Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

I'm cross-posting this here because this thread appears to be attracting some big History brains and I was hoping one of you guys might be able to help me out here. Being the enthusiastic Amateur that I am, I think I've found the clue that will crack this case wide open.

I was hoping I might be able to find someone knowledgeable enough to walk me gently through the destruction of my delusions.

Do you know of anyone who can help me with this little puzzle?:

..in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians,...

I hadn't seen that before. I don't know if this is from Eisenman or if I'm just going all pseudohistory here, but can I see a connection between what Justin Martyr is saying there and this snippet from the DSS Pesher Habakkuk?:

...Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who 9/ was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches. He robbed and amassed the riches of the
men of violence who rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples, heaping sinful iniquity upon himself. And he lived in the ways of abominations amidst every unclean defilement...

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html


This is the same character - "The Wicked Priest" who supposedly conspired to kill the "Righteous Teacher"...

...Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom God delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity committed against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council, that he might be humbled by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness
of soul, because he had done wickedly to His elect.

I wish I knew enough to be able compare the original language of these things.

The DSS Pesher I think was in Hebrew, did Justin write in Greek?

ETA: Could what Justin referred to as "memoirs of the Apostles" include some of what we find in the DSS?

Another Thesis topic for anyone interested! Yay.

Hi. Just in from a cursory peruse of Justin. Obviously being the pseudohistory superman that I am, I spotted something which no one else has ever spotted ever and my totally uninformed speculation about it is the Truth! OK? Good.

This bit in the "lost writings of Justin":

...
He speaks not of the Gentiles in foreign lands, but concerning [the people] who agree with the Gentiles, according to that which is spoken by Jeremiah: "It is a bitter thing for thee, that thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord thy God, that of old thou hast broken thy yoke, and torn asunder thy bands, and said, I will not serve Thee, but will go to every high hill, and underneath every tree, and there shall I become dissolute in my fornication." -- From manuscript of the writings of JUSTIN.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-fragments.html


With this bit from the Habakkuk Pesher:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

"For through them Their portion is fat and their sustenance rich":

Interpreted, this means that they divide their yoke and their tribute -- their sustenance -- over all the peoples year by year, ravaging many lands.

"Therefore their sword is ever drawn to massacre nations mercilessly [Hab 1.17].

Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim who cause many to perish by the sword -- youths, grown men, the aged, women and children -- and who even take no pity on the fruit of the womb.

And just below that, this reference to the Teacher Of Righteousness (TOR -from now on):

And as for that which He said, "that he who reads may read it speedily"

Interpreted this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the prophets.

"For there shall be yet another vision concerning the appointed time. It shall tell of the end and shall not lie [Hab 2.3a].

Interpreted, this means that the final age shall be prolonged, and shall exceed all that the prophets have said; for the mysteries of God are astounding.

Have I heard that bolded phrase before in the Bible. Is it a letter or a Gospel? I forget...

Also that bit about the final age being prolonged is familiar as well...

Must.... not... make... uninformed... speculations.... There is probably a straightforward explanation like these were common liturgical phrases in Second Temple Judaism.

I just need to calm myself for a minute...

The Man Of Apostasy.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

...in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians,...

The Wicked Priest.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Column 10 - "the city is Jerusalem"

And as for that which he said, "because of the blood of the city and the violence done to the land":

Interpreted, the city is Jerusalem where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God. The violence done to the land: these are the cities of Judah where he robbed the poor of their possessions.

It looks promising to me, but I suppose there was more than one famous Apostate in that place.

I know this isn't strictly about Paul as a Herodian, but I want to take a closer look at this. Because it seems to me that what we have here is the same story told about 100 years apart.

("the man of apostasy", "the Wicked Priest"), ("speaks strange things against the Most High","committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God"), ("shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth", " The violence done to the land"), ("against us the Christians", "he robbed the poor of their possessions").

Now, I don't speak the language, but Eisenman says that where the DSS says "the poor" the word used is "Ebionim", which is where the word "Ebionite" comes from, meaning the early Jewish Christians.

I don't suppose there is anyone out there with the skills to compare these passages in the original language, is there?

I'm not pretending this is a slam dunk for the Qumran Community being the James Gang, but it looks to me that at some point Justin Martyr has heard the same story about the Righteous Teacher and the Wicked Priest and he says that it is about Jesus and his martyrdom.

