There have been serious scholarly attempts to decide what the “historical Jesus” was actually like, and how likely he is to have actually said and done the things recorded in the Gospels. See, for example, the Jesus Seminar. As you can imagine (or read about in that article), there’s a significant amount of controversy over its methodology and its conclusions.
And even if there was an actual historical eclipse at that time, of course that wouldn’t prove anything. People can write fictional stories with fictional characters that take place during historical events that actually happen.
Actually people were more likely to invent fictional stories and fictional characters when there is some real event upon which to hang them - if they don’t know the actual explanation for something that happens, then that’s an open invitation to make something up to fill the lack. The vast majority of gods and the like serve to explain things in nature, up to and including eclipses.
With all the other myths containing a savior or messiah, or even in creation myths, it’s always been somewhat clear to me that Judaism and Christianity are mish-mashes of other previous myths. With the lack of eye witnesses and history to refute these biblical claims, why wouldn’t Jesus be a myth too?
Since the only evidence that can be provided comes from the bible-- like Jesus sending demons into 2,000 pigs then over a cliff, killing a fig tree out of spite (all while there is famine) and his general illiteracy, I certainly don’t want him to be real. Even if he was real, clearly not a son of a god with good intentions. Ask WWJD, then do the opposite.
At least the pork industry will praise you. 
As far as the eclipse or anything mentioned skyward, don’t the “three kings”, or constellations move towards a brighter star during the period of Christmas/Passover?
If anyone has some background on that, please post. 
Stars don’t move relative to each other. Planets move relative to the stars, but not in their motion doesn’t repeat yearly.
What’s the period of Christmas/Passover? They’re at two different times of year.
Ooop! I meant christmas/hannukah.
I thought the “three kings” were in the belt of Orion, somehow the constellation Virgo is involved (Mary/Water/mother of earth) and the bright star was a planet moving toward the kings in the Orion belt. Summen like that there…
Matthew doesn’t say they were kings or that there were three of them. He only says there were an unspecified number of “magi” which didn’t mean “kings,” but was something of a catch-all reference to Zoroastrian/Persian practitioners of esoteric arts – primarily astrology, but also sorcery, alchemy and the like. Wizards, basically.
And there’s no reason to think Jesus was born in December anyway.
Well, if not for the courage of the fearless apostles, the religion would be lost.
When did this eclipse aspect get added to the story, anyway?
eta:Never mind - it turns out there’s a Wiki page for everything nowadays.
Personally, I don’t believe in a historical Jesus, because I think all the textual evidence Diogenes cites in post #5 is not very convincing at all, and there is no other, better evidence than that.
The overwhelming majority of history was written by people who were not eyewitnesses to the actual events. That is why you will never find a single history textbook which asserts that only eyewitness testimony is acceptable.
Heck, you won’t even find that in a court of law! Laypeople may think that only eyewitness accounts are allowed in adjudicating a case, but that’s simply not true. There are numerous circumstances in which hearsay is perfectly acceptable as evidence.
Professional historians don’t say “Is this testimony a first-hand account? If not, then throw it out!” Rather, they ask which explanation can most plausibly account for the evidence at hand. Now, I’m not a professional historian myself, but I do like the criteria laid out by philosopher-historian C. Behan McCullagh, which are what I use in discussions like these.
That same objection would rule out just about anyone from ancient history. The reality is that most historical figures, whether ancient or modern, just don’t write much about themselves.
That’s the problem when it comes to discussions like these. People who question the historicity of Jesus apply criteria that are far more demanding that the criteria normally used in evaluating ancient history. “Where are the first-hand accounts?” they demand (of which I’d argue that there are some, but that’s ultimately beside the point). “Why weren’t any of these accounts written during his lifetime?” – again, a criterion that historians do not require. “Why didn’t he personally write about himself?” and so forth, and so on.
Yep, Wells was pretty much the foremost proponent of the “Jesus never existed” claim. Even he has abandoned that theory, though.
I don’t fault you for cutting him some slack, but when a guy’s claims are wrong, then they’re wrong. Here is an extensive discussion of Wells and why his theory did not hold water.
Well, since you’re big on mocking the ignorance of believers, you’d better brush up your astronomy a little for your own good name’s sake. Orion’s well out of the plane of the Zodiac, to which all the bright planets are constrained. The nearest Zodiacal constellations to Orion are Taurus and Gemini, and Virgo is a full quarter of the sky round from Gemini (after Gemini they go Cancer - Leo - Virgo; that’s three out of twelve). And as mentioned, while the planets wander all over the sky there isn’t anything that any of them does every Christmas, on account of their all having years either much shorter than Earth’s (Mercury, Venus) or much longer (the rest).
Orion’s belt is conspicuous for its three bright stars Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka, but many of their near neighbours are much brighter, including Rigel, Betelgeuse, Sirius, Procyon, Castor, Pollux, Aldebaran and even (if you’re far enough South) Canopus. So, nothing all that kingly about them - not that the Bible talks about three “kings” anyway, as I assume you know.
I’m perfectly willing to believe there was a historical Jesus. As other posters have mentioned, the Roman world of that era was filled with cults, would-be messiahs, philosophers, and other assorted scoundrels.
That being said, I don’t think it’s entirely unfair to demand a higher level of evidence for Jesus’ historicity than that of other historical figures. Unlike many other figures of his era, many (though by no means all) of the near-contemporary sources suggesting a historical Jesus also suggest that this individual had a number of supernatural power, was the son of God, and so on. As an atheist, I find these claims difficult to credit, and they erode the credibility of these sources when they refer to non-supernatural bits of Jesus’ life. Might there have been a philosopher named Jesus who had a brother? Sure - but when the fellow saying that is also saying that Jesus had magic powers, I can be forgiven for a heightened degree of skepticism on the non-magical claim.
Even before Wells said that he was willing to allow that someone did indeed write the saings ascribed to Jesus, it was pretty clear from his own works that he was leaning that way. But to say that "he has abandoned the “Jesus doesn’t exist” stance is going too far – he has simply acknowledged that some individual might be responsible for many of the sayings of Christ. He certainly doesn’t think that anyone having a biography remotely like that ascribed to Chist existed.
As for the article supposedly debunking wells – that’s just a stage in a back-and-fortn between wells and its author, bot by any means a disproving point-by-point of Wells’ views. It’s too short, in fact, to even adsdress all of Wells’ points. You’re misrepresenting it.
Yes, I think there was a person named Jesus. But everything we know about him is fictitious.
If I write a story about Diogenes the Cynic performing miracles, his existence doesn’t lend credibility to my claims.
Here’s one explanation for the Star of Bethlehem:
Quoth Diogenes the Cynic:
As a magus myself, it’s something of a pet peeve of mine when “magi” gets mistranslated as “kings”.
As for the nature of the Star, my pet hypothesis is that the Magi saw something astrological which led them to believe there was a new king being born, but that Luke, like many writers for the general public today, managed to completely mangle their technical jargon to the point that it’d be impossible to reconstruct what they actually saw without direct access to their notes.