Nothing delusional here. No references to Yeshu’a Bar Yosef (which would have been his name had he existed) in reliable, contemporary historical documents exist.
The canonical Gospels, for instance, date from 66 CE at the earliest, and are probably taken from a much older oral tradition. They were never written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, but in Greek, and have been extensively edited and revised between then and the publication of the Authorised or King James Bible in 1611 CE. The same applies to the Epistles, which date from around 50 CE, and have undergone the same process of editing and censorship.
The three ‘synoptic Gospels’ Matthew, Mark and Luke are clearly taken from the same source — generally accepted to be the shorter and terser Gospel of Mark, which the authors of Matthew and Luke embellished. All three are in the tradition of Greek biography, a genre which places moral philosophy and teaching above factual accuracy. All feature a Nativity which is directly taken from the mythological account of the birth of the Persian deity Mithras (Mithraism being then Christianitys’ greatest rival in the Graeco-Roman world), and a Resurrection story which is a re-telling of the innumerable Mediterranean vegetation myths. In between we have an account of teachings which appear to be Essene, and politics which seem to be Zealot. Given the inconsistent behaviour of the central character, and the careful attention to his genealogy, we are justified in coming to the conclusion that Yeshu’a is actually a conflation of two people. One an Essene lay preacher of some repute, the other a Davidian descendant leading opposition to Roman occupation. The beginning and end bits being tacked on by later Greek editors who wanted their new religion to contain something the peasants understood.
The Gospel of John is a mystical work, concerned with personal salvation and Church government, and of no historical value whatever.
The Epistles, which form the actual theological basis of Christian thought, have taken this mishmash of Essene and Messianic Judaism, and overlaid it with bastardised Stoic philosophy. This alone is sufficient to show that Christianity is a Greek, rather than a Semitic, religion.
The Qu’ran, as subject as the Bible to centuries of editing and censorship, is equally unreliable as an historical source.
Mentions of Yeshu’a in Flavius Josephus are clearly later interpolations, as they do not occur in earlier versions of the work. In Tacitus’ work, he merely reports what the Christians themselves claimed, without supporting evidence.
The supposed references to Yeshu’a in the Jewish Mishnah and Talmud could equally be references to somebody else entirely (a supposed sorceror), or be post-Christian reactions to persecution.
Scholars who insist on the historicity of Jesus on the ‘evidence’ we have are guilty of either pro-Christian bias or wishful thinking!
I can accept that a Rabbi, a man of parts and learning, might have made a reputation by preaching the spiritual, communal and ascetic principles of Essene Judaism, to the annoyance of the established priesthood.
I can accept that a descendant of King David, a young princeling, might have led a quixotic crusade against the Romans, and been crucified for his pains.
But I very much doubt that these were the same man. As for the whole Son of God, miracle-working, virgin birth, resurrection and so forth — fairy tales!
I have done my homework!