Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?

[Eise]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Firstly, that's an amazing conclusion, based on your assessment of what someone would do, 2,000 years ago, without knowing his pressures and environment, including what rival stories were saying. 

Not so amazing: historians take the context into account, e.g. that some Jewish sects were awaiting for the Messiah, that would install God's domain on earth, and free the Jews from the Roman oppression. And the prophesy that this Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, the city of David.

On the other side, a few postings ago, you drew your conclusions from your guesses about the psychology of Paul...

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I felt an idiot for believing him the first time, but he's a good liar, and now I know, I see he's lying all the time, he can't help it. 

So you checked against other sources. Just what historians do. The difference is that your possibilities to check are practical endless, and for historians it is limited by the sources that survived.

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Dawkins is all over youtube. So is Bart Ehrman. 

And Dennett. And ... But nothing is better than reading a book of these authors. I like Dawkins on youtube, but Dennett is mostly poor: he is a much better  writer  than a public speaker (even if I find him sympathetic). I have looked into a few videos of Ehrman, just enough to see how he does. Not too good either.

But one should read books! (Or articles.)

Still waiting for Ten oz to read Ehrman's Did Jesus exist?...

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Bad example Watson. It was Watson that always went for the bleedin obvious, while Holmes worked out what really happened.

Got me again... 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Got me again... 

Elementary my dear Watson !       

7 minutes ago, Eise said:

But nothing is better than reading a book of these authors.

The books can be misleading, as well as enlightening. I remember years ago reading Elaine Morgan's book the aquatic ape, and I was well and truly sucked in at the time. 

It took a while to unravel all the special pleading. She was a very persuasive writer and did a great job on it. But it was absolute B****s. Sucked me in for a while though. If I'd gone on youtube, and seen the rebuttals as well, I wouldn't have fallen for it, like I did from the book.

Youtube is great for that. You can get balance with a click.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

It seems you leave no room for written sources, that can be used in historical research.

Written sources when not contemporary provide windows into the past but not always proof. There are remants of Eygt, Rome, the Greeks, and etc cultures to study. We do not merely really on things written which can't be confirmed. I do not doubt the age of Christianity. There is plenty of artifacts which prove how long Christianity has been around. I accept all the general things which can be proved and consider the rest unknown. We are finding out new things all the time. I grew up being taught Columbus was the first European in the Americas but today we know Norsemen visited North America much earlier. We know because we found the artifacts. Just as I grew up being taught Neanderthal and Home Sapiens never successfully reproduced but today we know everyone with Eurasian ancestors in fact carry Neanderthal genes. 

Humans are incredibly imperfect regarding the way we record the past. Humans intentional lie and rewrite history in an attempt to alter perception, hide the past, and support their own beliefs. People can't even accuratly keep track of their own family trees for more than 3 generations much less the indentity of individuals over thousands of years. A lot of history is lost. I take all history which can't be proved with hard evidence with a grain of salt. 

If Jesus's tomb was found tommorow I would consider that proof he was real. Why is that a bar you consider too great? Why insist that something which is a "maybe" must be viewed as a "probably"? I see little difference between the two. If something isn't known it isn't known. No big deal. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Ten oz

[Itoero]

On ‎3‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 11:28 PM, Ten oz said:

Christian's have dominated Western Society for hundreds of years and during that time the Western World has dominate the whole world. So it has long been understood that Jesus was real. That is what has been taught. That is where the needle has been. It is a self affirming notion. To move the needle one would need evidence that Jesus never existed. What would even be evidence of none existence? To me lack of contemporary evidence is a good start but is it enough?

Ok but the real reason why I ask this is because Eise and many other people say that most scholars/historians/scientists agree Jesus existed. It's impossible to know what most  scholars/historians/scientists  think about Jesus. You can only make assumptions like that concerning the people  you know or had contact with.

Also, many scholars/historians/scientists  are Christian or Muslim , It's pretty normal they think Jesus was a 'real' person. And many atheists were taught as a young child about Jesus and believe in his existence.

