I also think it rediculous that Alexander Jannaeus crucified  Jesus.  No one crucified Jesus since he did not ever exist. But no doubt  Jannaeus' habit of crucifying Jews added details to the later story of the "annointed One".

       Yeoshua Bar Yuseph,- Jesus of Nazareth-, is a conglomeration of meny legions;  some based on facts and real persons. Starting with Mithra of the Zorastrians. A Jewish king crucifying other Jews was a convient precident for a Jewish court condeming another Jew to crucifixtion rather then the useual stoning.  Jesus suffering on the cross made a better story then getting his head bashed in by an irrate mob.

        The latest archeaological discoverys in Nazareth show no one lived there untill (cir.) 25C.E. Your gospell writers seemed to have confused Jesus THE Nazareen with Jesus (or James) OF Nazareth. The population there boomed after the year 70 C.E.; likely refugees from the destruction of Jerusalem.

        Christos is  a word that means "annointed"; Christians were those who believed that the Jewish savior "The annointed one" had arrived.   The name  jesus was simply put in front of the word christ because it was convienent around the year 60 C.E.  Saul of Tarsus was the biggest promoter of this "real person" shoved into an already existing cult.

        How much of J.C. comes from Mithra (cir.550 B.C.E.);  a lot, 12 desciples, birthday Dec. 25, virgin mother, early death, preaching peace and brotherhood, return from death 3 days later, big feast before death...etc.  Then add in the crucifixtion story curtisey of Jannaeus. Plus teachings from early 1st.century preachers like John The Baptist and other itinerate rabbis' and you end up with what Christians believe is true.

Hello jeffrick,

I never said that Christianity doens't have striking similarities to Jesus. I'm not trying to prove the existence of the Christian conception of Jesus. But it's reasonable to assume that the man existed. You didn't try to disprove the evidence I listed in my first post.

Hey jcgadfly,

I'm not referring to the obviously forged passage from Josephus referring to Jesus. However, that's not the only reference he makes to Jesus. He references Jesus as the brother of James. James gained significant prominence as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Jesus as the brother of this James from the Jerusalem Church are clearly supported by the Gospels/Acts and the letters of Paul. These sources are independent because the Gospels weren't written until after Paul died around 63 CE.

Finally, Tacitus is very realiable. You need to read the whole account. Here ya go!

Essentially, Nero used the Christians as the scapegoat for a fire in Rome. While reading the text, it is clear that Tacitus absolutely hated Christians. It's highly unlikely that this account is fabricated or altered. Furthermore, tacitus confirms facts from the Gospels such as the crucifixion of Jesus and the fact that he was killed under the goveronship of Pontius Pilate. That's really good historical evidence to assume that Jesus existed as a historical person.

I don't know where Robert Price got it from for sure but one source is Epiphanius. Look here:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/case02.htm

Look for Jannaeus in that page and you will find the section where it talks about this. From reading that section looks like Epiphanius might be making a dogmatic claim and not based on any actual knowledge.

It's an old book but it has references to where the quotes come from.

Howeve I think Price mentions that some Jewish-Christians beleived this too which is not mentioned here. He might have another source.

 I'd like to point out that Josephus didn't refer to Jesus son of Joseph, but Jesus son of Damneus, who was made high priest of Judea by King Agrippa after his brother James was executed by the previous high priest, Ananus. Agrippa became King in 48. 

The copies of Josephus we have have the words "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James", but this was likely a copyist error, derived from a marginal note a monk must have put in when he came across the name "James", knowing that he was the brother of Jesus because of what occurred later in the story. The semantics of this sentence make no sense; at this point in the narrative he is talking about James being brought before the high priest, Ananus for some crime, why would he introduce him as the brother of this other person, Jesus, who has never been yet mentioned in the text? This is clearly not Josephus' words, as Josephus was both a Jew and a pharisee, and even if he was writing about Jesus, would not have called him "the Christ." The same holds true "Testimonium Flavianum", which was most likely at least partially a forgery. 

There are no historical records concerning the existence of Jesus prior to Antiquities, which was written in 70. Most merely remark, in passing, upon the fact that there are a group of people who are called Christians (or "Chrestus" in the case of Suetonius) who worship a man they called the messiah who was called Jesus. The assertions that Jesus was crucified by King Alexander were likely attempts to assert a fictional Jesus into historical time by people who still remembered the first few decades after Herod.

Which of the claimed messiahs were the Apostles following if there were others. Are you saying then that they followed no one. Wouldn't it be illogical to do all that writing and following for no other reason then a joke on the upcoming generations. What were they to gain by pulling a generational falsehood, and write all what they did for no reason.