Random reflections on my evolution of belief

[Raf]

I keep having various thoughts for threads and not following through because the time investment that would be involved is prohibitive. But I recognize that I have made many statements and staked out many positions over the years that warrant revisiting. In no particular order (and fully recognizing that any of these could be a thread on its own), some thoughts:

* I'm not confident the historical Jesus ever existed. I know it's the position of mainstream scholarship, but I find their arguments unconvincing on balance.

* The BEST evidence for Jesus existing as a human being is the unresolvable conflict between the Nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke. If you read Matthew, you walk away believing Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem and were targeted as late as two years after Jesus was born. They flee to Egypt and, after learning Herod is dead, decide to return home, fully intending to return to Judea. But an angel warns Joseph not to go there. Only then, after all this, does the family settle in Nazareth.
In Luke, however, Joseph and Mary already live in Nazareth. An absurd plot contrivance puts them in Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and 40 days later they are in Jerusalem for the purification rites under the law (Luke 2:22). When they're done with that whole ritual, they RETURN to Nazareth. 
So how does this mean Jesus existed? Well, on its own, it does not. But it means that the earliest followers of Christianity understood Jesus to be from Nazareth, and there had to be some alternative explanation to have him born in Bethlehem. This makes little sense unless the belief that Jesus was from Nazareth was so strong that it could not be overcome, which makes the most sense if he is not a made-up character. They could make up the circumstances of his birth (and they clearly did. The two accounts have nothing in common except the three main human characters and the setting.
If Jesus never existed, the character they made up would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of Nazareth. 

* The best evidence AGAINST Jesus existing if Paul's insistence that he did not learn the gospel from the apostles. It's just not plausible, even if you take revelation into account (which is not required to answer the "did he exist" question), that Paul had a chance to talk to the followers of Jesus' earthly ministry and did not recognize them as an authority on what the Lord taught. I'm sorry, what? Paul appears completely unaware of the betrayal of Judas, and his epistles never quote Jesus. He does not mention the empty tomb at all, and he never refers to Jesus being executed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews. He never refers to the sham trial or the ascension, and he never refers to Jesus "second coming" or "return," but rather of his "presence." 
I think the simplest explanation for Peter never saying "listen to me, not Paul. Paul didn't even KNOW him," is that Peter didn't know him either. The story of Jesus' sacrifice came first and it took place "in the heavenlies." He is executed not by Romans but by "the princes of this world," a clear spiritual, not human, reference.

* I used to be quite certain that the Bible teaches God is all-knowing (past, present and future). Made a pretty strong case for it, in fact, based on scripture. But I no longer believe the Bible is consistent on the matter. The reason scripture appears to contradict itself is self-evident: It DOES contradict itself. God didn't test Abraham to teach Abraham a lesson. He tested Abraham because he genuinely did not know what Abraham would do. Ditto Job. The notion that the Bible is CONSISTENT on any matter is a presupposition, Its authors (plural) were all over the map on countless issues, including the limits of his knowledge and power.

* The Bible is not monotheistic. Wanna know why Yahweh is a jealous god? Because there ARE other gods. Not "false" gods. Competing gods. And he didn't like competition, no no no.

Maybe more later.