Well, as an Atheist Theologian, yes that IS right AN Atheist who has studied for and gained a ThD, I can safely say that the Jesus as depicted in the bible ( The Goat-herders Guide to the Galaxy) IS a 100% completely fiction based work of Religious Propaganda created solely from innumerable other sources and ages older myths and legends plagiarized, twisted and contorted by the Scribes who were ordered at the Council of Nicaea, circa 325 C.E. to suit the ends and means of the Founders of the Christian Movement.
The truth of the entire matter is that the WHOLE bible is nothing more a work of plagiarism from the first chapter of Genesis to the last word of Revelations.

Richard Carrier is a very well-educated historian and what he says in relation to the history surrounding the time Jesus lived makes a great deal of sense to me.

Nice to see so much substantiated debunking in one article.

I thoroughly enjoyed the read. Thanks for posting!

I enjoy parts of the Apochrypha! Giants from "heaven" mating with earthlings, aaannnddd etc...they were considered part of "sacred texts" for centuries....

Short answer is no. Zero historical evidence. Zero archeological evidence. To discuss biblical evidence is a waste of time because the old testament doesnt even mention the name in any prophecy and the new testament was wtitten after the fact. See didn't need such a lengthy discussion. I did read the whole thing and it coyld have been significantly shortened only discussing the lack of evidence from all the roman historians mentioned there.

"jesus" was not mentioned in ANY literature for more than 100 years after his supposed existence.

To me, this indicates he did not exist and is only a manufactured fable that become a hysteria.

How about the evidence from an actual (non-believer) Biblical Scholar ?

[bartdehrman.com]

I was really glad to read Note F at the end, because that was grating at me through the whole read haha

Note F:
"I say “official gospels” because there are, in fact, many other gospels known. Once people started making them up, they sort of got stuck in over-drive. Only later on in Christian history did the number get pared back to four."

Furthermore, it doesn't address something I found interesting years ago. I read something that pointed out that the story of "Jesus" actually wasn't as unique as Christians are led to believe. Throughout history there have been stories of others who share almost exactly the same story as him, just a different name, area, and time. Honestly, I think the Jesus story was a recycled story that had been "modernly revamped", and for some reason it stuck (probably as a means for control).

He does exist. He is from Mexico and stole the hub caps off my car last week!

Serious note, Christ is a title, not a name. Last names were not common at the time he supposedly lived. It would have been something like Joshua son of Joseph, or Jesus of Nazareth, or something like that.

PLUS THE ROMANS HAVE NO RECORD OF SUCH A PERSON! They kept track of EVERYTHING. Even seemingly meaningless paperwork has survived. No record of Jeebus tho. The devil did that to "trust my faith"?

Don't think this website would exist if he did.

Possibly not and maybe a Roman invention to control the Jews with. As I get older it is more on my mind that the meeting between Jesus and Pilot probably did not happen and it is likely that they each did not speak the same language. I'm sure there could have been many at that time who wanted to usher in a new Kingdom and I doubt there was reason to interview them. If they caused a problem just execute them. You Jews just look at this. Now you have killed your own Messiah.

Lots of great posts on this question, but in MHO, the important question is not, “did a man named Jesus exist,” but was he God incarnate ? And knowing this group, I know the resounding answer.

Many talks on this. My biggest question. Who cares. I know a few people that have the name Jesus. If they are, or were real people says nothing to the point of their 'divinity' .

No Buddhist scripture was written down until hundreds of years following Siddhārtha Gautama's death, yet as far as I know no one questions the Buddha’s existence.

I know this has no bearing on the question of the existence of Jesus, yet it does somewhat explain the lack of historical records in general.

I have no vested interest in whether the guy existed, but I rather like some of his alleged teachings. Someone wrote those things. We are all brothers and sisters together.

Religions is about money, politics and power. That's why it's still around and will probably remain forever. Look at the damned politics now!

I am sure that Jesus existed. Didn't you read the account of him discovering Koolaid? It was brilliant. He kept a party going by having the brilliant foresight to have dried grape powder with him to mix with water. He pulled it off so well that people thought it was godly. What a downright righteous partier.

No. Jesus is a Jewish myth. Clearly described in hebrew texts. Richard Carrier is the clear authority on this crap.

That was one of the most thorough and concise articles that I’ve read in regards to Christianity. And thank you for sharing this.

If he did, there's certainly more evidence that this figure did not exist. Which would be odd for someone who had 12 adult men following him around everywhere, allegedly. It would be even more odd if there were no records or written accounts of this person. Especially someone famous during his time for performing miracles, healings and prophecy. How weird would it be if no one even wrote about this great person until a hundred or more years later?

Man, that would be weird.

I think it's likely that some guy named Jesus existed, though he was just regular person who sold religion to people. Heck, he might have been a nice guy, just completely lacking in superpowers. It seems more plausible that a religion was created around a person that actually existed rather than a purely fictional person. If Buddha, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith existed, then it seems likely that Jesus did too.

There are several points in the article that I could discuss but for brevity this on I will discuss for now. "Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus – and thus cannot both be correct – we must ask why real eye-witnesses "

From wikipedia on Eye witness memory: However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible.[1] [en.m.wikipedia.org].

This is just a starting point to research further understanding the reason eye witnesses give different testimonies. I have had other training in police academy that gave more indepth explination. I do not have those references right now but you could do your own further research.

This is a question I ask, "Did the biblical author(s) intended with purpose to make the eye eye witness accounts appear to be contradictory so that modern day psychologists would consider the statements more authentic.

If the various writtings purported to be from different people then it would be a lot more "fishy" for all of the information to match up exactly perfect.

Where as if we considered "all biblical text was written by one person and only one person ", that person would have to be a freaking genius to have the difference in testiment that appears scientificly like eye witness testimony is observed for being contradictory.

Are you for real???

LMAO!!!

Brilliant read.
Common sense and simple logical reasoning are enough to confirm the non existence of this figure.

Even if Jesus did exist as a mortal man which is extremely unlikely there is absolutely no evidence of any higher powers. Anybody with any common sense should be able to figure that out.
I use to support American Atheist but when I figured out they were dominated by left wing liberal idiots I withdrew all my support even though I agree with them about their lack of religious beliefs. In fact I eventually concluded that the religious folks were far better people than those left wing nuts who are predominate in American atheist.