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 the interesting book by Robert M. Grant, which although written from the traditional Christian perspective, does cite the Christian groups that denied the physical substance of Jesus Christ, in Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments (SPCK, 1946; Revised & Expanded, Westminster/John Knox Press, 2003).

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 “Historical Jesus Christ” is given in “Antiquities of the Jews” by Flavius Josephus. Unfortunately this is not definitive because we do not have the first edition of his book. The earliest existing manuscript by Josephus of this book is the Ambrosianus 370 (F128) dating back to the 11th century; preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. However, it can be ultimately traced back to Eusebius of Caesarea, who quoted the passage about Jesus Christ during the fourth century when he wrote his “Ecclesiastical History”. But it cannot be definitively proven to be authentic because it could be a passage added later by Christians.

The other author who is given as being a witness to the existence of the “Historical Jesus Christ” is Cornelius Tacitus, in his book “The Annals”. Once more, this cannot be definitively proven since we do not have the first edition and the problem of later passages added by Christians. The oldest surviving copy of Tacitus's “Annals” that mentions the account of Christians is the Medicean manuscript Plut. 68.2. This manuscript is held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy. It is believed to have been written in the 11th century at the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino. An important fact: Eusebius of Caesarea did not give the account by Cornelius Tacitus during the fourth century in his “Ecclesiastical History”.

The idea of Christian embellishments and additions into texts is not so outrageous, since it’s known that the works of the early Church Fathers were also doctored in this way by various scribes when comparing the ancient existing texts with each other.

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. It is found in most of the modern books by today's Biblical Scholars and it confuses many lay-people because it is written like “historical fact”. It is not clearly described as wishful thinking and a theory.

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.

BEWARE: YOU CANNOT BECOME A SCHOLAR OF THEOLOGY OR HISTORY IF YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE NONSENSE ABOUT THE EARLY DATE OF THE GOSPELS. THIS IS SACROSANCT.