What theories do people have against Jesus NOT being a real person? Not about whether he did miracles, or was the son of God, or etc., but that he is 100% a fictional character?

Because majority of historians generally agree that he at least existed. So I'm curious what would make someone say, "Nah, he's a fake guy".

Am I misunderstanding these statements as, "He was real but everything about him was made up, so he might as well be a fake guy"?

>>17773776 (OP)
Historians "generally agree" because saying anything otherwise means they get 37,577,558 screeching christfans on their back every single day. See also: what this thread will instantly turn into.

They didn't write anything down until way later. I can write a story about something that happened 300 years ago and no one would have any fact-based recourse against it. Not to mention a lot of messiah tales out of the time period in other religions have the same overal plot points like coming back from the dead and performing miracles.

>>17773777
Screeching religious people hasn't stopped many people saying that God isn't real, which is a more extreme statement than saying Jesus wasn't real.

>>17773783
See? You're doing it already.

>>17773776 (OP)
>What theories do people have against Jesus NOT being a real person? Not about whether he did miracles, or was the son of God, or etc., but that he is 100% a fictional character?

Those are really the same in essence.
What is Jesus without his miracles?
Some guy who talked about religion on a regular basis? We have them on /his/ as well.
Some guy who was executed by the Romans? Far from uncommon in I century Judaea

A rabbi called Yeshua who lived 2000 years ago is as exceptional as a priest called John living down the road if no miracles are part of the picture

>>17773789
>Any rebuttal whatsoever about anything = screeching

I wasn't claiming God was real, I was saying the logic of, "They just don't wanna be bothered" makes no sense because they make a more extreme statement regardless.

>>17773792
>What is Jesus without his miracles?
A philosopher, according to Jefferson.

>>17773812
>continues to do it

>>17773776 (OP)
No contemporary evidence for his existence, but of course these same people will ignore that contemporary evidence doesn't exist for many historical people even today, it's really obvious it's an agenda because they don't touch upon any of the others while by their own logic we might aswell just put most of these figures as fictional characters

>>17773777
>Historians "generally agree" because saying anything otherwise means they get 37,577,558 screeching christfans on their back every single day.
Historians publicly agree 99.9% of Biblical figures didn't exist. Moses, Saul, Solomon, David, Adam, Eve, Noah, Jonah, Abraham, etc. Why not just throw Jesus on the pile?

>>17773856
>doing it intensifies

>>17773776 (OP)
>historians generally agree
They have to, otherwise they have to admit that they have no evidence for the existence of all these other people, like Socrates, Alexander the great, etc.

>>17773776 (OP)
>Am I misunderstanding these statements as, "He was real but everything about him was made up, so he might as well be a fake guy"?
No, the theory is that Jesus was originally known about entirely through schizo-reading of Jewish scripture and personal revelation -- a celestial being from the highest heaven who descended in disguise (As in the "Vision of Isaiah"), eventually taking on human form either in the sublunary heaven where he was killed by archons, then buried (still in the heavens, as happens in the "Life of Adam and Eve"), and resurrected. Or perhaps he descended all the way to earth where he disguised himself as some random person about to be executed and was crucified in their place, but still he was known about only through scripture and personal revelation *after* his resurrection.

And then his "historical" life began with the proto-gospel of Mark as an intentional fiction, a convenient way to convey the exoteric and esoteric teachings of the apostles (mainly Paul, perhaps unexpectedly) through direct speech and symbolism, with most details of his life being built mainly out of references to the Jewish scriptures, references to the writings and life of of Paul and the other apostles, and references to recent and contemporary events.

And then the other gospels were riffs off of protoMark trying to set forth a different perspective, sometimes directly opposed to protoMark and Paul. E.g. in Mark Jesus says "Whoever is not against us is for us." (indirectly supporting Paul's legitimacy as an apostle) while Matthew swaps that out for "Whoever is not with is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (perhaps indirectly opposing Paul's legitimacy as an Apostle).

>>17773950
It sounds bizarre, but, if you look into it, the case is much better than you'd think. And it explains the weirdness of how there are arguably no unambiguous references to a genuine historical Jesus figure in the oldest not-forged Christian writings. E.g. Jesus says pay taxes, and Paul says pay taxes. But Paul doesn't mention Jesus saying to pay taxes as part of his argument for why you should pay taxes, and he doesn't seem to have any idea that Jesus has said such a thing. Instead he has to come up with his own argument. Repeat x 100 and things start to get suspicious, and you wonder if what Jesus says is being derived from what Paul says rather than the other way around. This article has a few examples, but there are a lot: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15934

>>17773950
*when I say "intentional fiction," I mean that the author intends his story to be understood as fiction, not as literal history. In Mark, that perhaps comes out noticeably in Mark 8:14-21, where Jesus gets frustrated with the disciples for not understanding the deeper meaning of the numbers involved in the bread multiplying miracles, which, given that in a real historical event the 5,000 and the 4,000 would surely only be approximate numbers, makes it seem like Jesus is breaking the fourth wall a bit, if you're open to that possibliity.

>>17773776 (OP)
>What theories do people have against Jesus NOT being a real person?
my theory is that magic, including the supaernatural, simply does not exist because otherwise it would show up in places where it doesn't. therefore no jesus.