Richard Dawkins  was a Christian. The 'fact' that he knows a lot concerning biological evolution doesn't mean he's correct in everything else he says. He's subject to 'faith' just like everyone. He for example thinks vegans have the moral highground.  And when he discusses religion Ive noted some of his statements are about faith-based believe and not about science. He for example stated in an interview that Muslim suicide bombers do their acts  because they think Allah will reward them….while there are studies that show this is not true.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Itoero

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Ok but the real reason why I ask this is because Eise and many other people say that most scholars/historians/scientists agree Jesus existed. It's impossible to know what most  scholars/historians/scientists  think about Jesus. You can only make assumptions like that concerning the people  you know or had contact with.

Also, many scholars/historians/scientists  are Christian or Muslim , It's pretty normal they think Jesus was a 'real' person. And many atheists were taught as a young child about Jesus and believe in his existence.

Richard Dawkins  was a Christian. The 'fact' that he knows a lot concerning biological evolution doesn't mean he's correct in everything else he says. He's subject to 'faith' just like everyone. He for example thinks vegans have the moral highground.  And when he discusses religion Ive noted some of his statements are about faith-based believe and not about science. He for example stated in an interview that Muslim suicide bombers do their acts  because they think Allah will reward them….while there are studies that show this is not true.

Worse still than many scholars being Christian is the fact that many of the scholars known as Jesus Historicity experts have devoted their lives to the study of Christianity almost. Obviously someone who would give their life's work to Christianity is has some bias. Eise cites Bart Ehrman but who is Ehrman: got his Bachelors from Wheaton College which is a Christian school founded by Evangelicals and his Doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary. He grew up a born again Christian, began to questions some contradictions in the bible as an adult, and around the age of 40 became an agnostic (not atheist). 

Dawkins fights a lot of battles. For example many accuse his of being Islamophobic. I think he simply has to many battle brewing, his health has been poor too,  to wade into the issue of Jesus's historicity. There simply isn't anything in it for him. 

[Eise]

15 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Written sources when not contemporary provide windows into the past but not always proof.

A few remarks. 

Even contemporary sources can be lying. (Fake news! ).

We talked about proof already a lot. (Ancient) history can never prove anything beyond doubt. Therefore my viewpoint is (and please discuss this, not a viewpoint I do not hold): the existence of a real person Jesus can better explain what happened in early Christianity than a fictional person. 

15 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If Jesus's tomb was found tommorow I would consider that proof he was real.

And how do you think that would happen? Except dating the tomb around the time of Jesus' death (but do not forget, C-14 only works when organic material is found, and it is also not very precise (±50 years or so?)), the only way is to show that its physical appearance is as it is described in ... written sources. And, btw some people of course claim the place is known already for ages: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre:

Quote

The church contains, according to traditions dating back to at least the fourth century, the two holiest sites in Christianity: the site where Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, at a place known as "Calvary" or "Golgotha", and Jesus's empty tomb, where he is said to have been buried and resurrected.

(Now that is something I take with a lot of grains of salt...)

13 hours ago, Itoero said:

Ok but the real reason why I ask this is because Eise and many other people say that most scholars/historians/scientists agree Jesus existed. It's impossible to know what most  scholars/historians/scientists  think about Jesus.

If Ehrman would not represent the majority of scholars of antiquity, I would find much more discussions from them. But Ehrman is only really attacked by fundamentalists, both Christian fundamentalists, as mythicists. For the rest, Itoero, your posting is just an ad hominum attack. Without knowing the arguments, you already made your conclusion. Same holds for your latest posting, Ten oz.

I'd love to discuss all the arguments Ehrman presents. But I am afraid both of you are not even interested. Again, you behave like Relativity skeptics: without knowing the empirical proofs and role that Relativity plays in modern physics, they argue based on their intuitions: without knowing what Specialists have to say, you already made your conclusions. Please read Ehrman's Did Jesus exist?, then we can have a real discussion.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

the existence of a real person Jesus can better explain what happened in early Christianity than a fictional person. 

