Quoting Dr Eric Meyers, Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Archaeology, Duke University:

“I don't know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus. The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he's a historical figure... Those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

I know of some exemplary examples. There were other Christian sects, dating from the beginning of the Christian Religion that denied the physical substance of Christ. The Christians that formed our known Bible and believed in the “Physical Jesus Christ,” were only one sect out of other numerous Christian sects. There is also the interesting book by Robert M. Grant, Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments (SPCK, 1946).

The denial of a “Physical Jesus Christ” is not just a “modern fad”. The argument for a physical Jesus Christ coming from a Jewish Scholar from all people is stupid in the extreme, since Judaism got ITS knowledge about a physical Jesus Christ from Christianity itself – not from any independent contemporary historical source.

The physical Jesus Christ has led to many funny and hysterical aberrations, like for example the idea that Jesus Christ had descendants and that he played with his children in the fields of Rennes-le-Château in Southern France.

The references to the Desposyni (or more properly adelphoi), which argued that there were “Blood-relatives” (brothers and sisters) of Jesus Christ needs to be addressed.

James, brother of Jesus, is mentioned in Galatians 1:19 where Paul wrote: “I saw no-none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord's brother.” Within another context, in the earliest account of the Last Supper, Paul mentions the apostles as Brothers and Sisters (1 Corinthians, 11:33). Therefore because James was mentioned in the singular in Galatians 1:19, this simply referred to James as “Brother” that is singular to “Brothers” – not to a “Blood brother”.

The disciples would have referred themselves as “brothers of Christ” during the early centuries, that would have been mistaken by outsiders as blood-relatives. Today’s Monks are called “Brothers” in exactly the same way (Nuns are called “Brides of Christ”). Try finding references to the blood-brothers of Jesus Christ in the earliest Christian documents.

Paul did not believe in a real Jesus Christ as a human being, but in a Jesus Christ that was a supernatural power becoming manifest in the believer (the original “Incarnation”). The “Historical Jesus” was developed by later generations of Christians after the death of Paul, using his writings as inspiration. The myth of Doubting Thomas was created to combat versions of Christianity that rejected the physical substance of Christ (eg, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, etc). The Gospels do refer to the “Brothers” and “Sisters” of Jesus Christ but this represented a later development and evolution of Christianity, in an effort to make the historicity sound more realistic.

Today’s scholars and Theologians express the wishful thinking of backdating the Gospels as much as possible to the First Century, but there is no evidence for this. The evidence indicates that the Gospels date from the middle of the Second Century. This special pleading by scholars and Theologians exists to uphold the later evolution of Christianity.

Going back to the very earliest writings of Christianity. Quoting I Corinthians 15:45: “So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit”. This passage demonstrates there could not have been any direct or indirect descendants of Jesus Christ because original Christianity was an extreme Jewish Apocalyptic sect, believing that God would come down to Earth, destroy the Roman Occupation of Judea and bring about a New Jerusalem. When this fate did not happen the Gospels were invented. It's a very easy thing to understand.

You also do not need to be a “Scholar” to understand that the “Historical Jesus Christ” was just the religious dogma of one Christian sect. It wasn’t historical scholarship that invented The Gospels, but rather the exact opposite.

Let’s review the Timeline and Historical Context:

* First Jewish Resistance against Roman Rule...........66-70
* Second Jewish Resistance against Roman Rule......132-135
* First time that the Gospels appear in history...........150

Indeed, the view by scholars in our society that there was a “Historical Jesus Christ” is no different to the many people within our society that seriously believe in the existence of Flying Saucers. We know without thinking that Flying Saucers did not exist and do not exist.