That theory doesn't fit any of the evidence, though. What we see in the first few decades of the movement is group that's come from a common source and is starting to split off as they argue over in what light their leader should be seen and how people should follow his teaching. It seems bizarre that the followers of multiple different preachers would somehow come together, unanimously decide to forget their leaders and create a fake composite leader who supposedly existed and was publicly executed a few years prior, as well as composite teachings. Somehow they get everyone on board for it (we don't see any evidence of other sects that didn't follow), but just as soon as this disparate groups all agree to create a fake founder they suddenly split apart again. But none of them ditch the idea of the fake founder.

It's really bizarre when you think about it. There are figures that historians think might have been composite figures developed over centuries, but nothing like disparate groups suddenly creating a fake founding figure from a generation back (the Pauline letters are written a couple of decades after Jesus is supposed to have died).

And the theory doesn't solve any problems. Instead of one preacher we have some evidence for, we now have multiple preachers we have no evidence for, multiple proto-Christian movements we have no evidence for, councils to unify the movements by falsify their origin we have no evidence for, etc.

> followers of multiple different preachers would somehow come together, unanimously decide to forget their leaders and create a fake composite

You're assuming that there were leaders. Not really, the earlier christianity was the combination of several loose teachings taken from different sources, including jewish and pagan. They were then combined by Paul, who preached a celestial being, not a human, as their ultimate source. His writings were later harmonized with the tale of a human Jesus, who appeared on a somewhat remote past and in a remote country that had been destroyed by the Romans (Judea). So, no wonder that nobody disagreed about this tale, nobody had really seen it happening other than by "revelation".

That theory doesn't match with the evidence we have at all. The Pauline letters (the ones considered authentic) show us that there were many early leaders, some of whom clashed with Paul, as well as many different factions of Christian, some of whom Paul disagreed with. 1 Corinthians, for instance, he's talking about different Christians (or rather, proto-Christians) saying they're the followers of different leaders. You also see Paul as a late comer to the movement really try to defend himself as being considered an apostle. And one really has to twist Paul's words to say he's treating Christ as a merely celestial being (Paul even talks about Christ's human brother).

You're also claiming that the proto-Christians weren't working within a messianic Jewish framework (which the academic view of early Christianity fits nicely), but a completely different framework that we neither have evidence of before and that completely disappears afterwards.

Speaking of completely disappearing afterwards - Paul's letters are from ~50 AD, Mark is ~70 AD. So you have still have to posit a massive and seemingly unified (even though the early Christians were hardly unified) agreement to adopt the human narrative, since soon after we get a lot of information about heresies, and lots of criticisms about Christianity, but no one is aware that it (supposedly) was as a completely separate religion within living memory.

It's just a very strange theory, one that posits a completely different religion suddenly appearing and disappearing, and seems to be based solely on ignoring most of the content of the Pauline letters, twist the words of some of the others, and just making up the rest whole clothe. It's about as historical as Dan Brown's version of Christianity, and has as much scholarly support.

to me it's dogmatic bias to build your whole theory on the letters of one person. myths are created all the time and always has been. i guess my problem really lies with what you call evidence.

> to me it's dogmatic bias to build your whole theory on the letters of one person.

It's not built entirely on the letters of one person. Anyone who's studied early Christianity knows that there's a large variety of early sources, including Christian proto-orthodoxy, other Christian sects (including things that get labelled as heresies and gnostic today, though those terms are misleading), and early critics of Christianity.

This all gives us a decent understanding of how the religion developed during the first couple of centuries. Though we see a great deal of variety in early Christian thought, we don't see any of the evidence of this proposed precursor religion. The idea seems to entirely exist because people want it to, which is why it's been rejected by historians as a fringe theory.

I brought up the letters of Paul because the claim was that Paul personally created Christianity on his own as an entirely separate religion (one where Christ is a celestial and not earthly creature), and that it was completely changed (by...someone?) within a few years of his death. I'd think Paul's writings directly contradicting this theory would be rather important, not "dogmatic bias."

> myths are created all the time and always has been.

I can't think of any religion where historians believe the found preacher was invented within a few decades of it's creation. And the existence of myths in the past isn't carte blanche to ignore evidence and then make up one's own theory that's completely devoid of evidence.

> massive and seemingly unified (even though the early Christians were hardly unified) agreement to adopt the human narrative

No, you don't need agreement for any of this to happen. In fact quite the opposite, we know today that original christians (at the time of Paul) were at odds in practically anything, including the idea that Jesus came in flesh (you will find this being condemned in the new testament itself).