I don't view grading opinions on a scale from better to worse as useful. Even if a real person was the best answer any of us could think of it wouldn't make it so. Plus I don't even share the view. I feel too many assumptions are made if concluding an existence of a real Jesus is a better explanation. For example I understand your position that Jesus's followers were all conveniently illiterate and couldn't have written anything but that doesn't explain why they did not bother with other useful bits like where here was interred, the date of his death, and etc. They carried his words in memory for decades yet didn't bother to remember specific locations or dates. I think a better explanation for that would be that Jesus is a amalgamation of several people. To me that better explains why there is so little specificity in dates and locations. However I also do not think it matters what I think. What I think proves nothing. 

 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

And how do you think that would happen? Except dating the tomb around the time of Jesus' death (but do not forget, C-14 only works when organic material is found, and it is also not very precise (±50 years or so?)), the only way is to show that its physical appearance is as it is described in ... written sources. And, btw some people of course claim the place is known already for ages: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre:

I said written sources provide windows. I did not call them useless. I think you are exaggerating my position a bit. If a tomb was found which mirrored the written story and could be dated to the timeframe I would consider it good evidence. As previously mentioned I find it strange none of Jesus's followers bothered to remember where that tomb was. Seem like the sort of thing which would have been important to them. Humans across nearly all culturals going back to the Stone Age marked the locations where loved ones were layed to rest. 

Sadly if a tomb had ever been found it surely would have been denied and scuttled by Christians. Per Christianity Jesus's body can't actually exist. That is the catch 22 here. Any evidence of a real person would have been destoryed had it ever previously been found in the first place. Jesus's body would conflict with Resurrection. Clues about a real man who may have had a family, disease, or whatever would conflict the Bible. So any evidence of a real man would have been scrubbed by the Church had it been known of. Christianity is having it both ways with Jesus. He was a real human who was born, lived, and died. Yet was born of an impossible birth, lived an impossible life, and came back from the dead. Jesus as Illustrated throughout history is both a real human man while simultaneously being an immortal God. Real evidence of the real man complicates the latter. 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

you already made your conclusion. Same holds for your latest posting, Ten oz.

My conclusion is that Jesus may have been a real person or he may not have been. I don't pretend to know. 

[Eise]

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I feel too many assumptions are made if concluding an existence of a real Jesus is a better explanation

The critique of mythicists has even more assumptions, e.g. what the Apostles should have done (stand with notebooks and write everything down Jesus said and did?). Or that the Romans made extensive records of all births, deaths. Or that in Palestine in those days Jews believed in a 'resurrecting sun god'. Or:

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

that doesn't explain why they did not bother with other useful bits like where here was interred

And I like the word 'feel':

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I feel too many assumptions are made if concluding an existence of a real Jesus is a better explanation.

Or:

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

As previously mentioned I find it strange none of Jesus's followers bothered to remember where that tomb was. Seem like the sort of thing which would have been important to them.

You know of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE by the Romans?

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

My conclusion is that Jesus may have been a real person or he may not have been. I don't pretend to know. 

I was not referring just to your viewpoint, but to the fact that you 'played the man' instead of the ball. Your posting was an ad hominum attack on Ehrman.

This is what I wrote:

23 hours ago, Eise said:

For the rest, Itoero, your posting is just an ad hominum attack. Without knowing the arguments, you already made your conclusion. Same holds for your latest posting, Ten oz.

Sorry if that was not clear.

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If a tomb was found which mirrored the written story and could be dated to the timeframe I would consider it good evidence.

Well, the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is promising. But the historians are careful in their conclusions. 

[inSe]

The martyring Hebrews were as set up by the Romans as David Koresh, Osama Bin Laden, Marylin Manson or Donald Trump were set up by the powers that be. Jesus represented those long forgotten martyrs. Religion is politics, religion is...control!

[mistermack]

On 9/6/2018 at 11:45 AM, Ten oz said:

I think you are exaggerating my position a bit. If a tomb was found which mirrored the written story and could be dated to the timeframe I would consider it good evidence.

