[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cheese

--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;

This one is neither here nor there... I'm not arguing Jesus was divine, just that someone similar to him existed and started some trouble that directly or indirectly lead to Christianity. He could have easily been told by someone else to spread the rumor that this con man was divine.

--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;

Nor should they. Why give Jesus a tangible appearance and risk alienating the people you're trying to indoctrinate. Jews have been white, black, brown and everything in between. Real or not, I'd leave this part out too if I wanted to create a sellable legend.

--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;

The precise year is indeterminable, even with intact Roman censuses, most of which were destroyed, they still couldnt say, hmm... December 25th, 1 AD. There's enough evidence to indicate that a Jesus like person was likely born between something like 2 and 9 CE/AD. Divine, Regular Schmo or otherwise, we have to accept that 2000 year old events of one person deemed inconsequential to the ruling elite of the day are tough to completely nail down. We're not talking cities being wiped out. That they could nail down, cause it mattered to the government. (ie: Vesuvius = August 24, AD 79)

--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;

Again, there doesn't have to be. The Jesus of Myth needed that story to establish divinity. The Jesus of history might have had a normal childhood.

--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;

The Jesus of Myth needs this connection cause of superstition. Again, the likely Jesus who more than likely existed in some interpretation didn't have to be. Of course, he could have lied about it too... not like they had paternity tests in AD 5-50.

--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;

This is a ridiculous explanation. This is easily dismissed as a screw up, regardless if Jesus is real, fake or otherwise. Maybe he was senile or had some sort of dementia? Who knows.

--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;

Not surprising... they were written long after the fact, historical or divine. There's bound to be screw ups either way.

--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;

Just a bunch of writers from the general era who didn't grace the Bible with their presence.

--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;

Jesus wasn't important to Tacitus. In fact, he even claims Jesus is a con. He refers to him more like a historical footnote.

--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even
--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.

They've also been bent to an anti-Christian spin just as easily. That's part of the fun. The fact is, you have at least five different people of non-Christian background, all describing a character that fits the description and somehow they must all be lying? I'm not saying the divine Jesus ever existed, but there was clearly someone they either based the myth on who had nothing to do with the Bible writings, or someone that came close that they sugar coated.

Former evangelical minister Dan Barker points out in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, “[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.”

Did Jesus Exist?

Further...if you have proof of Jesus Christ being recorded in any census please let the Historians know...because if you do have something its likely a fabrication.

Roman history records no census ever in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.

The "census" I was referred to likely meant one of the writers, likely a Roman one (probably Tacitus or Pliny). It was long ago that I took that class, but it was considered evidence enough to substantiate some sort of Jesus of History.

The requirement was probably just tossed in the Bible for effect. Likely because of the likely fact that Jesus of history wasn't born in Bethlehem, as the prophecy said the Messiah would be born in. So, a reason was invented to put him there. The Romans would have been logistically challenged to have a forced and enforceable census at that time. The Romans were often used as rallying point for early Christians... which is why this was invented.

Phew... can't believe I'm taking the time to defend this. I'm not even a Jesus freak or anything. I'm just pretty sure there was a Jesus of History that the religion was (loosely) based on.