All historical evidence, and the lack of, offer us no information about Jesus except that Jesus Christ did not exist and that his stories were inspired by a regular human named Jesus that false messiah would have been very insignificant historically speaking. So where else can we look for information? There are still some clues found in our knowledge of history along with in both Christian and pagan texts.

	Clues For "Historical" Jesus Without any historical evidence suggesting the existence of Jesus why do most historians think there was a "Historical Jesus." The clues historians speak of for the concept of a "Historical Jesus" come from the gospels themselves. For example, Micah 5:2 claims the messiah would be from Bethlehem yet some of the gospels hint at Jesus being from Nazareth. Why not only mention Jesus being from Bethlehem? This puzzle makes sense if the story of Jesus Christ was partially influenced in the gospels by a different and human figure who was actually from Nazareth, and not Bethlehem. The end result is what we would expect to see if the two stories merged. A bigger set of clues is in the story of the crucifixion. Death by crucifixion normally takes several days yet the gospels say Jesus was only on the crucifix for 6 hours before dying (3 hours according to Luke). In John 19:29-30 a visitor put a sponge covered in vinegar up to Jesus' mouth, after which he immediately dies. At the tomb Joseph of Arimathea brought healing herbs, not embalming herbs. It appears this story is about a regular person, who may have been believed to be the messiah, who only appeared to die because the sponge probably contained a liquid to subdue him and the herbs revived him which explains the empty tomb. It is also important to note that the word translated to "resurrection" is more accurately translated to " resuscitation." This story makes more sense if it is an embellished legend based the events of an actual regular human. (read more)

1. A Plagiarized Savior A great deal of Jesus' life according to scriptures is just a plagiarized version of earlier mythological savior gods and the earliest Christian apologists were well aware of this. In a Chapter 21 of a letter addressed to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius known as the First Apology (circa 150-155 CE) Justin Martyr stated, "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." If Jesus Christ, as told by scriptues, was an actual historical figure and not just a myth like every other savior god then why is it that his life's story reflects a mirrored image of all the others? These stories that make up Jesus' life were all well known in the exact same region that the story of Jesus sprouted. These earlier savior gods were also firmly believed in and had religious followings of their own.

If Jesus Christ was entirely on a real person who recently lived instead of being a collection of myths and legends then why did the earliest Christians and scribes all believe in various versions of Jesus Christ? The Marcionites thought Jesus was a god who came to defeat the god of Moses and Abraham. The Ebionites thought Jesus was not a god but a human that was later adopted by God. The Gospel of Peter tells us that Jesus was not human at all but 100% a god. The group of Christians known as the Paulines later thought Jesus was human and a god. The concept of the Trinity was not established until late in the fourth century. Even within the scriptures that were voted into the Bible there are still a great deal of disagreeance about Jesus. Some are small but others are major like Matthew and Luke disagreeing on the year of Jesus' birth by a margin of at least 10 years. Why was there so much confusion and disagreeance if Jesus Christ recently existed?

Although aspects of Jesus Christ's life, particularly in the gospels, very well could have been influenced by legends related to an actual human figure the story of Jesus Christ did not originate from a historic figure. Paul the apostle, formally Saul of Tarsus, was the world's very first Christian. Prior to Paul and his vision (between 40 & 50 CE) no one knew of or heard of a savior named Jesus Christ. All mention and stories of Jesus Christ derived from Paul and later stories originated only in the areas around the Mediterranean Sea where Paul traveled preaching his story of Jesus Christ and no one wrote about Jesus until after Paul's stories were locally well known.

Paul's writings in the Bible, which are older than the Gospels and the oldest texts mentioning Jesus Christ. Although Paul claims Jesus was born of human flesh he also claims that no one outside of the divinely selected few knew about the gospel of Jesus Christ (that he was the son of god, a savior and died for our sins) until Paul himself personally shared it with the world. This lines up perfectly with the historical record since there is no historic knowledge of Jesus until Paul's teachings. He also never met Jesus himself which is why Paul never mentions a single quote from Jesus and states all of his knowledge of Jesus is strictly revealed to him through scriptures alone (with inspired guidance by Yahweh) and not from another man. Paul invented Jesus Christ.

Quick notes: 1.) The story of Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts is not by Paul. 2.) Paul never persecuted Jesus or the followers of Jesus. Paul only persecuted the rapidly spreading belief of a Jewish messiah being revealed. He was not persecuting the belief in the specific messiah Jesus Christ as no one was even mentioning such a savior.