It certainly doesn't contradict the idea that Qumran was somehow involved in early Jewish Christianity (if we can call it that).

I thought I'd try to find a Scholar who could help me out with this little puzzle, so I left a message on this guy's blog:
http://nearemmaus.com/2013/01/10/ju...rvance-of-the-law-and-the-role-of-good-works/

Here he is:
http://about.me/brian_leport

He looks full-on Christian, I'll be interested to see how he responds. "Nothing to it", I suspect.

I'd just like to make it clear that I chose Mr LePort because I wanted to choose someone who was not biased in favour of my Hypothesis. His replies to others on his blog show he has no time for such nonsense.

I figure the best way to avoid bias is to jump all the way into the middle of the other side and see what they think of the raw data, rather than any old Eisenman Fan-boy who'll just tell me what I want to hear.

I hope it works.

So far I haven't heard back from Mr LePort, but it has only been a day or two.

 

[Belz...]

Earlier you admitted everyone agreed the evidence is terrible and now you say the evidence is very weak.

They are synonyms in this context.

You are still not credible.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There is no evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

There is very weak evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, and also some -- also weak -- inference from known cults. That alone is not enough to conclude that Jesus existed, or indeed to convince me or you that he did, but it may be enough to conclude that his existence is probable; perhaps even more probable than the alternative.

It is documented that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

It's also documented that Kim Il Sung created the universe. Does that mean he didn't exist because it's such an obvious fabrication ?

Why are you continuously making erroneous claims about Jesus of Nazareth?

Such as ? Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Jesus of Nazareth was God Creator that walked on the sea of Galilee before he instantly transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

Not in all accounts. You are being very selective about which parts of the bible you mention.

If you are not on either side then why don't you write the correct ratio?

You mean, the ratio you want me to write ? I'm sorry, but I won't cater to your wishes. I have already explained that I am leaning slightly on the HJ side, no more, no less. If this doesn't fit with your black-and-white mentality, that's on you, not me.

It is most amazing that you have no idea what 60-40 means.

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, because there seems to be missing parts where I should be saying something for you to answer that.

You are arguing that Jesus of Nazareth probably existed with 20 point margin and is still openly giving the impression that are you not while arguing against those who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology..

That makes no sense whatsoever. What I am saying, consistently, and that you are ignoring because it doesn't fit with your mentality, is that I am slightly more convinced by the HJ side, but have not reached a conclusion yet. Can you fathom this ? Not reaching a conclusion while leaning more to one side ? Does that compute ?

You claimed Jesus most probably existed. Please stop exposing your errors.

It's not an error: I know what I think. You don't.

 

[dejudge]

There is very weak evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, and also some -- also weak -- inference from known cults. That alone is not enough to conclude that Jesus existed, or indeed to convince me or you that he did, but it may be enough to conclude that his existence is probable; perhaps even more probable than the alternative.

There is NO evidence anywhere for an historical Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence is not weak or terribly but non-existing.

No non-apologetic writer of the 1st century wrote a single word about Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

There is zero corroboration for Jesus of Nazareth as a human being with a human father in the 1st century.

Jesus of Nazareth was an invented myth character of the 2nd century.

All the recovered stories of Jesus in manuscripts and Codices are dated no earlier than c 115 CE.

 

[dejudge]

duplicated

 

[maximara]

I know, but if I extrapolate, then it becomes my hypothesis rather than yours, which isn't what I was looking for.

How do you figure that?

The John Frum the cult describes is very different in terms of race, nationality, literacy, and membership in the military when what outsiders record. This means other than name there is basically no connection between the cult version of John Frum and the three people who used that name in the 1940-1947 period. More over the actions of these John Frums were woven back into the belief system which had John Frum going all the way back to the 1910s in 1947.

Remember one of the definitions of Christ Myth theory is that Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.
So we have temporal shifting of the cult founder's supposed appearance as early as 7 years after the first historical "John Frum" to some 30 years earlier.

"All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles." (Robertson, John (1900). Christianity and mythology pg 124)

The teachings of various "John Frums" were woven back into the mythical one who we can find no evidence of existing...not in 1930s or in the 1910s or any point between.

As I have stated all the main points of the classic Christ mythers like Drews, Robertson, and Remsburg that the apologists claim could not happen did happen...many years after these people made their claims.

