Over a 400 year period there were 26 so-called "prophets" claiming to be "the Christ" all of whom were heavily documented by both Greek and Roman authorities. None of them match the so called Jesus of the bible nor did they live in the approximate period the church claims. The bible itself proves that Jesus was simply a story made up by the Eastern Greco/Romans during the Jewish wars. Nazareth itself did not exist until much later as an attempt to provide "evidence" of the biblical accounts of the early life of Jesus and disproves them because incidents described in the bible could not have happened due to the lack of the type of terrain described. Also this so-called town was actually a cemetery and as a result it would have been forbidden by the religion of the time to live on top of the dead. This is just one example that disproves the bible as a credible source and if you do have a copy of the bible with pilgrimage maps inside you might be interested to know that Nazareth is not on them and neither are other important landmarks...
Even the concept of people being gathered to be taxed was ludicrous as the Byzantines used a system of "tax farming where a region was put up for bid and the person willing to pay the Emperor the highest price would have the right to squeeze as much as possible from the people of that region. This would result in an armed force traveling from estate to estate and town to town "assessing" the value of what people owned and demanding the taxes they wanted and if someone couldn't pay not only was their property confiscated they were often sold into slavery. Many members of the Senate were created this way as it was extremely expensive to buy a seat...

There are parts of the Jesus story may be thought of as original and good
but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.

Anonymous quote

You don't even know what Christ is. This is fucking hilarious!

I have several of John Dominic Crossan's books. He was a Catholic priest who became an authority on history especially during the time of the, so-called, Jesus. One critical element he followed was that all statements of that period had to be backed up by at least three proofs. Apparently, he has had enough of the Catholic BS and has left the church. In his books he did post numerous Roman drawings and sculptures showing a person surrounded by 12 other's so there was some reference to someone being seen as a leader during those times.

In Crossan's book "The Essential Jesus" there are many shots of engravings and even some Roman paintings of typical scenes from Biblical times. I love items like this as I also learn things. Diogenes of Sinop (I was stationed in that city while in the military and learned a lot about this figure. In fact the base was known as TUSLOG - meaning Turkish-US logistics Detachment 4 Diogenese station). He is considered the father of Cynic Philosophy which many figures (including mythical ones) as Jesus, John the Baptist and Francis of Assisi embraced.

True historians of the day have abandoned the terms Ad and BC. They now use the terms BCE (before the common era) and ACE (after the Common Era).

There has been some speculation that a minor figure became the basis for today's Jesus but this figure was said to be born a Jew and remain so throughout his life. It is (or should be) common knowledge that people question the dogmas of their religious beliefs. We see that in the figure of Luther and his rift in the Catholic Church. That rift went on and on so that now we have 100+ sects within the Protestant movement.

People should also be aware there were no schools or teachers for the common folk. Only a tiny fraction of the public could read or write and all history was passed around orally. Even Crossan mentioned how the bible has been translated with words that implied reading (visual) instead of orally (hearing).

In some a figure that supposedly represents a Jesus type philosopher is seen clothed in the style of a Cynic Philosopher. That philosophy did have a well documented figure behind it, Diogenese of Sinop.

Scene #1 This proto-Christian sarcophagus, dated between 250 abd 275,, could be read as either Pagan or Christian
Scene # 2 A typical eating scene. A Jesus is found standing at far right holding a scroll and clothed like a cynic philosopher.
#3 A typical teaching scene. To left: The raising of Lazarus

I have concluded that the bible is mostly just a bunch of mostly recycled myths from earlier religions and cultures...

non believers sure do spend a lot of time on belief. Isn't that odd?

One of my favourite writers/speakers on the subject is Prof. Richard Carrier. He reckons that there is a 50% chance that the Jesus of the bible was based on a real person. Although as mentioned above the town of Nazareth did not exist at the supposed time of his birth why go to the trouble of inventing the census story to have him born in Bethlehem. The Jews were desperate for a leader/messiah to lead then to former glories and it was prophesised that he would be born in Bethlehem.
So why not just have him born in Bethlehem without the Nazareth connection ?
This would point to the fact that a preacher/holy man of some note did come from there. .

