If Jesus lived, he lived in obscurity and was not the celebrity the gospels pretend he was
Christians like to argue that the gospels were well known soon after being written and thus must be true for nobody refuted them or said they were nonsense. This is the pivot of their argument that Jesus really existed and really died on a cross and really rose from the dead. It only works if Jesus was a popular well-known man. He was not.
Another reason it does not work is that literacy was a problem.
The records from the early centuries show that few literate and educated people became members of the Christian religion. This is why even now the worship is about reading to the people not having the people read. That is a hanger on from the time when the Bible was selectively read to people who were barely listening and who did not see the context or understand what they were hearing correctly.
Perhaps about ten to twenty percent of the people had “some form of basic literacy, but only about two percent could be regarded as fluent and sophisticated literates capable of reading and understanding the great works of Greek and Latin literature.” See Herring, Introduction to the History of Christianity Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel at 11 (citing Harris, Ancient Literacy at 22, 272, 259 (may have been as low as three percent); Dunn, Jesus Remembered at 314 (citing C. Hezser, Jewish Literature in Roman Palestine (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) at 496-97); Dever, The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel at 225 (“most authorities estimate that no more than about 1 percent of the population of Israel and Judah in the Iron Age was literate”).
Yet another problem arises from the time when the gospels
existed. Freeman, A New Early History of Christianity at 22 (“it would
certainly be unusual to find living eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life after AD 60 and
it would be a matter of chance as to whether any of these survivors could
provide accurate and valuable information”).
The gospels go on as if Jesus was as well known and as popular as tea bags are
today (Matthew 4:23-25; Matthew 21; John 6:10; John 12:19). His parable of the
mustard seed which he thought was the smallest seed in the world shows how
little an impact he was claiming to be making and he said the seed would later
grow to make a huge tree.
Jesus was a heretic according to the standards adhered to by the Jews and the
Law enforced the murder of heretics (Deuteronomy 13, 18). The Jews Jesus
moralised at were more than keen to comply (Luke 4:28-30; John 11:48; Acts
7:54-60). Jesus showed he thought himself to be Christ from his baptism (John 1)
and the Bible says he never lied so he had to admit he was the Messiah if that
is what he was. Moreover, false messiahs could drive Rome to destroy the nation
(John 11:48). The Jews could not afford to let Jesus live. If there had been a
Jesus he would have been assassinated by a lone assassin. That way the Jews
would not have needed to resort to the scandal of getting Jesus crucified or
getting the blame.
Rome could not let Jesus live or go about freely even if he were only a
spiritual king for that could be a cover for subversive activity for once he had
the crowd under his spell he could display another side to his character and
start off a rebellion. Since 6 AD there had been so much turbulence that there
was no way the Romans could have been expected to even think about tolerating
Jesus and all the prefects in Palestine and especially Pilate were well known
for their appalling barbarity and extreme intolerance (page 368, The
Encyclopaedia of Unbelief). And a spiritual king can be more dangerous than a
political king for the former claims to be inspired by God. Also the Romans had
abolished the Jewish monarchy and to claim to be the Messiah was to claim the
Israelite throne (The Myth-Maker, page 37, 1986 Edition, Wiedenfield and
Nicholson, London). That of course makes claiming to be the Messiah ten times
worse. Why did he not drop or change the title and call himself King of Hearts
or something? He couldn’t because he was not that kind of a king but a political
Messiah. The Gospels are lying about Jesus being free. This is proof that nearly
everything about Jesus in the gospels had to have been made up. Jesus’
popularity shows that he gave no teaching that left the people spellbound and
did no miracles. This again eliminates nearly everything written about him. A
man who has so much legend about him is not likely to have ever existed.
Jesus said that he had nowhere to lay his head meaning that he had nowhere
comfortable to have a sleep (Luke 9). That shows how unpopular he was and that
nobody gave a toss about him. He also said that a prophet has no honour among
his own country and that he was no exception (John 4:44).
The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem to be welcomed by all its citizens is untrue
for days later they were begging for his execution. And Jesus was never anointed
as king so how could the people welcome him as king? They would not have hailed
him as king for that would guarantee that Rome would destroy their idol and get
them into trouble too for welcoming him to Jerusalem. And what about the real
king, Herod? Jesus could not be king unless he vanquished him first.
In Luke, we read that King Herod was anxious to meet Jesus. If that is true then
Jesus was not well known and hard to pin down. Whoever the king wants to see the
king sees – but only if he or she exists. Pilate was as keen and never met him
until the trial either. That must have been because there never was a Jesus for
them to meet.