With this as are blueprint we can put together several Christ mythers theories but the one that is off the cuff obvious is as follows:

1) A prexisting proto Christ myth is floating around the region...a Christ will ala Moses will free the Jewish people from their oppressors

2) Paul has his vision and preaches about the Jesus in his head beginning no later then 37 CE

3) One or more inspired believers call themselves "Jesus" and start preaching their views

3) Paul writes the Epistles warning about these other Jesuses and their other Gospels in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 in 54-57 CE

4) More inspired believers call themselves "Jesus" and preach their views.

5) Somewhere between 70-130 CE Mark is written creating the baseline for the Jesus story. It incorporates bits and pieces of these later "Jesuses" pushing the dates of the preachings to before Paul's conversion. The result is a composite character...a person who in reality didn't ever exist.


This is by no means the only Christ Myth theory that can be pulled from classic Christ mythers with the John Frum lens but it shows just what kind of situation we have.

 

[maximara]

There is NO evidence anywhere for an historical Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence is not weak or terribly but non-existing.

No non-apologetic writer of the 1st century wrote a single word about Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

There is zero corroboration for Jesus of Nazareth as a human being with a human father in the 1st century.

Jesus of Nazareth was an invented myth character of the 2nd century.

All the recovered stories of Jesus in manuscripts and Codices are dated no earlier than c 115 CE.

Actually much later than that:

"In the absence of reference to historical known events in the manuscript the art of paleographic dating is used for dating purposes. The problem is paleographic dating of papyri is complex and thanks to the continual accumulation of new evidence an ongoing process and dating can be influence by apparent references to passages in the work in documents of a known date range.


With that said let us look in terms of primary provenance (the documents themselves) what the oldest copies of Paul, Gospels, and Acts we have are:

Paul

Papyrus 46 (175-225 CE) - has the last 8 chapters of Romans, all of Hebrews, virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians, all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. It is estimated there were only 5 more leaves at the end of the Papyrus; nowhere enough for 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon to fit as they would required 10 leaves. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus are also regarded as questionable... most likely NOT from Paul but much later. It should be noted that Paul's authorship of Colossians is hotly debated.


Gospels

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (125-c225) - fragment of John that could sit upon a credit card and contains no complete sentences, and only one complete word: kai (“and”). "What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century."

Egerton Papyrus 2 (150-200) - a collection of four stories which have no equivalent in any known Gospel: 1) a controversy similar to John 5:39-47 and 10:31-39; 2) curing a leper similar to Matt 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16 and Luke 17:11-14; 3) a controversy about paying tribute to Caesar analogous to Matt 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26; and 4) an incomplete account of a miracle on the Jordan River bank, perhaps carried out to illustrate the parable about seeds growing miraculously

Papyrus 75 (175-225) - Luke 3:18-24:53 + John 1-15

Magdalen papyrus aka Gregory-Aland P64 (c200 CE): Matthew 3, 5, 26

Papyrus 66 (c200) - John 1:1-6:11, 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. Herbert Hunger founder of the Vienna Institute of Papyrology has claimed a possible 100-150 CE date but as Brent Nongbri noted paleographic dating of papyri is complex and thanks to the continual accumulation of new evidence an ongoing process so these earlier dates must be taken with a grain of salt.

Papyrus 45 (c250) - heavily damaged by time and elements. Of the 200 original pages only 30 (2 of Matthew, 6 of Mark, 7 of Luke, 2 of John, and 13 of Acts) remain. Oldest collection of canonal Gospels.
Codex Sinaiticus (330–360 CE) - missing the following verses: Gospel of Matthew 12:47, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Matthew 24:35; Gospel of Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9–20; Gospel of Luke 17:36; and Gospel of John 5:4, 7:53–8:11, 16:15, 20:5b-6, 21:25.


Acts

Papyrus 38 (c220): Acts 18:27-19:6.12-16"

(Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ at Rational Wiki)

 

[dejudge]

Actually much later than that:

"In the absence of reference to historical known events in the manuscript the art of paleographic dating is used for dating purposes. The problem is paleographic dating of papyri is complex and thanks to the continual accumulation of new evidence an ongoing process and dating can be influence by apparent references to passages in the work in documents of a known date range.

There is simply no evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century.

The Gospels mention many characters and we can find them in non-apologetic sources of antiquity except for Jesus, his apostles, Paul and his relatives.

For example, the Gospels mention a character called Pilate who was governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius.

Was Pilate a figure of history? Who mentioned Pilate in writings of antiquity?

