WHY JESUS NEVER EXISTED
Regarding Mythicism, the idea that there was no historical Jesus, Earl Doherty
wrote that in last 50 years, there has been almost no rebuttal offered to
mythicism by mainstream scholars, and nothing of a comprehensive nature.
Bart Ehrman made a good attempt. Mythicism could be true when it has not
been examined properly.
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 god or wizard. The nearest we get
to evidence for Jesus having lived is the anonymously authored and partisan four
gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for everything else is far more, or could
be, hearsay than what they are.
That nobody forged writings in the name of Jesus but plenty in the name of his
alleged associates speaks volumes. Did they suspect there was no such man?
Paul never gives any details about Jesus and speaks of knowing Jesus in
apparitions and Jesus even tells him about the last supper. We don't even
know who Jesus had the last supper with. This is akin to people in five
hundred years finding no details about Donald Trump in social media. Paul
stresses being polite to people and obedience to the empire. Neither of
these fits Jesus' rudeness in the gospels and how Rome killed him.
Because Jesus came back from the dead and went to God, he knows what God’s truth
is. If we didn’t have the truth from the risen Jesus and wanted to go to the
abyss for it that would mean God would have to raise him again to stop us. This
indicates that God raised Jesus from the dead so that Jesus would be able to
reveal God’s truth. Jesus did not do that when he was a man. He did it after he
died and rose again.
The gospel Jesus then was a pack of lies, perhaps good ones and perhaps based on
the lives and teachings of some Jewish saints to make them look real but lies
all the same. If you read the epistle of James you get the impression that the
teaching of Jesus was plagiarised from that of James and perhaps events from the
life of James were used to make stories up about Jesus.
Paul said Jesus died according to the scriptures which must mean Isaiah 53 which
speaks of somebody dying like Jesus in the PAST tense. There is no reason at all
to not take this tense literally. Paul may be saying that Jesus died hundreds of
years before.
Paul said that he received the information that Jesus died for our sins
according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3). It would seem then that if
Jesus died recently Paul would not have to receive that news from God. But some
say that what Paul received was not that Jesus died but that he died for sinners
in accordance but the main thought is the death. Paul would have written that
Jesus had died and that he received the information that it was for sinners had
he meant what Christians say.
Because Paul was the first writer what he says goes. The fact that we know who
he was and how prominent he was makes him supersede the gospels no matter if
they are plausible or not so even if he is the only one that gives evidence that
Jesus never existed we can safely ignore any testimony as to Jesus’ existence
after him. Such testimony is not being dismissed as worthless but as not being
solid enough.
According to Irenaeus, a major Church father from the late second century, Simon
the Magus claimed to be divine and hinted that he was the Messiah. Irenaeus
declared that Simon said that it was said that he suffered in Judea but that he
hadn't suffered at all. Simon was claiming to be Jesus who suffered the cross
there. Perhaps, this reflects heretical Christian teachings that Christ did not
really suffer or die on the cross but it only looked as if he did. If Jesus was
really a contemporary of Simon, Simon could not have claimed such a thing and
especially if he had become a Christian as the book of Acts claims. There could
not be two Simons at the one time. Simon seems to be saying Jesus lived
centuries before him and was a previous incarnation or appearance of his. This
would refute the gospels for putting Jesus in the first century.
