....I think I'm in love at first sight LOL Seriously...thank you

Have you checked into the mushroom suit? It is the best, most environmentally friendly, way to return one's energy to the earth and to the universe.

@Joanne No, I'll stick with the fire. After that who knows. My daughter may hold the ashes out the car window, but I'm sure I won't mind

@ronnie40356 I want the mushroom suit. But, if it were possible, I have to admit, I like the idea of being set afloat on a wooden raft and having an archer set it alight with a flaming arrow.

I agree, and am a fellow Jesus mythicist. However, I would not say there is zero historical evidence. Near-zero would be more accurate. But even that is only true if you apply the standards of historians, which are pretty low for purposes of skeptics. History isn't science, and doesn't have same operating principles.

The way I see it, the fabulist mythos of the gospels is so problematic that it hardly matters if it's "based on" a real person or not. We don't have to blow a gasket trying to disprove historical Jesus. It's the least of our problems.

@mordant source for your near zero?

@Mofo1953 The consensus of professional historians leans toward HJ. In my view it is an exercise in reading the very few tea leaves that we have and requires you to argue from absence of evidence to an extent -- for example, the absence of any ancient historical source specifically saying Jesus was total fiction.

It doesn't meet my sniff test, not least because so many historians have direct or indirect ties to Christian institutions. Again, my point was near zero historical evidence and that is a low bar when it comes to the ancient world. You can cobble together internal textual evidence from the NT, and Tacitus, together with generally accepted and not-to-be-questioned dating of these various documents, and a few other odds and ends and say the evidence leans toward HJ (and in some cases, they will say, with a high degree of confidence). And if you do that, you'll keep your tenure and have the respect of recognized fellow ancient middle-east specialists. You will not have my respect though.

well....There are countless documentaries. I know it is only written in biblical areas. However, it is written. There must have been some man named Jesus. And he probably did good things. No I have nothing to totally base this on except when people write things down, and it is accepted as truth, then there is at least a minor case for evidence. It's the same when someone lies. Based a lie with a half truth and people believe it. Perhaps its all a lie. Perhaps its all true. Honestly. we do not have a way of knowing.

@mordant again, source for the "consensus" you mention?

@JustLuAnn documentaries from christian sources, don't fall for their brainwadhing.

@Mofo1953 Google "historicity of Jesus" and it's everywhere. [en.wikipedia.org] for example:

"Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, and standard historical criteria has aided in reconstructing his life. However, scholars differ on the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. Despite this, very few scholars have argued for non-historicity and have not succeeded due to abundance of evidence to the contrary."

I don't have to like this, but I don't have to deny it, either. I do of course critique it, along the general lines I've already laid out. I don't buy it personally.

Historicity is a different question, to non-scientific standards, than the question of the validity of Christian truth claims generally, such as that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles or even that he had a significant role in founding the faith or defining its early orthodoxy.

@mordant you are falling for the christian propaganda, the wikipedia article per se mentions historicity is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with historical. Have youbseen what does "historicity" use as "source"? The new testament. Puhleezee, do not waste my time again citing these "scientists" who use the new testament as source. Bullcrap!!

@Mofo1953 Historicity primarily uses textual criticism of the NT, yes, but it also tends to assume Jesus had to be historical unless someone explicitly says he wasn't, thus turning the utter paucity of extrabiblical evidence into an advantage. Roman historian and politician Tacitus is probably the best extrabiblical clue they have ("Chrestians" are named after "Chrestus" who suffered the "ultimate penalty" under our governor Pilate thus stamping out a "pernicious superstition" which nevertheless didn't stay stamped out). They use this to establish Tacitus as a hostile witness attesting to the non-fanstastical aspects of the gospel narrative.

