If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?
There are Hindu writings about their gods. Jewish writing about their specific version of your god. Writings all over the world about other gods.
Apparently people write. That would pretty much explain everything.
Yes but why, did they write about a man called Jesus. And why did an alleged historian, Josephus, who's works were published in the same era, bother to write about someone that didn't exist when his Empire sponsored work made so open a claim as to the integrity of His record. But more importantly why did Rome allow the story to persist. Now , while you have wishful thinking, I have a theory. Take it or leave it :-)
Josephus was not an alleged historian, he was an actual one. He wrote and wrote and wrote about the history of the jews, and made it extraordinarily clear that the earth was just under 3,000 years old when Moses showed up. As per Genesis. And he mentioned JC being hung out to dry, in writings that many scholars, including religious ones, think is fake. Many feel that it was added later by people copying/transcribing his works. I understand that that position is debatable and not proven either way. But I don't care, because there was no son of god stapled to a cross anyway.
Rubbish, you obviously haven'y considered the likelihood of all his deeds. Don't believe everything you read without at least testing whether its credible. You need to have a look a Emperor Nerva's story and my 5 corruptions theory. Of course, take it or leave it. I'm really not into Royal command performances, despite you imagining else-wise. Many scholars, have many theories. But none may have one that connects a bigger picture.
By the way, scholars also disagree about whether the mention of James was also added later, but people who shouldn't have been doing things like that.
Well, there's James (d44AD) and then there's James the Just (d62AD or 69AD depending on who's telling the story) and there is also a another James. The last guy was associated with a very interesting dude named Theudas and a bloke called Simon. They all met there maker around 44-46AD. I wonder if that simon was also called peter?
On the bright side, he didn't tell any wolf stories.
Perhaps they were just porkies :-)
He talks of Jesus and he talks of a 3,000 year old universe. Why am I not impressed (I am impressed with his scholarship in general. He did tell the story of the Jews, among other things. But the story he told was the one he was taught.)
Now let's assume that Josephus (or maybe it was Agrippa II and his 62 letters to Nerva instead of Josephus) was a Pharisee sympathiser and he got to live in return for his letters. Perhaps a Pharisaic version of "the truth" about Go(o)d was that the universe was only 3000 years old. You should also consider, why the letter to Apion was conceived by "Josephus" when it comes to Genesis. This gives us a clue that others in the day questioned the 3000 year spin.
And if JC was so important, why didn't the guy write a bit more about him?
Well let's see. We are talking about post 70AD. The Jewish peoples have been all but wiped out. All "the christian" bishops have been murdered. The essenes are wiped out. Seems a go(o)d time to re-write your own version of events I would have thought. And If you've read the Gospel of Thomas, particularly the 53 sayings that aren't in the Bible, and you were a Roman emperor, it's not a story you would want let loose. I mean, it doesn't reflect well on Empires that align with Gods. Now, my theory suggests that the Pharisees new this and that's why they bumped of Jesus. given the harsh reaction of Rome in and around 66-73AD. I suspect they also new more to this story than meets the eye. An authentic Jesus story had to be swept under the carpet or all the benefits gained by magic and Prophecies or Roman Gods would be at risk.
Why didn't the Romans stop him? Lets see. He'd been a Jew. He got caught and enslaved. Then he seemed to become a good guy in the eyes of the Romans, his master let him go, and later they let him publish an official version of the Jewish War, given that he was a Jewish traitor and a known historian and on their side by then. They liked seeing their names in etched in stone, I guess.
Don't forget he was also the only survivor of a 40 person game of Russian roulette. I don't think so. How many lives does a cat have. Some how I think alleged fits better for propaganda stories.
But how could history be distorted? Gee. Let me think. Well, what about Paul Revere? You know the story. A wolf ate him. Oops, you keep making me confused. No, he was a big hero riding around the countryside yelling "The British are coming?" Well, in fact he was only one of three men who rode that night. He didn't get very far. He got caught. Only one of them actually rode far enough to spread the word, and that guy wasn't named Revere. The trouble was, it was hard to fit the name Samuel Prescott into the poem Longfellow wanted to write ("Listen my friends, you lazy old sots, while I tell you the story of Samuel Prescott." Doesn't have the same ring.). So Longfellow took liberties with the truth. Which got transferred into textbooks by people who assumed it to be true. And now little kids are only taught about Paul Revere, and not Samuel Prescott or William Dawes.
Longfellow wrote a poem, and the history of the United States, as taught in public schools, was changed by the misinformation and literary license he used. Even though he never claimed it to be absolutely accurate. What are the chances that such things could be have been avoided in an earlier culture?
By the way, running around yelling "The British are coming" wouldn't have made any sense to the colonists at the time, given that everyone in the country considered themselves British. The term "Americans" hadn't come into use yet. But hey, at least Longfellow didn't try to work Jesus into the story, so he was more accurate than Josephus.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. Some of us feed our wise wolves instead.
Blah.. blah.. blah.. imagination...blah :-)