John in a first century epistle says that the Antichrists are denying that Jesus
came in the flesh and was the Christ. So we have a plethora of people who
regarded Jesus as important but denied that he was a real flesh and blood man
and who denied that he ever claimed to be the Christ. They contradicted nearly
everything in the gospels by saying that. If Jesus never claimed to be the
Christ, then all the sermons in which he claimed to fulfil Old Testament
prophecy are fabrications, and he never rode into Jerusalem on a donkey to the
cheers of the people like the Messiah was supposed to do. He would not do it
even if he were just a vision for that would make the people think he was
fulfilling Old Testament prophecy which the antichrist witnesses didn’t believe
in. These witnesses were saying that the gospels, whether they knew of them or
not, are untrue. There might have been no gospels in those days but it does not
matter. They were still proving that the gospel Jesus never existed. To ridicule
these witnesses to the absence of historical data as heretics is totally foul
and unfair and fraudulent for we know nothing about them as people. To say that
Jesus existed despite them is as bad as saying that Jack is guilty of murder and
not interviewing the witnesses who say they know he is innocent. When the
Christians like John were boasting about being of God and saying that anybody
that would not listen to their gospel was not of God (1 John 4:6) it is plain
that they were too hellbent on convincing people and making threats and causing
sectarianism to be trusted. Such nastiness only becomes an option when people
know deep down that their opponents are right.
Written in 70 AD or earlier, Hebrews 8:1-6 states that if Jesus was on earth now
he would not be a priest for there are priests on earth. The translators shove
the word still between was and on to change the meaning but the word is not in
the original. Obviously, Jesus could still be a priest even if there are priests
on earth so God’s logic here is terrible. But anyway if priests on earth were
stopping Jesus being a priest on earth who offers his life as a blood sacrifice
that means that Jesus was crucified in Heaven or some other celestial world and
was only known through visions for there were priests since the days of Moses.
The epistles and the Book of Revelation call Jesus the firstborn and sometimes
the firstborn from the dead. They never hint that they mean he was just the
first in line as heir and not the firstborn in the sense of firstborn son of
God. They say he was the firstborn of many brethren meaning the first person was
saved by God and adopted as his son. They say he was the firstborn from the dead
meaning that he rose before any of the resurrections reported in the Old
Testament. Jesus was thought then to have lived centuries before.
1 Peter 3 says that Jesus died and was raised as a ghost and went to preach to
the spirits who had sinned before Noah’s day. Why just them then? The reason
must be because he died before the flood. These people died during his day and
before it.
The epistle says that Roman governors must be obeyed for God uses them to punish
and reward people (1 Peter 2:13,14). It is thought that this denies that one of
them, Pilate, killed Jesus – the gospels say Pilate sentenced Jesus to death by
crucifixion. It seems Peter would be taking it for granted that we know to obey
them only when they are right. But then why does he tell us to uphold the Roman
governor’s decisions about meting out vengeance on people when most of their
punishments were unduly harsh and they had little concern for justice? I agree
with G A Wells that this command proves that the early Church did not believe
that Pilate unjustly sent Jesus to the cross. Christians say that Pilate was
forced by the Jews or Roman law or both but this is dubious for Pilate had the
power to postpone a decision and could have decreed a discreet execution of a
man who was not Jesus in Jesus’ place to save Jesus. The John gospel has Pilate
killing Jesus because he is afraid of the Jews and then informing Jesus that he
could release him if he would only clear himself before him so somebody wasn’t
able to make up his mind about Pilate. The incoherence suggests that the Pilate
episode may never have happened for it should not have been hard to report
accurately about it if it had.
In 2 Peter 1 we read that the apostles seeing Jesus glorified and God telling
them that he was his beloved son is not as sure a word as the word in the Jewish
Bible, the Old Testament, saying it. So you should not look for evidence for
Jesus that he lived and did what the Church says anywhere but in the Old
Testament. That is clearly an admission that they had nothing else. The evidence
for Jesus came from the Old Testament and if visions happened their purpose was
to guide people to see what was in the Old Testament not to be equal with it.
The epistle tells us then there was no evidence for Jesus except the Old
Testament prophecies. But these are a matter of interpretation. They can be made
to refer to Muhammad and Messiahs other than Jesus to mention two possibilities
out of dozens.
The epistles show that the Jesus of the gospels never existed.
Other first century writings such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of
Diognetus, the Didache and the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians do things
like saying that the resurrection of the dead will come for the phoenix rises
from the ashes (meaning there was no evidence that Jesus rose but visions so
something else had to be used as evidence however bad it was), that the Law of
Moses is not literally true and that Jesus stood for loving your neighbour more
than yourself which shows these sources were undermining the historical nature
of the gospels which they fundamentally contradicted.
