Author: <span class="vcard">Emily Rose</span>

Why Jesus Never Existed

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 only
possible evidence we have for Jesus having lived is the four gospels, Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John for everything else is hearsay or could be.


The first
Christian writer we have, Paul the apostle who Christians believe was converted
not long after Jesus rose from the dead, completely ignored the life of
Jesus. Christians say he did this
because he had no need for the life story but he focused on morality and
defending the faith so much that he would have had to use it. He just had to do without it for there was
nothing he could use. When he had nothing
the same must have been true of the apostles of Christ whom he knew. It is only nonsense that Paul was so wrapped
up in the vision he had of Jesus that converted him that he wasn’t able to
think about the life of Jesus for Paul never gives any indication that the
vision had that large of a grip on him.
He was more wrapped up in the crucifixion than any vision. When he was so interested in that event which
happened before Jesus appeared he was interested in Jesus’ life. That he hadn’t more to be interested in
indicates that he just had the bare facts about Jesus as stated to him in a
vision of Jesus.


He said
Jesus was born of a Jewish woman and was of Davidic descent and was crucified
but he could have been assuming that because of the visions he had or he could
have been told these things in the apparitions.
He only spoke of visions of Jesus after his death and he does not even
tell us when Jesus lived or died. Jesus
could have died and rose the third day as he says but centuries before he began
appearing to Paul and the apostles.

trying in an epistle to convert the rebel Corinthian Christians who denied that
there was a resurrection of the dead and that Jesus rose back to true Christianity,
Paul never once quoted Jesus or gave a miracle story from his life to convince
them that at least Jesus intended to rise and could do it. He just admitted that he had no way to
convince them when he uttered so much nonsense.
For example, that Paul and Co suffer to spread the gospel therefore the
resurrection of Jesus happened (1 Cor 15:30)
as if false prophets and the wicked don’t suffer for stupid things – it was a
blatant boastful lie for him to use that argument. He even went as far as to say that the
evidence for the resurrection was the visions of Jesus – the empty tomb story
that the gospels have is refuted by its absence in such a crucial defence – and
that if Jesus had not been raised the dead would be lost.


Now, they
already knew about the visions but he did not elaborate on them or verify them
because he couldn’t and then to fill the gap he tried to make out that the dead
would be lost forever if Jesus had not risen which is an obviously silly
argument and shows he was desperate and he couldn’t provide outside evidence
that Jesus had died and was buried and vanished from the tomb. He knew that the heretics in Corinth had
visions of their own which contradicted these visions and which was the basis of
their belief that the resurrection was just a symbol for a spiritual experience
which was why they were able to say the resurrection of all mankind had already
happened. He was a fraud for he knew
that there was no point in him bragging about his and the apostles’ visions
when there were rival visions.

Top of the Document


In Paul’s
First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, we find incontestable proof that
Paul was not only into twisting facts to trick people into agreeing with him
but had no evidence at all apart from ghost stories and perverted thinking that
Jesus existed. His problem with the
Christians of Corinth
was that many of them were saying that Jesus never rose from the dead and that
there is no resurrection. We know that
Paul could not say that Jesus’ death and burial were real and use secular
sources and testimonies to prove that.
There is no point in trying to convince people who think the
resurrection never happened that a resurrection is possible without showing
with secular material that the resurrected man was dead in the first
place. What he had to do was say that
Jesus must have risen for it is unbearable if he did not. So he thinks that Jesus told him in a vision
that he rose therefore he died! The
reason he thinks Jesus rose is because he appeared in visions! So visions then are the basis for belief in
the death of Christ.