If Pilate wanted to save Jesus like the New Testament says then why didn’t he
get some witnesses to defend him? Jesus must have been reclusive or a myth when
there were none. Why didn’t the Sanhedrin find some pro-Jesus witnesses at least
to keep up appearances and have them taken apart by their coached false
witnesses?
John 16:3 and Acts 3:17 speak of the leaders not knowing Jesus by spiritual
experience meaning who he is so it cannot be said that the gospels purposely
contradict themselves on his popularity. The Bible uses know in the ordinary way
and know in the sense that God inspires you to know who Jesus is.
The New Testament describes the apostles as very timid men and then it
contradicts this by attributing the courage to risk their lives by being at
Jesus’ heels all the time to them. The stories of Jesus and his entourage are
make-believe.
If Jesus had been so popular then why did Mark, the first gospeller write so
little about him? And why did he waste time and ink recording silly parables
with morals in them that we all know anyway? Did his imagination go dull on him
when he was inventing his saviour? It must have.
Strangely after casting out a demon in public during
public worship, Jesus bans any broadcasting of his miracle power in Mark
1:43-44. He cured a leper in that incident. Yet shortly after in Mark 5:18-20 he
asks for a miracle to be told. The notion that with the leper it was not
practical to have to deal with the interest the miracle would raise - crowds
would swarm is strange. Mark says Jesus tortured just after the cure with people
crushing around him. It was only a discreet cure of a leper so what brought that
on? It is the case that the gospel says Jesus could barely walk with people
around him as Matthew 8:18 and Mark 1:45 say. But nothing says Jesus had the
problem all the time. Jesus looking for attention before and after urging the
leper not to tell is inexplicable. It is best explained by gospels lying about
the popularity of Jesus.
If the gospels lied so much about Jesus then he could just as easily have been
invented. When you make up a God you have a better chance of promoting him by
saying he was once well known. The lies mean nothing in the gospels should be
taken as evidence for Jesus. When a person lies a lot it does not mean that all
they say is a lie but that all that might not be a lie should be neither
believed or disbelieved.
He Walked Among Us (pages 29, 30) claims that there was not much attention paid
to Jesus for in those days the secular press ignored miracle stories just like
it does today. This is nonsense for the Jews were very religious and such
stories would have been enthusiastically demanded as signs that God was going to
remove the Romans from Palestine. They were gullible times. People don’t have
much interest in religion these days and still there is a high demand for
miracle stories but stuff like healing and astrology do get a very prominent
place in papers. Anything to do with mental or physical health will always be
popular and is destined for the papers if there enough people interested in it.
The book claims that the Romans ignored Jesus for he did not attract huge crowds
and that gave them no concern. If he did miracles he had to attract them. The
book is in conflict with the gospels here which brag about the crowd. The book
says that anywhere the people wanted to make a king of Jesus he slipped away.
That would have been enough to get him the attention of the Romans. The book
will contradict the gospels before it would admit that Jesus’ miracles were
shown to be fake by the lack of interest in them.
Is the Christian view that the gospels are justification for Christendom’s
beliefs about Christ and its assumption that he existed right?
Some say that when you have the gospel of Mark 15:21 saying that Simon who
helped carry the cross of Jesus was the father of Alexander and Rufus and goes
into such detail as if to indicate that these people were well known that the
gospels are believable (page 101, The Reason for God). But this gospel was
written in Rome. Nobody in Rome cared who Simon, Alexander and Rufus were. In
fact, the mention of them makes the gospel seem contrived to match what a
historian would expect.
Modern scholarship proves that the gospels are unreliable. It exposes the
gullibility of the people and the New Testament writers. It exposes their
duplicity. There is plenty on this website to prove that the gospels were
hidden which would have boosted the Christian hoax if it were a hoax.
We now know that the Jewish Scriptures reached their final form a long time
after Christians would make you believe they were written. The gospels present
Jesus as teaching love your neighbour as yourself and treat others as you would
like them to treat you as summaries of the Law and the Prophets despite the fact
that these works are full of God’s hatred for unbelievers and his thirst for
blood. This might suggest that a legend about a man having lived centuries
before when the Law and Prophets were taking shape and were not so violent and
nasty and was worked into the gospels.
The Romans did not tolerate anybody who was suspected of being the Messiah like
Jesus was full stop, therefore the story of the ministry was entirely made up.
It is no use pointing out things that are allegedly marks of authenticity
because they match other records or because they seem to have been too shameful
to have been invented for an invented history of your grandfather would have the
same elements even if it were unintended.
Jesus told lies and made no prophecies of the future that were provably made
before the event and the gospels still said he was a true reliable prophet of
God. The Jews were falsely accused by Jesus of blasphemy for saying that Satan
could be doing exorcisms though Jesus for a mysterious evil purpose. It was
false for it was possible.