Now to the gospels.
The gospellers followed not Jesus but an interpretation of him which makes them
unreliable for nobody’s interpretation is infallible and the Church never
claimed that their interpretation was infallible only that the scriptures are
which is unintelligible.
The gospels themselves give accidental clues that Jesus never existed especially
when they say embarrassing things about Jesus that scholars think they would not
have made up. But they did make everything up. Here is one instance. To believe
that Jesus was able to cause trouble in the temple and put animals out and stop
people coming in means he had a huge army with him to help him for the temple
was a very big area is too much. He would have been apprehended as soon as he
threw over the first stall.
If Jesus was violent in the temple he would have been arrested there and then
which means that the stories of the last supper and his later arrest and
crucifixion and resurrection are untrue for he was in jail.
It is thought that there are embarrassing things in the gospels like Jesus going
into Jerusalem on a donkey which was like making an attempt to get political
power. The Son of God failing to take over the land would look bad. But there is
no doubt that the miracles were made up and when people can make embarrassing
claims such as amazing powers for a person that they never had they would make
up anything. All gods do embarrassing things and Jesus was no exception so the
shaming things don’t mean the writers about Jesus were not making him up. The
Church used the embarrassment of the crucifixion in such a way that it really
ceased to be an embarrassment so they could have made it up. They used it to
make people feel guilty that their sins allegedly put Jesus on the cross to make
him pay for them to God or Satan.
The gospels say that Jesus was popular with the people and it was hoped and
suspected by most that he would be the Christ. If he had been he would have been
crucified a lot lot sooner. This means that nearly all the Jesus stories must be
lies. He would not have been free to go about end of story for the Romans did
not tolerate anybody who might be a claimant to Christship as the country was
unstable and they tolerated no rivals. Also it is absurd that the Sanhedrin
would have pulled in witnesses who could not agree on the simplest things at
Jesus’ trial to try and secure an unjust conviction. The Sanhedrin were not that
stupid. If they wanted Jesus dead so bad they would have been well prepared.
They had been wanting rid of him for years according to the gospels.
The resurrection narratives are completely lacking in scientific verification.
For example, no effort is made to prove that it was really Jesus who died on the
cross – we are not told if anybody who knew Jesus had a good view of his face
which was disfigured anyway. This indicates that the stories were made up by the
gospellers for if something had really happened all objections would have been
carefully refuted and they would have invented stories to remove all doubts.
There is no evidence that the very early Church let the public read the gospels
and plenty of indications that they did not. Another problem is the fact that
Luke and Matthew report different things regarding the birth of Jesus and
thereabouts. All four gospels differ on the events surrounding the resurrection.
Yet they and Jesus believed that before anything could be accepted as reliable
there had to be at least two level-headed and honest witnesses as the God of the
Law of Moses commanded. The gospels then defied the law and showed themselves to
be capable of religious fraud. Luke reported that Jesus once said that having
the Law of Moses and the Prophets was more important than listening to anybody
who managed to return from the dead which shows that those gospel-mongers who
stressed the importance of Jesus himself were frauds. The supposedly most
reliable account of Jesus’ life is his passion and crucifixion. But these
stories are full of things that should have been said to silence critics but
which were not showing that the stories were invented. Stories should get more
convincing as critics are responded to.
The risen Jesus has many of the features associated with the pre-crucifixion
Jesus. When the risen Jesus was made up why not the pre-crucifixion Jesus as
well?
When all the big things in the Jesus story are fiction it follows that the
lesser stories cannot be trusted at all either.
There is even a hint in the Gospel of John that it is only a novel. Jesus is
made to say that human testimony is useless (John 5:34). Since, presumably, a
human wrote the gospel that means that the gospel is only tongue-in-cheek though
this insight is only intended for geniuses to happen upon. His Jesus lets it
slip that there is nothing he can do to back up his claims except that since he
wants to bring glory to God he cannot be a liar (John 7:18). But all false
prophets say that!
