WARNING: Parody ahead. There is no contemporary historic record of any kind of Jesus. No written roman, greek or jewish sourc from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historic Jesus or Christ. Of course it would never do for me to explain why a document has to be "contemporary" to be advanced as evidence. You see, I want you to accept that all ancient people were tremendous dunderheads who got things wrong the minute something came to them secondhand. I also want you to believe that what records are left from this time should have mentioned a historic Jesus or Christ, but do not ask me to explain why they should have. That is not fun to do. The name of Christ is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) and that they were later makes them worthless. They also merely give the name of the idol of the Christian's worship, though do not ask me to explain how an idol could be described "as a god" in Pliny or be crucified by Pilate as in Tacitus. In another essay I will create excuses for ignoring each of these persons' testimony and will not use relevant scholarship to do so. We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, though the evidence for their authorship is better than for any other ancient document (and please don't ask me to make a comparison to secular documents). We don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of the assumed lost originals. (Of course, this is also the same for every other ancient document, but please don't mention that, you'll ruin the conspiracy.) And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (I don't have proof of this, by the way, and please don't ask me to deal with matters of textual criticism by which textual critics determine the contents of the original manuscripts. Uncertainty and paranoia is my only weapon!) (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we? But we do trust reliable, known-authored sources. And that is what the Gospels are, but don't tell anyone!)
If we pretend read hard and generalize illicitly, we will see that all the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. I will make some excuses about this here and give the standard list of names of alleged copycat sources taken from Kersey Graves.
All the teachings of Jesus are similar to teachings of other great moral teachers, which rather than proving that human morals are universal, proves that Jesus never had an original thought and that Christians "borrowed" from older sources. Many of Jesus teachings are almost word for word identical with some of Buddhas sayings (400 years earlier) provided you only look at 10% of the words in any given sentence. The so-called "Golden rule" can be found in several earlier pagan greek (and jewish) texts and therefore it would be impossible for any other moral teacher to have said it. The famous "Sermon on the Mount" was actually first produced in the second century AD by Christian priests, assembled from what they assumed were sayings of Jesus in different other texts. I have proof but I have to keep it secret so that the men in black helicopters do not get me.
The "birthday" of Jesus is
of course unknown, not even the year of his miraculous birth is known. Of course the same could be said of numerous historical figures, but don't let that stop me. The
church just stole the already popular date of the 25.th december, as was their right as an ideological victor in that day and age.
I have other wacky ideas not supported by mainsteam scholarship, like that the story of Jesus was originally an allegorical story based partly on the jewish exodus myth and Joshua/Jesus ben Nun, successor of Moses, the jewish Messiah-myth and the widespread pagan myth of the dying and resurrected godman Dionysos-Osiris. It is only because later Christians in Rome were stupid that all evidence for this has disappeared, for they cleverly destroyed all the evidence. See alleged gnostic backgrounds refuted on this page.
Note:
Much of the writings and
research on the historicity of Jesus is amazingly biased, tendentious and
pervaded with wishful thinking. By this I mean that I disagree with it and have no actual answer to it other than claiming bias.
One should in general be a bit sceptical
to Christian scholars who often (obviously, by virtue of their disagreement with my rampant genius) don't have the necessary distance to
their subject to satisfy me that they are not behind a conspiracy to convert me. As Christians they are usually
convinced that Jesus did once exist as a real person in the first place, and are
just looking for a confirmation. Of course this does not apply to non-Christians, especially mystics, who are completely objective.
The reader should of course take my
assertions about bias for granted, and investigate the sources themselves, but only the sources that are not biased and reach a conclusion of historicity. The conclusions are then just a matter ignoring scholarship you don't like.