However, from several branches of this fringe cult one won out over time, the one started by Paul (who never knew a real Jesus, as he confess by the way). This one branch created a single story (the Gospel of Mark) that was copied and embellished by several others. This is the one version of Christianity that became famous and powerful.

So we don't have them all agreeing on the basic facts, as you mention. We have a story that was created and embellished, and them every other dissenting voice was suppressed.

> original christians (at the time of Paul) were at odds in practically anything, including the idea that Jesus came in flesh (you will find this being condemned in the new testament itself).

What are you saying is being condemned in the NT, exactly?

> Paul (who never knew a real Jesus, as he confess by the way).

Where does Paul confess that he never knew a real Jesus?

> Where does Paul confess that he never knew a real Jesus?

In Galatians 1:12 to 1:16, Paul affirms that he didn't lean about Jesus from flesh and blood, but from God's revelation. In no moment Paul says he ever saw a real Jesus, only his "divine revelation", which is a big confession from someone who lived in Jerusalem during the supposed ministry of Jesus. Moreover, given his age he should have been himself among those who killed Jesus, but he never mentions this little fact.

iirc, he actually didn't see anything, supposedly just heard a voice.

I'm confused. You said you believe Paul "preached a celestial being, not a human," but you think that his branch of Christianity completely invented the idea of a human Jesus just a few years after his death? It's not just that this theory has no evidence for it, but it seems to even contradict itself.

Anyway, we know a lot about the beliefs of various early Christian groups, and even have the writings of a number of them. But none of them match the beliefs you're positing.

Some stories and other elements in the canonical gospels clearly come from the general cultural landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean at that time, and specifically from the interplay between the Jewish and Greek traditions. Besides the Christmas narrative that I mentioned earlier, another clear example is how John identifies Jesus with the Logos, a Greek philosophical concept. Along the same line, many later practices in traditional Christianity came about as people from a Classical Roman or Greek background adapted the new religion to their pre-existing culture and expectations.

Ultimately, I’ve found that a person’s opinion on this tends to follow their preconceived ideas. Someone intending to dismiss Christianity altogether might conclude that since its supernatural claims are probably untrue then the whole thing should be thrown away. On the other hand, someone intending to take Christianity seriously might find that the combination of its founder’s teaching plus three thousand years of cultural development is something of extraordinary value in itself, regardless of any faith in the supernatural.

> another clear example is how John identifies Jesus with the Logos, a Greek philosophical concept.

I don't think this example is so clear. First, "logos" is a common word that appears hundreds of times in the NT. Second, "the word of God / the LORD" is a common and important occurrence in the OT. John's argument is that Jesus was the one delivering these messages, as he existed beforehand to do so (see John 8:52-58).

Third, just because it was a Greek concept, doesn't mean John is intending to apply it here. An easy example is how the Septuagint always translates the Hebrew word "sheol" to the Greek word "hades". Even though hades is a Greek philosophical concept, the intention is not to apply that concept; it's just the word that the translators decided is closest to the meaning of the original.

With that said, there's no question that the early church beyond the twelve wrestled with and eventually incorporated many Greek philosophical concepts into their belief systems. We just don't see clear evidence of that in the gospels, I don't think.

There are far less contemporaneous sources for Alexander the Great than there are for Jesus of Nazareth. So perhaps Alexander didn’t really conquer all of that land, and he’s an amalgamation of Macedonian and Greek rulers who invented him to glorify and justify their gradual conquest of Egypt, Asia, and Persia. And everyone in these countries like Seleucids and Antagonids got together to agree on a founding myth.

Or, you know, the theory that doesn’t rely on a historical conspiracy.

> There are far less contemporaneous sources for Alexander the Great

Totally untrue, there is archeological evidence for Alexander from day 1 of his conquests. Jesus has zero contemporaneous sources, everyone who wrote about him was living after his supposed death, and said what his followers were claiming at the time (hearsay).

> There are far less contemporaneous sources for Alexander the Great than there are for Jesus of Nazareth.

Tell me you're completely uneducated about a subject without telling me you're completely uneducated.

> There were obviously dozens of "gospels", but only 4 were officially selected several hundred years later.

Those 'dozens of "gospels"' had lineages of questionable quality, and were generally written much later. The four that ended being chosen were the ones that were the earliest written by people that could have been traced fairly well to the source events.