In a matter of minutes one can find information about Pilate outside the NT in the writings of Philo and Josephus.

For hundreds of years no-one can find a single sentence in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus about Jesus of Nazareth.

We know why.

Jesus of Nazareth was a 2nd century fiction character.

No manuscript of the story of Jesus has ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

This is exactly what is expected when the Jesus story initiated in the 2nd century.

I cannot go outside the evidence.

Jesus is a 2nd century myth character until new evidence is found.

I do not argue from silence. I argue with the present available evidence from antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

There is simply no evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century.

...
I cannot go outside the evidence.

Jesus is a 2nd century myth character until new evidence is found.

I do not argue from silence. I argue with the present available evidence from antiquity.

Can I ask where you got your qualifications as a Historian?

 

[dejudge]

Can I ask where you got your qualifications as a Historian?

I NEVER EVER claimed that I am an historian or that I was qualified as an historian.

Why is it even necessary to be an historian to read a book of myth fables and show people on the internet?

You seem to believe the Bible story of Jesus is history.

Are not these myth fables?

In gMark 1 a Holy Ghost bird descended upon Jesus.

In gMark 6 Jesus of Nazareth walked on the sea of Galilee.

In gMark 9 Jesus of Nazareth transfigured.

In gMark 16 Jesus resurrected.

In gMatthew 1 Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

In gLuke 24 Jesus resurrected and told his disciples to wait for a Ghost to get Power.

In John 1, Jesus was God Creator.

In Acts 1. Jesus ascended and a Powerful Ghost came down from heaven and started the cult of Christians on the day of Pentecost.

In Galatians, 1 a Pauline writer claimed he did NOT immediately consult with human beings when he was called by God to preach about God's own Son.

The NT is just basic mythology like Plutarch's Romulus.

Plutarch's Romulus

...... Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen........ the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night..

Mark 15:33 NAS

When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour

Don't worry!! The Jesus story is a compilation of myth fables.

Who told you that one has to be an historian to evaluate myth fables in the Bible which are just like Plutarch's Romulus?

 

[Brainache]

I NEVER EVER claimed that I am an historian or that I was qualified as an historian.

...

OK. Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

OK. Thanks.

You left without giving your qualifications as an historian.

By the way, what evidence is used to argue Jesus was a Zealot?

The Bible?

 

[Brainache]

You left without giving your qualifications as an historian.

By the way, what evidence is used to argue Jesus was a Zealot?

The Bible?

I wasn't telling you about how 100% sure I am of anything.

I just try to limit my inputs on this to real Historians. It saves time.

I've only read bits and pieces of the bible.

Anything else?

 

[maximara]

There is simply no evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century.

The Gospels mention many characters and we can find them in non-apologetic sources of antiquity except for Jesus, his apostles, Paul and his relatives.

For example, the Gospels mention a character called Pilate who was governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius.

Was Pilate a figure of history? Who mentioned Pilate in writings of antiquity?

In a matter of minutes one can find information about Pilate outside the NT in the writings of Philo and Josephus.

For hundreds of years no-one can find a single sentence in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus about Jesus of Nazareth.

We know why.

Jesus of Nazareth was a 2nd century fiction character.

No manuscript of the story of Jesus has ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

This is exactly what is expected when the Jesus story initiated in the 2nd century.

I cannot go outside the evidence.

Jesus is a 2nd century myth character until new evidence is found.

I do not argue from silence. I argue with the present available evidence from antiquity.

I agree with that but to quote from Remsberg (1909)

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

"That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

It has been clear for well over a century that Jesus of the Bible is a myth. But even in the historical myth category what we have doesn't lead anywhere:

"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." (Remsburg 1909)

But the Gospels are the only things that have actually details that can be crossed checked with history...and they fail spectacularly. The Birth stories are unconfirmable nonsense conflicting with history as we know it; the trials (Priests and Pontius Pilate) are similar unconfirmable nonsense conflicting with history as we know it.

 

[jobberone]

Getting into this late and I'm not reading all of this.

Where are some getting the idea that the non-existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth is an established fact? In fact I'd say the majority of historians with that interest would state the opposite is true.

 

[jobberone]

BTW, using a cherry picked reference esp one over a 100 years old is problematic academically speaking.

 

[Brainache]

Getting into this late and I'm not reading all of this.

Where are some getting the idea that the non-existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth is an established fact? In fact I'd say the majority of historians with that interest would state the opposite is true.