Paul used
the charism of speaking in tongues which he admitted was not a very good one as
one of the evidences for Christianity (1 Corinthians 14:22) in the context of edifying believers
and converting unbelievers to the Christian faith. The miracles of Jesus would have been better
evidence but he never thought of making them up. He never thought of Christians meeting with
the guidance of the Holy Spirit to contemplate and discuss the evidence for the
faith as exemplified in Christ which would make sense and impress
converts. Paul said that charity never
gets angry though Jesus according to the gospels often did and had an acid
tongue so he could read the gospels he wouldn’t believe them.


forbade association with sinners proving that the Jesus he believed in did not
associate with prostitutes and the like though the gospels say he did that a
lot. We read between the lines that
nobody knew of this Jesus until he started appearing. Paul said that love is never offensive which
shows that he denied the existence of the gospel Jesus who often offended the
Jews and insulted them (Matthew 23).


Paul in 1
Corinthians 7 when discussing the morality or otherwise of divorce had to give
his own view and couldn’t quote the saying of Jesus regarding divorce meaning
that the gospels are lying when they said Jesus settled the divorce question.


Paul used
to swear in things that were not very important (Galatians 1:20) showing the
gospels made up the claim that Jesus forbade swearing and wanted people to be
so truthful that they would not need to swear.

Corinthians 5:16 says that just as we must forget what others were like before
they were converted for they have been transformed by the power of God and just
dwell on them the way they are now so we must focus on what Jesus is now a
glorious risen personage in Heaven and not worry about what he did on
earth. The earliest Church then opposed
attempts to give Jesus a life story.
Paul is plainly testifying that if gospels come we must reject them as


Paul does
not say who was present at the Last Supper and says he received the story from
the Lord – in visions? Yes that is what it
means for it could mean that. Take the
simplest interpretation. Paul told the
Corinthian Christians many of whom did not believe his claims about the
resurrection or about Jesus that he received the rite of taking bread and drink
in memory of the Lord Jesus from the Lord.
This expression must mean that he received the rite in a vision for that
is the simplest meaning. He invented the
Eucharist and the gospels later lied about Jesus inventing it.


Paul in Romans 10 says that the righteousness of the Law of Moses
comes from works (he said works not earnings which means he rejects the
Catholic doctrine that he was not denying salvation by works but salvation by
attempts to earn salvation- Paul had to be clear for his letters were given to
be read to the congregation and it is hard enough to get people to follow long
readings at the best of times) while that of faith does not. Then he says that the righteousness of faith
forbids us to ask who will ascend to Heaven for that is to bring Christ down to
earth again. And forbids us to say who
will descend under the earth for that would be to demand that Jesus rise again
from the dead. What is sought is the
word of God, God’s truth. Paul concludes
that the word rather is in the heart of the believer because of the preachers
of the gospel putting it there so there is no need to look to go to Heaven or
to under the earth to get it.


This is a very strange chapter.
Whatever can it mean? Why would
Christ have to come back to earth if we could go to Heaven to find the
word? It must be to teach but why would
he need to if we get the word there? Why
would looking for the word in the underworld make him rise up again from the
dead? How could he rise more than
once? Plainly then God will not give the
word of God without Christ and will send Christ back before he lets anybody go
to Heaven to find the truth. Paul is
being hypothetical. He doesn’t think
anybody can actually do that. God will
raise Christ from the dead again before he lets anybody go to the abyss to find
the truth if that is where it is. But
why should Jesus have to rise again? If
he rose once how can he be raised once more?
Why doesn’t Paul say Jesus will be made to appear again before anybody
would be allowed to get the truth in the abyss?
The answer is that if Jesus hasn’t brought us truth so that we need to
get it ourselves then Jesus is dead and needs to rise again after meeting God
so he can tell us what God revealed.
There is hyperbole in this: you can’t get God’s truth in Heaven or in the
abyss unless God gives you the power to so Paul is saying that even if God does
that we should decline and go to Jesus.
Its exaggeration to make a point, don’t accept truth even from God if he
wants to give it to you go to Jesus and the point is that nothing should make
up our minds for us but Jesus and the word he brought. Obviously it is no good if somebody else has
the truth from Jesus and you go to them.
You have to go to Jesus himself – he has to appear to you and tell
you. Listening to somebody telling you
what Jesus told them is as bad as not going directly to Jesus for many
misinterpret and lie about his teaching.


