Was There a Jesus?
The evidence for his existence is only imagined
All of the evidence for Jesus the alleged founder of the Christian
Church can be invalidated. At best there is no evidence, at worst the evidence
indicates that Jesus never existed. From my other books which you can access
through the homepage you will see that the Jesus story was unknown in the early
Church, that the New Testament evidence for Jesus can be dismissed as worthless,
you will see that the Jesus who the apostles knew was just a post resurrection
apparition and you will see New Testament traditions that Jesus didn’t live in
the first century but in times long forgotten.
Christians use what they think is evidence to argue that
Jesus existed. And we are expected to be convinced when Marcion and his
many followers said there was no Jesus before he appeared at Capernaum - so most
of Jesus' life is declared a myth. And what about the people who knew Jesus who
had no reason to deny a resurrection except if it was simply a lie who said he
did not exist after his death? The complete denier of Jesus being a real
man is merely taking another step. We don't need a bald, "Jesus never
existed", statement from those times. We know his existence is uncertain.
Introduction
Jesus Christ did not exist. If he did there is no acceptable evidence for it.
And if there is acceptable evidence then it is too flimsy to justify taking
Jesus seriously as a person never mind a god or wizard. To the world, I offer
Was There a Jesus? The truth can be known and should be. Unfortunately,
defending the existence of Jesus and accepting him as a man and not a myth is
where the money is and where the power lies. That is the real secret of the
strength of the popular belief that he was a real person. Moses was invented and
was similar to Jesus and had more supporters so why couldn’t Jesus have been
invented as well? Hopefully when the philosophy contained in my The Gospel
According to Atheism grows popular Jesus will be as little known as Henry James
Prince, the nineteenth century Messiah in England.
The sources we have are the gospels and the rest of the New Testament writings
which are regarded as scriptures or God’s word by the Christians. We have a few
short writings from the first post-apostolic generation. We will test them all
to see if they really assist the case for belief in Jesus as a historical Jesus.
We have some references from secular writings. The trouble is that they are
either vague or could have been forged or could have been depending on Christian
hearsay. For example, somebody put a piece about Jesus’s existence, miracles,
messiahship and resurrection in the unbeliever Josephus’s work. Oddly, what they
put in seems to base the evidence on alleged prophecies of Jesus from the Old
Testament and not on proper evidence.
Tacitus said that Christ was put to death under Pilate. Unhappily for
Christians, Pilate killed several Christs so there could be some confusion
there. Do not forget that the Gospel Jesus says that there will be many saying
that they are Jesus or the Christ and that the time is close - see Luke 21.
Tacitus said when he died the superstition was checked for a moment but broke
out in Rome. This does not fit the Christian claim that the Church broke out in
Palestine a few weeks after Jesus died. But Christians just focus on what suits
them. And checked for a moment and then breaking out in Rome means that Tactitus
was thinking of a long moment if he was thinking of Jesus Christ!! If you were a
historian writing about events from decades or centuries before you would expect
people to know that the expression for a moment would not be referring to a very
short time but maybe a period of about a year. A year or more could be
represented by a moment when you are dealing with a long period of time.
Tacitus speaks as if the Church broke out for the first time in Rome not
Palestine.
Tacitus says it happened soon after the death of Christ, a year or so.
These contradictions of the history of the Church show that Tacitus was not in
any position to be relied up in what he wrote about Christ. He could have been
wrong to think that Pilate executed him.
The contradictions are inexplicable. Was a forger at work again? If so, then
the forger needed to fabricate evidence for the existence of Jesus which would
be a very telling thing to do!
Thankfully the body of writings is a small one which makes the task not too
difficult. We will see that if Jesus did not exist then it was a case of
definitely not existing or a case of having no evidence one way or the other
which would mean we don’t know if he existed or not. Either is fatal to the
Christian faith.
THOSE WHO DENIED THE EXISTENCE
Second Peter states that the apostles did not give out cleverly devised myths
when they revealed to the world the power and the coming of the Lord Jesus but
were eyewitnesses to a visionary event, the transfiguration, that revealed the
majesty of Jesus (1:16). In other words, a vision verified the power and coming
of Jesus. It doesn't hint that it means the second coming of Christ. It just
says coming. The vision he recounts said nothing or indicated nothing about a
second coming. Second Peter is plainly saying that Jesus' power and coming had
to be revealed to the apostles in a vision. He was not heard of before. This
supports the idea that there was no Jesus known of until some people claimed to
be having visions of this being who claimed to have been crucified and died and
rose again.
Justin Martyr recorded that a Jewish theologian around 150 AD, called Trypho,
said the Christ Christians believed in was an unfounded rumour and the
Christians invented a Christ for themselves. He was certainly denying the
validity of any Christian evidence about Jesus if not denying the existence of
Jesus. But what he wrote can be interpreted as an outright denial that Jesus
lived.
Justin protested against the Roman opinion that Christians were really atheists
because they worshiped an invisible God and not one of the human gods who lived
in some inaccessible place like they had.
Justin says that Christians worship the Son and makes no effort to show that
Christians also worship a human God. This proves that the Romans believed that
Christ did not exist and that they felt that the Christian worship of Jesus was
a pretence to cover up atheism for they could not seriously worship a man who
never lived. Most people then did deny Jesus’ existence in those days. It also
proves they were right for although Justin says he believes Jesus lived 150
years before he had no evidence for this contention. Those who would have known
best, the educated and the rulers, denied Jesus’ existence. Most of the
Christians had nothing historical to say about Jesus even by then. Their leaders
were as bad. That got them into trouble for the pagans gave their gods elaborate
life-stories.
Justin declared that Sunday was the day God made the world though Genesis says
it was Saturday. He is denying that Jesus was a Jew for, being a Jew, Jesus
would not have believed that. When believing people could not even get Jesus’
religion right it shows that he must have been invented.
Justin’s grave departures from the apostolic teaching do not inspire confidence
in him as a worthy foundation for arguments for Jesus’ existence and we can only
rely on him when he lets slip what he does not want us to know.
Justin made Jesus a god below God contradicting Jesus’ strict monotheism.
Celsus was a Roman historian and writer and he declared that Jesus’ virgin birth
and death and resurrection were fables as were the stories Christians told about
Jesus when they were doing magic spells (page 53,54, Celsus, On the True
Doctrine). This was in the sixties or seventies of the second century. If Jesus’
crucifixion and death were fables so was Jesus or at least he was very likely to
be a fable! The Romans had no need to deny the crucifixion. Indeed they
considered it a proof that Jesus was a fake. Their denial is very significant.
The Testament of Levi says that the Son of God will receive great honour in the
world until he ascends. This denies that the killers if any could have been men
for the whole world worshipped him. It puts Jesus outside the time span spelled
out in the gospels for he must have lived in a long forgotten time when that
happened.
(See www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-07.htm#P378_53868).
The Church was bothered by converts who began saying that Jesus was not a person
but an apparition or symbol seen by natural eyes or by the imagination from the
very start.