So long ago I read of a scholar who said that Jesus was a common name in Palestine- and one such Jewish Jesus revolted because the Romans had taken over the temple. I believe he was executed. This had nothing to do with coming back from the dead or any of the other foolish nonsense. Apparently the historic Herod was an ultra evil man, killing members of his own family-but he was not known for having a campaign of killing babies. Like all cults, the Jewish cult of Christianity, took a man who was known to be evil and then invented a story.

And some of the most obvious basics: why, when this god-being, who created every thing, including physics, have to resort to some two-bit carny trick, like "walking on water". Did Newton have it all wrong?

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is either dubious or lacking. What is much more important is that Christian dogma requires a literal Adam and Eve to have committed the Original Sin, said Sin being atoned for by Jesus's death. As Adam and Even never existed, the PURPOSE of Jesus's existence also gets rendered as absurd.

Seriously, the whole thing is asinine on its face: contrived, childish in conception, and mostly plagiarized from pre-existing demi-gods. Plus, the moral content completely sucks being primitive, misogynistic, promoting hatred, and anything but moral. One can ONLY believe it if they are nihilistic narcissists indifferent to self-delusion.

Ohferpetesake, the Romans were known for Obsessive record-keeping.
Think there were lists of the many crucified in any area they occupied?
You betcha, and not one Jesus at the times suggested...quelle surprise!

There is no historical evidence for the biblical Jesus outside of the bible and the apocryphal gospels.
Chrisitian claim this is not surprising.
Until you point out there is historical evidence for John the Baptist and his sect of followers called Christians or anointed ones, Simon Magus, Simon Zealotes, the whole clan of the Isicari whose members were called Iscariots, All of the Herods, Pontius Pilate, his wife and his mother, Jesus Barabbas, and about eight other prophets called Jesus existing between 4 BCE and 60 CE, some of whom share various traits with Jesus of Nazareth, which is highly unsurprising because it is a matter of historical fact that Nazareth did not start to be built until 35 CE

Biblical Jesus is a myth comprised of many characters from more or less contemporary times, used as a basis to make money and power bases, by Saul of Tarsus and his opportunist cronies.

By this "logic" Hannibal didn't exist. it's basically embarrassing atheists get so worked up over this.

Jesus Existed; Stop Saying He Didn't
You're making atheists and agnostics look ignorant:

[jamesfell.substack.com]

Just as it is impossible to prove Jesus existed, so it is impossible to prove that he did not. (Notice how similar this is to the question of God's existence, which likewise can neither be proven nor disproven.) Happily, we free thinkers are not obligated to plant a flag on either hill. Anyone who does just falls into a trap. But there is an attractive solution: simply consider the problem in terms of probabilities. What is the likelihood that Jesus actually existed? Tot up the evidence, and put a percentage number on it. Let that number be greater than 0% and less than 100%. Studiously avoid the numbers 0% and 100%. If you do this, you can't go wrong.

Example:
I rate the probability that an Aramaic-speaking carpenter from Nazareth who preached love and forgiveness and was named Jesus at about 75%. None of the stuff I mentioned above stretches the imagination. It's all plausible.

If you insist that I must include all the supernatural malarky associated with the Jesus legend, i.e. miracles, resurrection, etc., then I put the probability equal to that of God's existence, i.e. much closer to zero. Say, 0.000000001%.

In my opinion there is no reliable evidence for a historical Jesus. As said above, those who claim otherwise have no real proof. Once ideas of Christianity started appearing many produced what they said was evidence but they had northing to show. When Paul said that over 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection this would not prove anything when many had no last name, then also have no historical record themselves. I see no way that this can ever be resolved in modern times. Some of this is because it was never resolved 2000 years ago. Looks to be too late now.