Gospel Evidence for Jesus is Worthless
The gospels, the stories of Jesus in the Bible which are attributed to Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, are supposed to be the inspired word of God. But if you
take the reasons the Church says they are true or probably true you could create
four or even six gospels perhaps making a saviour of Melchizidek to rival them
and say they originated miraculously. This makes it clear how much faith depends
on prejudice and laziness.
The Four Gospels purport to be evidence for Jesus Christ and his life and death
and resurrection. The very fact that they put so much time into discussing what
Jesus supposedly said about preparing for the second coming when he comes in
glory to destroy evil forever and judge the living and the dead indicates that
they expected this to happen in a matter of months or even weeks! For that
reason, those who had the gospels wouldn’t have published them preferring
instead to prepare those who were already Christians for the second coming
instead of trying to get more converts in. Also it is wise to be careful with
prophetic books and not publish them widely in case the prophecies are proven
false. We can be confident that the four gospels were kept confidential for
decades. That made it easier for the Church to fool the world with its story of
a Jesus who was as real as the man on the moon. There is proof that the bones of
the Jesus story were got not from a Jesus of history but from erroneous
interpretations of the Old Testament predictions and statements that were
mistaken for predictions or twisted to make them look like predictions. There is
proof that the teaching was stolen from other teachers. Some of the Jesus story
came from the lives of Jewish holymen. There is proof that the gospels lied that
Jesus was popular. The arguments for them being honest and telling the truth are
weak and futile. The gospel evidence for Jesus is worthless. We have no evidence
– except for some dubious evidence about the crucifixion and one or two other
big things – outside the gospels that the gospels are telling the truth.
Most philosophers who say miracles might happen do say that you need to see them
yourself and have them carefully assessed by experts before believing. The
reason is that if God is trying to say something through a miracle and God comes
first then utmost caution must be exercised. And you don't want to encourage
people who crave wonders and excitement and who merely foment and enable
superstition and credulity. Another reason is that if a miracle does not call
for a minute and cautious examination before it can be believed then nothing
does. This outlook calls for scepticism towards the gospel miracles for they are
based too much on hearsay and there is no evidence that anybody mentioned in the
gospels as a witness to Jesus' miracles knew what was written about them.
Some scholars think that many of Jesus' gospel teachings are authentic and they
assume that these teachings can be identified amid the mythmaking and miracle
story dross. This is nonsense for these teachings are inseparable from the claim
that Jesus did miracles. If the miracles are lies then the teachings are more
likely to be lies. It is easier to lie about what a person said than about what
they did.
The evidence for Jesus and his deeds is not as good as the evidence say for the
life of somebody and their actions today. If Jesus lived today and we were
living two thousand years into the future we would have evidence about him from
his bebo profile. Does that not show you how poor and unsatisfactory the
evidence Christianity gives you for him and his deeds is? Does it not show that
there is something badly amiss? Credibility is the last thing Christianity can
ever cloak itself with.
It is normal not to believe some things you should believe or to believe that
what is false is actually true. That is life. Yet Christianity says we are under
obligation to believe what it believes about Jesus! We are not allowed the same
privileges with Jesus.
PROPHETIC EVIDENCE
Prophecies in the Old Testament that were not concerned with Jesus were used to
make the Jesus story which shows that the Jesus story is untrue. That was where
the plot for the gospels came from. When prophecies of Jesus that are neither
prophecies or about Jesus provide the framework for the life of Jesus as it
appears in the gospel it is a sure sign that the writer is a fraud.
Surprisingly, the evidence from bible prophecy indicates not necessarily that
Jesus never existed but that lots of things were made up about him because of
them and that he may never have existed.
Jesus had a lot of harsh things to say about Jewish tradition. Yet this
tradition was to blame for much of the unjustified messianic interpretation of
Old Testament texts. Jesus himself according to the gospels interpreted
prophecies according to tradition even though he scorned that tradition left,
right and centre and eventually ended up on the cross over his disdain.
Christians pored over the Old Testament and weaved its plots into the Jesus
story.
The annunciation was invented from the story of the angel appearing to the
barren wife of Manoah to inform her of the miracle birth of Samson (Judges 13).
The angel tells her that she will have a baby and what he will be and that he
will save his people from the Philistines. The angel told Mary the same things
but said that Jesus would save his people from sin.
Mary’s Magnificat was plagiarised from that of Hanna (1 Samuel 2). Both women
had miracle births.
Jesus allegedly cured a man with a withered hand. The man had one withered hand
and he was cured in a house of worship. In 1 Kings 13, Jeroboam is in the Temple
and his hand is miraculously restored.
The story of Jesus walking on water seems to have been structured around the
story of the Exodus – see chapters 14 and 15. Jesus like Israel walks in the
middle of the sea. A wind from the east was blowing and was very strong. At the
end of the story both the disciples and the Egyptians had their hearts hardened.
Moses’ face was transfigured and Jesus was transfigured on the Mount of Olives.
Moses was even transfigured with him on that occasion!
The story of Elisha multiplying twenty barley loaves to feed one hundred men and
Elisha telling somebody else to distribute the food and some being left over
after they had eaten must have suggested the New Testament story of Jesus
multiplying bread and fish for thousands and getting the apostles to give it out
and some being left over.
Jesus calming the storm comes from Psalm 107 which describes men in a boat being
caught in a storm and crying to the Lord who calms the storm. This Psalm is just
recounting the experience of many and is not to be understood as a prediction
for you can’t see predictions everywhere.