It wouldn't be good evidence for the vast majority. Such a tomb was found, in Talpiot. It has one ossuary that is marked "Jesus son of Joseph" , another Marked "Maria" which was Mary at the time, and another marked "Mariamne" which is the greek version of Mary at the time. ( Mary Magdalene was supposedly a native greek speaker, so she would have been known by that version ). 

These were common names at the time, and on ossuaries, the name "Jesus son of Joseph " crops up on one in every 190. Maria is incredibly common, one in four women were Maria. And Mariamne is quite common, at one in 160. But if you combine the odds, for all the names appearing together purely by chance, it's one in 121600. 

You would think that something like that would have set the Christian world alight, but hardly anyone got to hear of it. It didn't match the narrative, of Jesus rising from the dead. So it was quietly poo poohed, and sealed up and re-buried. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb

From a statistical point of view, it's actually very impressive evidence.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

I was not referring just to your viewpoint, but to the fact that you 'played the man' instead of the ball. Your posting was an ad hominum attack on Ehrman.

 

On 8/15/2018 at 7:21 AM, Eise said:

But, if you want to believe Jesus did not exist, please do so. I do not want to repeat all arguments of Ehrman, which seem quite credible to me. Please read his book: in the end, I started my interest with reading Acharya S' The greatest story ever sold, after which I decided I had to look at more objective discussions about the subject. With Acharya S, and Richard Carrier, I feel the anger about people who believe Jesus existed. As if that is the root of all evil. The root of all evil (exaggeration alarm...) is of course what people made of it, as a tool of power and suppression.

Anyway, if you have read Ehrman's book, we can discuss if his arguments (taken together...) are convincing. Otherwise I see no use to spend an awful lot of time on this discussion again.

This whole thread you have been repeatedly referring to Bart Ehrman's work as credible have dismissed the work of scholars who disagree with Ehrman saying you "feel the anger" (wtf?). You are trying to have it both ways here. You can't push Ehrman as then gold standard and then cry ad hominem when Ehrman is addressed individually. His views are rooted in his interpretations of the Gospels. If you are going to claim to "feel the anger" in Richard Carrier's work you really shouldn't be calling ad hominem when I reference Bart Ehrman education and stated positions on his religious faith. 

I have addressed Bart Ehrman work directly many times. The short version is there are too many things in the Gospels which are known not be inaccurate. Even Ehrman acknowledges multiple contradictions and issues identifying authorship. So I considered ALL of them an undependable source. Parsing between which bits are exaggerations, hallucinations, lies, edits made later by the Church, mis-translations, and so on as a means to decipher truth isn't a process I accept as capable of producing an outcome greater than 50/50. Using the Gospels to prove the existence of Jesus simply doesn't work because one cannot prove enough definitive things about the Gospels themselves in the first place. It is a house of cards. 

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is promising. But the historians are careful in their conclusions. 

Yes, I do find that interesting. I do not pretend to know Jesus did or did not exist. So if they can authenticate a tomb that would awesome. I have no agenda here. That said the article you linked notes some of the things I believe make Jesus's historicity so complicated:

Quote

 

When Constantine's representatives arrived in Jerusalem around A.D. 325 to locate the tomb, they were allegedly pointed to a temple built by the Roman emperor Hadrian some 200 years earlier. Historical sources suggest that Hadrian had the temple built over the tomb to assert the dominance of Roman state religion at the site venerated by Christians.

According to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, the Roman temple was razed and excavations beneath it revealed a rock-cut tomb. The top of the cave was sheared off to expose the interior, and a church was built around it to enclose the tomb. The church was completely destroyed by the Fatimids in 1009 and rebuilt in the mid-11th century.

 

Christians have spent millennia directing the narrative on this. From Constantine's council of Nicea to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions Christians have made edits, taken control of lands, artifacts, and literally killed people in attempts to force specific beliefs. What Hadrian built, when it was built, and why it was built are relevant questions not easily answered. If building the tomb was an assertion of dominance that it is possible that the tomb was just propaganda. Then what changes were made later and why also are very hard to answer. It is a complicated process understand what actually happened in past vs what people who lived in the past wanted people to believe. 

