No, it turns out there are just some terribly written books on the topic that have been proven as lies. See Chris White or Keith Thompson's documentaries on the topic. Even secular historians laugh at the claims.
These New Age authors even try to claim ancient gods were "crucified" hundreds of years before Romans invented it. So it is nonsense once examined by scholars.
There is no contemporary scholarship claiming Jesus didn't exist at all. Instead there is scholarship confirming his life, both Roman and Jewish sources who hated him when writing about early Christians they don't claim he was made up. Romans said he was crucified.
Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
Now ask yourself, why are so many people blatantly lying about Jesus' existence on Earth? Strange isn't it?
They are the earliest non Christian sources writing about the early Christians. Tacitus for instance.
Here is more from a historians answer comparing Alexander the Great and Jesus
The earliest extant biography of Alexander the Great was written 300 years after his death. The earliest extant biography of Jesus was written 40 years after his death, followed by three more independent biographies within 50–60 years of his death.
If you read anything on the life of Alexander, you will find that the historians who specialize in the subject have no problem mining the extant biographies for intimate details about his life, such as his favorite food or his feelings about his mother.
And
The birthplace of Julius Caesar, for example, appears in a single primary source written 175 years after his death, and that is accepted without controversy.
Saying "apparently this" and posting an entire website isn't an argument.
But let me give you another argument. 1st century Roman scholars were able to understand that Christians weren't going to their deaths over some person they recently just made up. Jews who hated Christ didn't argue that either. Yet fallen man 2000 years later insists this is the case because they wish it so.
And as mentioned earlier, modern fallen man have to create fictitious re-writings of ancient mythology to claim Jesus was a copy of them (see Zeitgeist and their sources). Why do they need to lie? Because the truth isn't on their side.
No, it turns out there are just some terribly written books on the topic that have been proven as lies. See Chris White or Keith Thompson's documentaries on the topic. Even secular historians laugh at the claims.
These New Age authors even try to claim ancient gods were "crucified" hundreds of years before Romans invented it. So it is nonsense once examined by scholars.
There is no contemporary scholarship claiming Jesus didn't exist at all. Instead there is scholarship confirming his life, both Roman and Jewish sources who hated him when writing about early Christians they don't claim he was made up. Romans said he was crucified.
Oh yeah? Let’s see the contemporary sources during Jesus’s era who wrote about him, show me your evidence.
Now ask yourself, why are so many people blatantly lying about Jesus' existence on Earth? Strange isn't it?
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17187
Bangarang! Slapped silly and speachless.
They are the earliest non Christian sources writing about the early Christians. Tacitus for instance.
Here is more from a historians answer comparing Alexander the Great and Jesus
And
Appearently, this: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17187
But i dont see why i should trust historical analysis. I know man is corruptable, like science and historical records
Saying "apparently this" and posting an entire website isn't an argument.
But let me give you another argument. 1st century Roman scholars were able to understand that Christians weren't going to their deaths over some person they recently just made up. Jews who hated Christ didn't argue that either. Yet fallen man 2000 years later insists this is the case because they wish it so.
And as mentioned earlier, modern fallen man have to create fictitious re-writings of ancient mythology to claim Jesus was a copy of them (see Zeitgeist and their sources). Why do they need to lie? Because the truth isn't on their side.