I only threw out 2 options. I could conceive of many others that are not ridiculous. I'm going to keep using "Jesus of Nazareth" as a descriptor, for no other reason than convenience. You bring up the detailed information in the gospels about the area at the time. But those first/second century writers would have had access to works that have been lost to us in the intervening 2000 years. So John could have simply copied a work about 1st century the little details Jerusalem into his book. Most of our assumptions about the origins of the Christ cult are based on nothing more than taking the gospels at near face value. Which is really wrong-headed. Considering the Torah is full of out and out propaganda, revisionist histories, and fables. Which we know thanks to modern archeology. And the gospels are probably near as bad. The character "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been based on one person. But I doubt it. More than likely he's an aggregate character compiled from the stories of the leaders of several Messiah cults that existed in first century Judea by the gospel writers. The Christians persecuted by Nero may not be the same cult who's beliefs you and I were raised in.
Now you ask why would a Messiah group create a "Jesus of Nazareth" identity and share it? Easy, if Herod was even a quarter of the tyrant histories make him out to be is why. The actual leader of that cult has the idea that keep to confound the authorities is too have them all play the part of their cults leader in different places. I never insinuated that the cult was led by committee at that level. But that the true leader kept himself hidden.
Don't mistake fear for anger. That some magical king sky faerie is always watching me for his amusement like a rat in a maze makes me very angry.
Bookmarks