding the bible (Licona I think).

They don't care about truth. At all.

Consider this finding from the Jesus Seminar:

Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar.

Jesus Seminar Phase 1: Sayings of Jesus

The four canonical Gospels were "ancient biographies"???