[Eise]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You can't push Ehrman as then gold standard and then cry ad hominem when Ehrman is addressed individually.

The difference is that I read Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy, and read a few texts of Richard Carrier. So I can look at the quality of their arguments, and read between the lines. It is already a few years ago, so do not ask to repeat their arguments. 

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The short version is there are too many things in the Gospels which are known not be inaccurate. Even Ehrman acknowledges multiple contradictions and issues identifying authorship.

Why 'even'? He knows just as good as anyone. Look again at the publication list I provided a few days ago! Don't you remember the citation where somebody said 'Ehrman is the boogeyman of Christian fundamentalists'? Because he leaves nearly nothing of the modern creeds of Christianity. Nearly nothing withstands historian scrutiny. Nearly.

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

as a means to decipher truth isn't a process I accept as capable of producing an outcome greater than 50/50

Hmmm. That is just about what you get when tossing a coin. One must study the history of the documents in order to say something useful about them. You only look at the contents (well, maybe not even that...), and decide that the books in the New Testament are highly biased, and think that it is impossible to look at least a little through the biases, to see what might very well be factual. as I said in the other Jesus thread:

5 hours ago, Eise said:

But based on carbon dating, text analysis, language (and language errors), text comparisons (not unlike creating a genealogy of DNA by means of its mutations; AFAIK genetic algorithms were used to analyse old manuscripts), writing style, historical events reported that we have independent knowledge of, history of ideas, artifacts found on the same premises as documents etc, it is possible to extract the history of those documents. As this picture becomes clearer and clearer, it becomes possible to draw conclusions of what described in the documents might be factual.

Really, without any knowledge of this history, how the documents developed during the years (centuries...) you cannot say anything. It is really interesting to see the methods of the historians, and how they apply them. The problem is that you do not have a competing theory, based on this in-depth knowledge about the sources we have. You say 'I can imagine...'. Well, I think it is very difficult to make a reconstruction of the history of the documents (appearance, contents, relation to other historical events etc) based on the idea that it is all just some invention. So I do not get at 50/50. 85/15 represents my position.

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Christians have spent millennia directing the narrative on this. From Constantine's council of Nicea to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions Christians have made edits, taken control of lands, artifacts, and literally killed people in attempts to force specific beliefs.

Yes. And historians are too stupid to see through this? It seems you think that they do not know this. Historians must always cut through the bias of their sources!

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

Hmmm. That is just about what you get when tossing a coin. One must study the history of the documents in order to say something useful about them. You only look at the contents (well, maybe not even that...), and decide that the books in the New Testament are highly biased, and think that it is impossible to look at least a little through the biases, to see what might very well be factual. as I said in the other Jesus thread:

Right, what might be factual is close as one can get. Which is my point. What might be true isn't equal to what is true. The proposition of might is not definitive. You seem to understand this yet isn't that there is a reason to error on one side vs the other. I do not. An unknown is a unknown. In my experience people who play the odds are still wrong a lot. Many of gamblers have lost money betting the favorite.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Really, without any knowledge of this history, how the documents developed during the years (centuries...) you cannot say anything. It is really interesting to see the methods of the historians, and how they apply them. The problem is that you do not have a competing theory, based on this in-depth knowledge about the sources we have. You say 'I can imagine...'. Well, I think it is very difficult to make a reconstruction of the history of the documents (appearance, contents, relation to other historical events etc) based on the idea that it is all just some invention. So I do not get at 50/50. 85/15 represents my position.

You and I have argued this issue for years. In more depth in the past. My position isn't based in ignorance of the facts. Your insistence of superior knowledge accomplishes little towards proving a historical figure from 2 thousand years ago was real. Our differences are less in knowledge of the facts and more in respect for disciplines use to collect those. Challenging me to provided a competing theory is also out of place. I have not claimed to know whether or not Jesus was real. I do not need a theory for that. It is you who are insisting Jesus was real and thus it is you who must support that. Not vice versa.

