Notice that there is a definite date for the Birth of Jesus, December 25, where there were only a few witnesses.
Yet a variable date for the death by Roman crucifixion of Jesus Christ, where there were supposedly well over 500 witnesses and a crucifixion would have been definitely recorded in the Roman annals.
This surely discredits the crucifixion story, because the certainty that at least somebody among the witnesses, especially the followers of Jesus Christ would have recorded the date and the absolute certainty that it would be recorded in the Roman logs/annals, make it highly unlikely that the event even occurred.
It seems Constantine when he and his advisers attached the death of Jesus Christ to the pagan celebration of Easter, overlooked the significance and implications of having a fixed event (definite date) attached to a tradition that varies in accordance to lunar cycles.
They were obviously too stupid to realize the significance of this mistake.
For somebody to be dated to an exact birth date and a variable date of death, makes the entire life story appear flawed, regardless of the lack of evidence for all events that occurred in between.
Together, the lack of evidence for his life and the lack of knowledge of when he actually died, in that the Romans never recorded a crucifixion date, lends a lot of credence to the position that Jesus Christ did not exist.
Although I do think he may possibly have existed as an insignificant prophet, who was later glorified by Peter(Simon) and Paul(Saul) as a false Messiah, to attract Jews and Gentiles under Roman control, the fact of no definite records, means he was never actually executed by the Romans, as they were very diligent in recording all such events. And not one of the witnesses knew the date, makes it even worse for Christianity.
My take on this is somewhat different. The birth date was set as December 25th in order to coincide with the Saturnalia a date that could easily draw pagans into Christianity. This was done long after the death of Jesus.
Now let's tackle the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure the Romans kept good records of everyone they put to death, especially out of the crowd of common people. Imagine for a moment that Jesus did not become the son of god until many years later when the books were written. Then the Buybull is there and Christianity becomes fashionable. Only at this time is a legend made that becomes "truth."
Before that time you have a birth and death of a nobody assuming Jesus existed at all.
True Michael, yet, we really know that Jesus was supposedly born in March, and the date was transfixed over a couple of centuries later. Yet nobody knows what month Jesus died in, they, like his birth, simply grabbed a popular tradition to attach him to. Yet that tradition is variable in its position on the calendar, which makes it rather idiotic.
I can excuse a birth where there are very few witnesses, save the father, mother and maybe a neighbour.
But I cannot excuse a date not being established when there were hundreds of witnesses and people who supposedly worshipped him.
We all mark on our calendars and memorize the dates that members of our family die.
Surely one of the disciples would have accurately recorded the date of these events.
I know they were illiterate, but surely they had a grasp of time and at least some idea of chronology.
After all, the Romans had a calendar and some of the Romans witnessing the event when witnessing their beloved family members who were supposedly crucified at the same time as Jesus, would have noted the event. None of those had been found either.
The Bible writers forget that those alongside their hero, also had devoted families and friends.
This total lack of rational consistency with Biblical events lends itself to the Mythicist's claim of Jesus never existed.
I'm still leaning a little bit in their direction, since nothing has been found to convince me otherwise, every outside the Bible mention of Jesus, were found centuries afterwards.
Some say that because his brother James was mentioned, it gives the texts credence, but, that is not truly rational, as both Jesus and James were such common names, that there were likely many Jesus's who also had a brother named James. It's like saying Peter Pan existed because of a biography mentioning a Peter with his best friend Wendy was found at the same time.
With the earthquake at crucifixion we find also that many graves were opened up and bodies came out of them and were seen by many in the holy city. What? Are these zombies or are they really the "first fruits of the dead" which is a title that was later said of Jesus himself? If you go into the old testament you find also that different ones of the dead were brought back to life. So, what is the "first fruits?" It can't be Jesus. What happened to these dead ones? Did they immediately go back to the graves again or live normal lives until death overtook them a second time? The claims are more than fantastic.
When we realize that the 4 gospels were written at different times it's easier to understand this. Also, the book of acts was written before the gospels. The evidence is very plain to me. The writers just made the stories up!
Ha Ha Michael, yes the gospel zombies in Matthew 27: 52-53
Yet they appear in none of the other gospels.
Appearing to many in Jerusalem, who also never wrote about being visited by zombies.
Maybe they only visited the illiterate.
The other thing funny is how come only one gospel mentioned the earthquake and the others ignored it and I forget the other events at the time and how in each Gospel Jesus behaves differently, especially in John where he is very narcissistic after his resurrection.
All these point to it being made up.
Tried to put an animated .gif file of Jesus doing a windmill guitar strum and it failed to animate.