BTW, using a cherry picked reference esp one over a 100 years old is problematic academically speaking.

Welcome jobberone. It's a long story. Maybe start with this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268331

The opening post there has a link to a blog explaining this new type of Atheist internet warrior: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/why-history-isnt-scientific-and-why-it.html

Good luck.

 

[Brainache]

I'm cross-posting this here because this thread appears to be attracting some big History brains and I was hoping one of you guys might be able to help me out here. Being the enthusiastic Amateur that I am, I think I've found the clue that will crack this case wide open.

I was hoping I might be able to find someone knowledgeable enough to walk me gently through the destruction of my delusions.

Do you know of anyone who can help me with this little puzzle?:

{snip}
So far I haven't heard back from Mr LePort, but it has only been a day or two.

While the Noobs are catching up, I just thought I'd share an odd thought I had. I know this little puzzle of mine is likely nothing more than the usual Amateur getting carried away by coincidence. I expect my illusions to be shattered any moment now, but:

If it turns out that I accidentally spotted something that provides a concrete link between Qumran and the Early Christians, I would be the first Atheist who could truthfully say that I found Jesus and still be an Atheist. heh

That would be fun.

ETA: Maybe they would call it "The Brainache Question" or something. That would be hilarious.

 

[pakeha]

Getting into this late and I'm not reading all of this.

Where are some getting the idea that the non-existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth is an established fact? In fact I'd say the majority of historians with that interest would state the opposite is true.

Welcome to the thread, jobbertone.
What do you mean by "historians with that interest"?
Could you name any and link to their works, please?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Brainache]

I thought I should post this in this thread, because it was kind of Off-Topic in the "History-denying atheist activists" thread.

...
So:

From about the time of the census of Quirinius there was civil unrest in Judea. People objected to the Romans imposing taxes. Tied to this anti-Roman sentiment was the apocalyptic literature of books like Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel.

People were looking for a Saviour to deliver them from oppression, like the earlier guys did from Babylon and Egypt before that. (I know that isn't true History, but those guys thought it was).

They also idolised the Maccabees, the last family of Jews to deliver them from oppression. They did it against the Seleucids about 100 years prior. (don't quote me on 100 years, but it was about that, give or take). That's what Hanukkah is all about.

This tension continues to mount as more and more Jews fall foul of the corrupt Roman governors and their rich collaborating Herodian Puppets. These Herodians had started appointing their cronies to the High Priesthood and were raking in cash hand over fist, while people were starving in the streets.

In those Apocalyptic books there was a prophecy about a scion of the Royal House of David who would intercede with God on Mankind's behalf, that He come down from the clouds of Heaven with his Heavenly Host of Angel Warriors like a great rain and wash all the scum off the streets...

I think at some point, one of the people pushing this Apocalyptic Worldview got it into his head that he was "THE ONE", just like Neo, or Jim Jones... He was crucified and his followers were confident that he was at that very moment standing before God who was about to open the gates of Salvation ("Yehosh'ua") and unleash the Angels of war.

Unfortunately for our HJ, there is no God. His country was destroyed by the Romans under Titus and Vespasian, and he never came back with reinforcements as promised.

While all that was going on, Paul of Tarsus was trying to establish a form of this Apocalypticism which didn't exclude foreigners. He was mostly doing this in cities outside of Judea and there appears to be some dispute between the original Jewish followers of the bloke who nipped off to chat with God about sending the Heavenly Angel boys 'round, and the followers of this new inclusive brand of Heretic Judaism.

More than that, I'm even less sure of, so I'll leave it there. I hope that helps.
...

ETA II: If you want to see an analogy from modern History, look at the Native American "Ghost Dance". It is eerily similar, except no one got crucified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance

So, what do you think History experts?

How far off the mark am I?

I can take it. Have at me.

 

[Belz...]

There is NO evidence anywhere for an historical Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence is not weak or terribly but non-existing.

Well that's not true. We have the gospels and the Pauline works, which are extremely weak, but there nonetheless. We also have the existence of Christianity, which must be explained. How do you explain it ?

No non-apologetic writer of the 1st century wrote a single word about Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

Indeed, which means one of two things: 1) he didn't exist 2) no one noticed him except his own cult. Do you agree with those possibilities ?

Jesus of Nazareth was an invented myth character of the 2nd century.

That is _one_ possibility. Are you willing to entertain the other ?