God is everywhere and on the sea so the book of Job poetically says that God
walks on the sea (Job 9:8). He is not predicting anything about Jesus for the
context intended that these descriptions of divine power were to show how
powerful God is. Jesus could not have shown that before he physically walked on
water. The fact that Mark says that Jesus did not intend to be seen but planned
to walk by the boat on the water that night proves the story was an invention
for a real miracle worker only uses his powers as signs of love and not just for
short-cuts. Job then inspired the tale of Jesus walking on the water.
Elisha raised a dead boy and so did Jesus. The spirit of God came upon Samson
and upon Jesus.
The entry into Jerusalem on a donkey was taken right out of Zechariah which says
a king will do this. But if Jesus was really welcomed as a king then why didn’t
he become one and be made one? Anybody could ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and
say they are a king and not take over like Jesus. He would have had to have been
enthroned to be a real king.
Even the Psalm where the author complains that his friend who ate bread with him
at table has been called a prophecy of Judas betraying Jesus after the last
supper!
The events surrounding the death of Jesus were inspired by Psalm 22 and Isaiah
53.
Jesus might not have existed when his life story was constructed from ancient
texts. If he did exist we have lost the historical Jesus.
But what if Jesus purposely fulfilled the prophecies? Maybe he did but it is
easier for a person to write his story in line with them than it is for him to
fulfil them even if they are easy. We don’t have the independent and unbiased
testimony necessary to claim that Jesus did the fulfilling himself. The gospels
incredibly claim that Jesus did engineer his life to fit prophecy when he could.
He speaks of doing things so that the prophets might be fulfilled as if he
needed to do something to fulfil them. If the future can be seen you don’t need
to deliberately fulfil it. You have to have very serious reasons for saying a
person miraculously fulfilled prophecy for it is so unnatural and abnormal and
there is something badly wrong when it easy. If Jesus miraculously fulfilled
prophecies easy to fulfil then miracles are a sign that miracles are no good for
being signs for anything else.
The prophecy of Daniel about the 70 weeks is supposed to give the year in which
the Messiah would die. This could have led to somebody in the later first
century thinking that the Messiah despite the absence of evidence lived some
years before and died in that year. He would have then depended on supposed
divine visions and revelations to get details about this obscure Christ and used
the prophecy to prove that Jesus existed on the assumption that scripture cannot
err. He would have worked out that the Messiah must have been raised from the
dead when he failed to fulfil the prophecies about the glorious power of the
Messiah over the world so he would come again to do that. Maybe Daniel’s
prophecy was the reason the Jesus story started off.
A man whose life story contains a lot of alleged happenings that mirror
happenings in books written years before could have been made up. Or at least
much of his story could have been made up. Some would say in Jesus’ case that
this need not call the reports into question for the Old Testament prefigured
him or that Jesus’ life was mapped out by God to copy some Old Testament events. But the
Old Testament and Jesus never said it did that. Jesus said it prophesied about
him but that is different and implies he just happened to fulfil them and did
not do it on purpose. Jesus’ life matching the Old Testament “history” is more
likely to mean the gospellers and their predecessors had to invent a history for
him and scoured the Old Testament to get ideas. We know that in the Book of
Mormon, that a character called Alma whose life story is uncannily almost
identical to Paul’s though he was born before Jesus and Paul and in America has
to be fictional for it is just too close to be true. And Christians bigotedly
say this of Alma though their Jesus tale was as bad. We know the Jesus story was
written by somebody that had the Old Testament though it claims to have been
written before Christ. Alma and Jesus have their fictitiousness in common.
It is startling but true that novels from the time of Jesus have stories of
lovers which are parted by death and the dead female is buried and stolen from
the tomb by grave robbers upon discovering that she is alive and the grave
clothes are left behind and people think he or she has risen from the dead and
when he thinks she may have survived he goes and searches for her and when he
finds her he is totally unable to believe that she is not a ghost (WWW, Robert M
Price, Christ a fiction). Christians will claim the Jesus story inspired this
but the Jesus story could just as easily have been inspired by it. Love stories
are always going to be better known than Jesus stories so Jesus’ story did come
from the love story.
Bible Christians still say the Devil made fake dinosaur bones to fool the world
into rejecting the book of Genesis – and if Christians could say that then how
do you know that those who said Jesus existed, died and rose were not as
stubborn? They were unreliable if they were. How do we know that the apostles
who may have had a say in the formation of the New Testament were not just as
bad? Maybe they would just have been as biased. Perhaps they said that the Devil
destroyed the evidence for Jesus’ existence. Perhaps they claimed that when the
body of Jesus turned up that it was a satanic hoax geared to discredit the
resurrection? It is absolutely true that the gospellers did not use eyewitness
testimony as much as they used the Old Testament prophecies to figure out what
Jesus must have done and what happened in his life. Matthew went to the Wisdom
of Solomon and Zechariah to create the details about Jesus and his passion that
were lacking in Mark.
OBJECTIONS - Some embarrassing things were told in the gospels about Jesus. This
is supposed to mean they are probably true. But the really embarrassing material
could still have been left out. Embarrassment is not a very strong argument. All
religious texts say crazy embarrassing things for it helps them feel real to the
reader. Plus if the gospels were written to hurt the Jews it is no wonder there
is so much hatred vented against the Jews by Jesus in them. Another criteria is
the alleged sobriety of the gospels. That is very subjective. How many miracles
are too many? The objections mean nothing in the face of the failure of the
gospels to show the Old Testament gave the evidence for them in prophecy.