I think this could be possible

Of course we'll never know the truth unless some indisputable archaeological evidence surfaces.

Er, historical FACT states that the N.T. was written post the Council of Nicaea in 325C.E. ergo, some 3 Centuries after the mythological events were supposed to have occurred.

@Triphid
I think you may mean the NT was COMPILED after the first council of Nicaea 325C.E from a selection of existing documents many of which were rejected because they were too compliant with the Gnostic, anabaptist or cathar forms of Christianity.
THAT is a fact. LOOK IT UP

So the general consensus among historians is that of the four gospels Mark was written about 66 CE, Luke slightly later and was a contemporary of Matthew, John was the last written on Patmos at about 120, going by the dating of some of the philosophy espoused in the gospel.

@LenHazell53 Er, it was Decreed and Ordered by Emperor Constantine I and the Council of Bishops at Nicaea, 325C.E. that the N.T. was to written and COMPILED by no less that 40 Scribes in the lands under the Roman Imperial Control. These scribes were separated most times by thousands of miles, with NO direct communication/s and under the guidance of the ruling Bishop of that land and a few acolytes. Hence the patent and blatant contradictions, errors, etc, etc, to be found in their thousands in the N.T.
Also, it was decreed at the Council that the O.T. should also written and only contain the scriptures and passages, etc, from the Pentateuch of the Hebrews that were deemed to suit the ideologies of the Emperor, the Bishops of the Council and the underlying aim to CREATE a unifying belief that would replace all other so-called 'Pagan' beliefs and create a base whereby the Church and State could reap the financial benefits of the same.

@Triphid So you admit you are wrong then, good.

@LenHazell53 Excuse me BUT, could you explain precisely WHERE I admitted I was wrong?
I gave, almost verbatim, the recorded, historical data re- the Council of Nicaea and the Mandatum Imperatum ( Emperors' Mandate) handed down at the 325C.E. ( A.D.. according to the old dating method) Nicaean Council Assembly.

@Triphid You agreed it was compiled at the first council of Nicaea NOT written there, I admit it was Written Down by scribes but I can't imagine anyone would be so petty as to say that this was actually arguing transcribing and authorship can be confused.
Contending the books comprising the new testament were authored in 325 CE at Nicaea is tantamount to claiming the complete works of Shakespeare was written in 1790 because that was the first time they were collected and published together.

I'll say this one more time your claim that

"Er, historical FACT states that the N.T. was written post the Council of Nicaea in 325C.E. ergo, some 3 Centuries after the mythological events were supposed to have occurred."

Is incorrect in the context of my post, that the books of the new testament with the exception of the fake Paul epistles, were ALL written within the first centuries after the supposed events took place, but not before 66 C.E. NOT in 325 C.E.

Some editing was done later such as the introduction of the Resurrection story to the gospel of mark as late as the 6th century, but again that is addition and subtraction not authorship.

Now enough of this pointless quibbling.

@LenHazell53ntless to you perhaps, BUT not one has spent over 5 years studying to gain their degree in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions, a ThD, I might add.

Excellent book as is The Jesus Myth by G. A. Wells a classic of the theory

There was one entry by Josephus that was likely to be accurate, in addition to a stone carving referring to Pointus Pilate and the James Ossurary. The Romans were meticulous with record keeping but the Jews were so meaningless to them, they did not name each one they crucified and they certainly did that. I have read tons on this subject and I am convinced he existed. Bart Ephraim's the Historical Jesus is a very good source. In this matter, it is the lack of evidence that is relevant. He wasn't a miracle worker, not the son of god, or even a very naughty boy. I think he was a charismatic interesting guy who knew how to wow a crowd with some pretty words. It does not detract from my overall lack of belief to believe existed.
[en.m.wikipedia.org] A wiki page about the Ossuary.

@Amisja Thanks for the input! However if he did exist, that would have been of historical significance. His name wouldn't be Jesus Christ. Christ is a title, not a name. Comes from Latin meaning Christos. The one, or the annotated one. His name would translated to Joshua son of Dave, or Joshua of Nazareth. Last names were non-existant at the time.

Even if Josephous was right, we have one writing proving he lived? Also nails were not used to crucify. Used ropes.

@TheGreatShadow [en.m.wikipedia.org]
Sometimes they were, it makes no difference as the victim would have died from asphyxiation rather than from the wounds.
I have read quotes by John Lennon that were definitely fake and he died within my life time. There is likely to be lots of falsehoods around this character but he was written about reasonably soon after his death (first accounts about 50 years). In addition, he is completely NOT the usual type of Roman hero. In fact he is exactly not the sort of person the Romans honoured. They did not like fallible gods, they liked their gods to be larger than life superheroes.

@Amisja No there is one section on one page that mentions Jesus in the whole of Josephus and almost everyone agrees it is a later insert, what is interesting is that Josephus dedicated a whole undisputed chapter to John the Baptist and all that HE is described as being believed to be the messiah and certainly NO ONE's herald.

@LenHazell53 There are two mentions of Jesus one fake, one probably genuine. I linked a reference above. The story from the three wise man to the miracles to his ressurection was probably wrong but as we know now that everyone of his 'miracles' are naturally occuring events then I think he probably existed. Have you seen Denom Brown or any of the mediums on TV? They can get normally intelligent 2018 people to believe they have experienced alsorts. Now imagine someone just as clever (they are likely to have existed then) with very primative people and insert someone who makes them believe they saw him walk on water. I believe this guy existed and the lack of evidence is part of the reason. Almost like he was deliberately expunged from history. I really don't believe any of the stuff about him being the son of god but he was probably around. I see him as half che guevara and half ghandi. I think he was middle eastern, so dark skinned. Paul talks about cutting their hair short so to be distinct from the jews, so probably Jesus had long hair.
These people have always existed. People that humans pin their hope on in times of oppression, people prepared to speak out knowing it will likely mean their early demise. Everything I have read leads me to the conclusion that this wandering charismatic, communist, hippy definitely lived, was definitely killed and any legacy was silenced. (Or the attempt was there). As Bart Ephraim says 'any serious academic believes in the historical jesus'.

@Amisja
" I believe this guy existed and the lack of evidence is part of the reason."
I read as far as this and am afraid had to come to conclusion you and I will never even agree to differ because that is perhaps one of the most stupid statements I have every heard.

@LenHazell53 That is really rather rude. I suggest doing some background reading. I believe he did exist. The fact that he was not in any other sources, despite the tentative evidence there is, the fact that the other characters are mentioned but he wasn't gives a lot of real experts (not me I hasten to add) a sense of deliberate removal from the historical record. I am sorry you find me stupid.

Read my comment. I can elaborate more.

@TheGreatShadow which comment?

@TheGreatShadow Sorry I did read it and replied. I have Josephus' history of the jews and read both entries. One is definitely fake. Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. Why would he mention someone who did not exist. The other entry refers to Jesus being a good teacher...

@Amisja That Jesus the teacher is not Jesus of Nazareth he is the Jesus of the apocryphal book the wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach which was removed from the protestant canon so as not to "confuse" the faithful

Jim, I have read the book and it is quite good. I respect Carrier's work to a great extent.