It's my view that Tacitus picked his battles and had no reason to substantiate what was probably by his time an oft-repeated campfire story. He was content to style the founder of the personality cult of "Chrestus" as a common criminal that Rome disposed of. So I'm not impressed by that passage. But it is an example of the dribs and drabs of extrabiblical evidence they do push. Why, some of them even try to burnish off the Testimonium Flavium and reverse a long-standing consensus that it was a pious fraud. This, to me, shows their desperation.

I do not respect their work any more than you do, but it is nevertheless a real, actually extant academic consensus and we do not improve our credibility by claiming that it is not. I simply disagree with it. I don't claim to be in some sort of imagined majority view. Long live the resistance!

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that a person, who is at the root of the myths about him that later arose, did exist.

If this Jesus had been completely fabricated, I think those responsible would have done a better job of making sure there were no contradictions about him, his life, his teachings. And, they would have done a better job of having him fulfill prophesy.

Instead, his life story is contradictory and prophesies are vague or poorly fulfilled. That he starts out as a human, and a couple of centuries later was turned into the god of the universe, shows every indication that there originally was a person who inspired some faithful people who made an impression on a person likely named Saul/Paul; and the stories about him changed over time.

This person was turned into something he wasn't after Paul got through with him. John the Baptist later turned him into the god of the universe; and the Catholic Church took over adding their take (borrowing heavily form Pagan religions so they could appeal to the masses).

I do take issue, however, that she said that he "probably didn't walk on water, rise form the dead and cure people." I think it is a scientific given that he did not do any of these things.

Whoever this Jesus person was, he could not alter the laws of physics and was not a true miracle worker. These stories are all a part of the myth of Jesus.

@mordant chrestus comes from the christ, which is mentioned in the old testament as the coming messiah, one of the falacies used by christians is to rename Jesus as Jesus Christ, guess why? to fulfill the old testament prophecy after the fact. According to the new testament, jesus was jesus, never called the christ or chrestus, but renamed as jesus christ by Constantine when trying to fit the square pegs in the round holes, what tacitus was referring to was the sect of chrestians, which did exist, were reported in the judean annals, spied upon because romans did not like sects that could disrupt the peace, anyway, they were waiting for the coming of that messiah, very different from a historical jesus that is not mentioned anywhere in the annals of the romans, and keep in mind that the romans were sticklers for keeping records, especially of the occupied countries like judea, so a) there is no historical evidence for a jesus in any of the annals of the roman occupation, what tacitus speaks of is a sect of chrestians, jews who were expecting the coming of the messiah called christ which of course never came because the old testament is also full of tons of bs, don't fall for erroneous propaganda, stopping my participation here because really don't have time to waste in this issue which has been settled by real historians.

@Joanne It was just a way of wording about him not walking on water. Of course he didn't. I just worded it that he probably didn't....shrugs.

@Joanne, @Mofo1953 Stop at any time.

@Mofo1953 There were many messiah figures that arose over the span of a few decades in this region. How many of them were mentioned by name in historical records? Because they weren't mentioned by name, does that mean they did not exist?

Maybe this person who inspired the Jesus myth was named Jesus/Yeshua--maybe not. And, because this person was not the large crowd gathering, miracle worker, that stood out from the crowd, it is not surprising that there is no mention of him--he just wasn't that important to anyone but a small group of followers.

And, the only reason he became what he did was because of Paul. Paul was the first to start turning this person into something he wasn't, and the job was finished by what became the Catholic Church.

I would love to prove that no such person ever existed. But, the majority of real historians do think there was an historical person who is at the root of the myths.

But, in the end, it really does not matter. Whoever he was, he was not a god, or the God, and was not the savior of mankind.

@Joanne for something that doesn't matter at all it seems you can't let it go, and each response gets longer. Let it go.

@Mofo1953 No just Queen of the post.

@Mofo1953 Also it is people like YOU who seem so bitter and unkind. However, since my post was about forgiveness. I forgive you.

@JustLuAnn bitter and unkind? Heard the saying about never assume?

Nor would I expect you to. It is only my way of thinking. It has served me all these years. I don't see me changing. I'm pretty happy just the way I am.