And the "scholarly consensus" is based on phantoms and will-o-the-wisps that evaporate upon examination. The scholarly consensus among scholars who have actuall

And the "scholarly consensus" is based on phantoms and will-o-the-wisps that evaporate upon examination. The scholarly consensus among scholars who have actually examined the evidence in detail and published under peer review is unanimous that he most likely did not exist; and that if such a one did, nothing written in gospels/acts describes anything any actual person did or said. Wholesale fabrication was the normal mode of production for religious literature at the time. Why would exactly four gospels, out of the many dozens, be different, that way? And why exactly those four and not some other? Their contradictions demonstrate their authors were not interested in accurately recording anything. We need look no farther than 2 Peter to find dire warnings to pay no attention to the other Christians saying Jesus had not walked the Earth; so we know that was a common enough belief to worry its late forger. Of course anything they wrote was burnt in short order, along with them.