There is nothing from a non-Christian source that gives a firsthand mention of
Jesus in the first century. There were many prolific writers who never mentioned
Jesus.
Christians say that arguments from silence prove little and can be misleading
for Jesus did exist. But arguments from silence prove a person never existed
when nobody mentions that person though you would expect them to. And even more
so when it is several people who are saying nothing.
The best thing to do with people who allegedly said that Jesus lived is to find
an early testimony that he did not. That would mean they were mistaken and the
early bird comes first for it’s the one that has the worm.
Incidentally, the Book of Q, the original gospel of Jesus’ sayings which is
believed to explain what Mark, Matthew and Luke have in common is only
hypothetical. Mark could have easily have been the first ever Jesus story and
the others just changed bits here and there but used a lot of him as raw
material for their gospel. Yet the Book of Q is treated by many silly scholars
as a document that brings us closer to the historical Jesus and some say it
precedes Paul’s epistles!
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus who died in 117 AD condemned Christianity
as pernicious superstition. In 115 AD he wrote his Annals and declared that
Christ – he doesn’t call him Jesus - had been executed under Pontius Pilate,
lived in Judaea and created a new system of superstitious evil. Christians say
he plucked this from the Roman legal records and sceptics counter that he was
only taking for granted what Christians were saying which would mean he could
not be used as proof for the existence of Jesus. A large piece of any historians
work has to involve stuff that may be unreliable but they just use it anyway for
you cannot substantiate everything. It's better than saying nothing. So the
sceptics are right. It is possible that nobody heard of this man and his death
under Pilate until some people reported apparitions that the messiah had been in
obscurity and nailed under Pilate. Perhaps later a candidate who was thought to
be that man was come up with. 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. Can we be sure that Tacitus means our Christ?
There is no evidence that Tacitus who wrote that Pilate crucified Christ was
depending on official records. He had no reason to think that what the
Christians were saying was not historical fact. Historians only check sources
when there might be reason to think that they are dubious. We know from the New
Testament that the Docetists, those who believed that Jesus was not a man but a
hallucination sent from Heaven to enlighten us were around from the start which
is good news for those who want to deny the existence of Jesus. More importantly
nobody was able to refute them to the satisfaction of the rational person.
Why does Tacitus say executed and not crucified? Why does he call him Christ not
Jesus? Tacitus hated Christianity so he would have been proud to say Jesus was
crucified for crucifixion disgusted people those days and would have put them
off Jesus for crucifieds were thought to have been cursed. Rome would not have
liked Jesus being called Christ for Christ was a title for the true God given
king of the Jews and they ruled Jesus’ country so Tacitus calling Jesus that
would mean Tacitus was advertising him as a Christ. These observations make many
believe that the bit about Jesus was put in there by a forger trying to create
evidence for a real Jesus.
Jesus despite the gospels bellowing about his popularity was never mentioned
among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It is known that the part of what Josephus, the Jewish first century historian
who collaborated with Rome, wrote that says that there was a Jesus who did
miracles and was the Christ and who appeared after his death is a Christian
interpolation. There is no point in relying on anything that was tampered
with for you never know what the original said. Josephus mentioned James
the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ later on in passing in book 20 of his
Jewish Antiquities. He denies that Jesus is the Christ. He never
hints that there is any evidence that this Jesus was a real man.
About 150 AD, Justin wrote his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Trypho said that
nobody from Jesus’ time knew him and that Jesus was invented. “If the Messiah
has been born and exists somewhere, he is incognito and does not even recognise
himself. He will have no power until Elijah will come and anoint him and tell
all who he is. You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour...
If Jesus is a rumour that is the same as calling him a near-myth if not a myth.
There is no reason to believe that Jesus lived. There is reason to believe that
he did not.