Nine-tenths of Jesus’ life is omitted from the gospels. Perhaps Jesus did
nothing interesting up to his ministry or never talked about it? But he must
have ministered to people before his big ministry. So, that is not it. The
gospels tend to be quite potty in the information they have selected so is that
why they tell us so little? Yes to a large extent though it seems potty books
would give some details of his pre-ministry life if it were potty to do so but
then when it is potty you never know. We can think that the gospellers always
reasoned that it was best to say little about Jesus for he never existed and the
less lies told the less chance you have of being caught out. Christians object
that they would have described loads of private miracles and portrayed Jesus as
not being a public figure if they did but if that had already been done by some
with some measure of success which is how inventing fake historical characters
starts they would have been able to go a step further and be more daring. It is
obvious that they used the reasoning to a large extent too from the material
they chose.
It is most likely that the explanation for Jesus’ hidden life is that he never
had a life at all. We are not told what Jesus qualifications were for his
schooling and training are mysteries to us. We would be if Jesus was the supreme
revelation from God. If there had been a Jesus we would be for it would not have
been overlooked.
It is argued that if Jesus were an invention he would have been given more
impressive credentials. He would have been declared a priest of the line of
Aaron, etc. etc. (page 142, Jesus Hypotheses). But most lies are believable
anyway. But at the same time, what better or more lofty credentials could one
have than to be declared Son of God and king of the Jews and priest and Messiah
and supreme prophet allegedly by God himself? It is simply not true that the
gospels were restrained in their opinion of Jesus.
It is argued that Nazareth, an unimportant place, is prominent in the gospel
story inferring that Jesus must have existed for why single out this place and
make it so important that it had to be the base for a Messiah? They will even
say that Matthew invented (true) a prophecy to explain this anomaly (false). But
obscure or non-existent prophets have to be plotted in out-of-the-way places.
You wouldn’t like to say that Jesus was based in Bethlehem or Jerusalem if he
never lived. Matthew could have invented the prophecy for hundreds of reasons or
perhaps he thought it was in the Bible though it was not. If Nazareth did not
exist in those days and might have been an embryonic settlement of Nazarenes,
consecrated secretive and loner men, then it was natural to plot Jesus there.
There is something wrong when Jesus never visited the neighbouring town of
Sepphoris when it was so close and so big and busy and the capital of Galilee.
Perhaps there was a mysterious and religious Jesus there and the inventor of
Christ just made it out that it was this man he meant though it was not if
anybody contradicted his account.
The evangelists might have been afraid to attribute big fancy miracles to Jesus
– like turning all the flowers of the Mount of Olives into peacocks – because
people would be asking them where his miracle powers are now. Jesus’ miracles
may not have included making a new mountain rise out of the ground in a second
but they are just as absurd as that in their own way. For example, would God
magically wither a fig tree just because Jesus looked for figs on it and found
none?
There are few statements in the New Testament which conflict with history or
archaeology. When you want your book to be the best chance at becoming
irrefutable you will keep it in harmony with history and geography. Even many
novelists use real names and real geographical places in their works of fiction
to make them more believable and to give the readers a better feel.
The Gospellers were afraid of God. Since God works against lies and errors you
have to make what you say as believable as possible and that is what they would
have done.
The John Gospel does not have a great structure or planning or selection of data
for to be written by one who knew all about Jesus. Yet the very last verse in it
says that the information was extremely plentiful. Then why is there so much in
the passion narrative that is a duplicate of material in the other gospels? Why
does Jesus tend to go on a bit and ramble and be boring, repetitious and vague?
Why cannot he have better and more stories about Jesus than he does? The answer
is that the Jesus stories were scarce and the gospel had to be padded out with
silly or invented ones. And when a famous person has no story that many people
can vouch for then that person is a myth. It is no use pointing to characters
who are accepted as historical on the testimony of one writer or whatever. That
does not prove that there was a Jesus. Believing in a man’s reality is only as
good as what evidence exists for or against it. A single witness is believable
but not very believable if he or she testifies to somebody existing even when
the subject is a believable one.
The Jews were prejudiced against the notion of God becoming man. Christians say
that the gospel story that God did this must mean that it is true because Jesus’
witnesses were Jews. This is rubbish. Every religion has its heretics. Jesus
fought to root out prejudice. The Old Testament never said that God would never
become a man. Real Jews stick to what the scriptures say. And besides Jesus
never claimed to be almighty God.
The silence or near-silence of non-biblical writers about Jesus refutes his
alleged flavour of the century status. Jesus if he existed was an obscure
ordinary man. The evidence for obscure people is usually suspect and it is in
this case.