85/15 (no idea how you determine that other than using it because it is the sort of high probability Carrier's work references as necessary) still isn't 100%. In Las Vegas even with those odds one is still gambling. More over what are you applying that high probability to: That what Tacitus said was about Jesus specifically and not merely describing Christians, that Paul accurately recorded his interactions with James, that James was the bother of Jesus, that all the disciples to a person were all illiterate, etc? Different components of this issue all have different probabilities. For a conclusion based on specific individual points to be true all the individual points must be true. Arguing that one conclusion is better than the alternative  based on your understand isn't a compelling argument to me. I leave unknown factors as unknown and do not bother with judgement calls unless I have not choice. I look for the right answer rather than which answer is probably the best one. Guessing at the best means one doesn't actually know which is the right one. 

 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, what might be factual is close as one can get. Which is my point. What might be true isn't equal to what is true. The proposition of might is not definitive. You seem to understand this yet isn't that there is a reason to error on one side vs the other. I do not. An unknown is a unknown. In my experience people who play the odds are still wrong a lot. Many of gamblers have lost money betting the favorite.

Nothing ever is, even relativity is wrong in some way, but that doesn't mean we can't accept the most probable answer; especially since the roulette wheel has nothing to say in either case.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nothing ever is, even relativity is wrong in some way, but that doesn't mean we can't accept the most probable answer; especially since the roulette wheel has nothing to say in either case.

You are applying a different context. In science we accept what can be repeatedly tested. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

You are applying a different context. In science we accept what can be repeatedly tested. 

And historians don't?

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And historians don't?

What repeatable tests are Bart Ehrman conducting?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Ten oz said:

What repeatable tests are Bart Ehrman conducting?

I have no idea, do you?

But that doesn't change the fact that historians use repeatable tests.

[Ten oz]

Just now, dimreepr said:

I have no idea, do you?

Nothing he has published as it relates to this topic.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing he has published as it relates to this topic.

Well, since he has published on this topic, you're going to have to explain...

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, since he has published on this topic, you're going to have to explain...

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

One of us is confused and I'm happy to concede that it's me but that's not much of an explanation. 

[Eise]

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In my experience people who play the odds are still wrong a lot. Many of gamblers have lost money betting the favorite.

Nah. You cannot compare gambling with historical science.

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Your insistence of superior knowledge accomplishes little towards proving a historical figure from 2 thousand years ago was real.

I do not pretend that it is my superior knowledge. But it is very easy to see that historians' knowledge is by far superior to yours. 

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

My position isn't based in ignorance of the facts.

Well, yes it is. You ignore everything historians know about the history of their document sources. If every historian would use your criteria they should say we know nearly nothing about history. Nearly every document is biased, many documents contradict each other, and history cannot be based on artifacts alone. Also, your position would make science about evolution impossible. We cannot to do experiments to see how from dinosaurs became birds. What we can do is follow the traces left behind in fossils. But we can never be sure that our rational reconstruction is exactly right. (Maybe here is a reason that the 'militant atheist' Richard Dawkins also thinks Jesus existed: he recognises that historians must solve similar problems as evolutionists: fit our findings in the most probably theory.) Documents (and artifacts of course) are the fossils of the historians.

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

For a conclusion based on specific individual points to be true all the individual points must be true.

On specific points, yes. But 'Jesus existed' is not very specific. Every hint into the direction that he existed adds up to the idea that he really existed. Was he betrayed by Judas? Did he really taught 'Our Father'? That are specifics, and we must be honest: we do not know. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Eise

[Itoero]

-If Jesus and his followers were illiterate then no written record could be left behind which implies the gospelwriters made up everything.

-Jesus was not famous at his birth. There was no reason for anyone to observe and record anything  until Jesus gained fame/followers.

-The gospels were written in detail decades after Jesus' supposed death. Such detailed stories could only be written by eyewitnesses at the moment or in the days after. Then the Gospels should have been written a lot sooner.

There were probably many persons called 'Jesus' at that time, but those stories are made up.

This is what I think.

These are some videos from Dr. Richard Carrier.