Do you consider this proof that Jesus is a fabrication?

I have always assumed that he was a scam.

I tend to believe the evidence and that is what the evidence says.

No I do not consider it proof!

Now it is clear some time after the first century that Christianity became a tool of the Roman Government. But that was Constantine I and in the third century.

While the release makes good fiction, it does not make good history or show good scholarship. When Nero and the royal court could confuse being a Christian with being a Jew (and that is part of historic record), the whole concept is far fetched and more like a page out of a fiction book then real historic research.

It would have been more likely that if the Roman elite wanted to create a "Messiah" that one could have been fabricated in Rome more easily with less trouble. But I am sure you know the joke about finding a virgin in Rome.

It's funny because Jesus is really the only part of the entire bible that I sort of believed might be based on an actual person. But I wouldnt be shocked to know that this guy is correct. However, without examining the evidence myself and researching the subject more thoroughly, I would not be invclined to believe or disbelieve anything concerning the bible, religion, mythology or the supernatural. I would be more likely to believe that my dog understands multiple languages as this is something I have personally witnessed. So no, I do not consider that news story as proof of anything. But I like your posts and it it very interesting, indeed.

I don't think it's a good evidence to declared something a fabrication/ However, in the first place, there is no solid evidence to prove that jesus do exist either.

If nothing is able to prove each other then I'll just stay an agnostic.

While I find that rather intruiging, it is far from evidence. That could just be a coincidence, you need far more than similarity between Jesus' travels and military campaigns to call it proof. For example, maybe Jesus specifically went to places where the Romans were to provide spirituality to people under their thumb.

It is rather interesting though, just not definitive.

Not exactly, but I wouldn't be surprised. This would have to examined this much more closely first.

Word is getting around that many internet christians stake their entire faith on doubling down on historically inaccurate data on "Jesus". They are even claiming that "every reputable historian concedes Jesus was a real person." And it gets wackier from there.

They may be getting duped by trolls without realizing it, but it is coming down to put-up-or-shut up time for christian Americans who demand we live in a theocracy created by a crumbling far right.

I think that he has noticed an interesting correlation, but correlation is not causation and even though I am an atheist, I am also a skeptic. Consequently I am not easily convinced to accept such "conspiracy theories" without solid evidence. I am even less convinced when his claim of an alleged "confession" appears to be more rhetoric than evidence.

No, the theory of Christianity without Christ is nonsensical. How can you have a religion without a founder? And if that founder is Paul, why did<t he just call his religion Paulism (or what have you). There is absolutely nothing that would indicate that Jesus was a fabrication.

Um, not until he can get people like Paula Fredriksen, Paul Meier, E P Saunders or even Bart Ehrman to take his ideas seriously.

I await his paper's publication in the Harvard Theological Review.

I might be an atheist but whatever you dug up there is....

Ridiculous.