Top of the Document


Clearly, nobody can be trusted to teach the word accurately
without having visions of the Lord Jesus.
They need to be guided by visions all the time. This is a clear denial of the value of
focusing on the earthly life of Jesus.
Paul’s preachers can only be trusted if they repeat parrot fashion what
he hears in his visions. If Jesus had an
earthly life only what he says about it in visions counts now. This attitude condemns gospels as heretical
for you need the living prophet, not books and also implies that the second
coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead and judgement would have to
take place before the apostles die if Christianity is true. These events would be necessary to prevent
pollution of the faith.


If Jesus as a man taught us by his life and example and miracles
and teachings none of this would make any sense for Paul says to seek the truth
in Heaven means you want to bring Jesus down or to seek it in the earth is to
call on God to raise him up again because then we would have all the truth we
need from the time Jesus lived.


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 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.


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.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1 that Jesus sent him to not to
baptise but to preach the gospel and not with eloquent wisdom in case the cross
would lose its power. Clearly then if
Paul did not preach the cross would be powerless. That means Paul alone was proclaiming the
cross. That means nobody heard or knew
of the Messiah’s crucifixion until Paul started having visions of Jesus. That means that the evidence for Jesus
resides in visions and not in concrete history. 1 Corinthians 2 says that when Paul proclaimed
the cross in Corinth
he did not use wisdom to show the message of God was true but just used the
power of the Holy Spirit. This means he
got the people to feel that the spirit was telling them the cross was true and
he also says that it was just about the cross for he wants to know nothing
among them but Christ crucified. Paul
knew there were plenty of people claiming communication with the Spirit who
gave out contradicting doctrines so he would not have used this dangerous
method unless there was no wisdom to help him verify the story right.


stated that he had nothing to offer the Jews who wanted signs from Heaven to
verify the gospel but the cross of Jesus which was a stumbling block for them
(1 Corinthians 1:22). The cross of
Christ could only be a sign or a miracle if it was revealed wholly in
visions. That is what Paul is getting at


When the
main event in Jesus’ life, his crucifixion, was not historically verifiable
like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was, that means that it
never happened and that there is no reason to hold that he ever lived.


Paul, or a
forger, once wrote that Jesus gave his noble profession in front of Pontius
Pilate. This may mean a vision of the
risen Jesus and James who Paul calls the Lord’s brother may not have been a
blood brother for Paul indicates that nobody knew Jesus as a man but only as a
risen being. Paul says the Church is the
body of Jesus, that is the Church in some sense is Jesus so maybe that
helps. Similar ideas were taught in

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.


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 only appeared to but
that was not fulfilling prophecy. These
witnesses were saying that the gospels 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 and was only known through visions for there were priests
since the days of Moses.


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 lived centuries before.


Top of the Document


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.


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.


epistles show that the Jesus of the gospels never existed.


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


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.


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.

The idea
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

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.

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.

When all
the big things in the Jesus story are fiction it follows that the lesser
stories cannot be trusted at all either.

Top of the Document


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.


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.


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. Its 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.


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.

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. Some scholars accept some phrases in it as
genuine but the whole thing could easily be an interpolation. Perhaps the bit: “At this time there was a
man called Jesus if it be right to call him a man” meaning that Jesus was first
known through apparitions so Jesus might have been a vision and not a man was
all he wrote. Christians argue that he said
that because Jesus did miracles and taught the truth that was why he was
reluctant to call him a man. This is
obviously not true for Josephus had no problem calling the Jewish prophets who
did miracles and taught the truth men.
The passage looks as if somebody didn’t like Josephus saying that Jesus
perhaps should not be called a man and altered it. That would mean Josephus wrote that Jesus was
possibly a vision – he could have been an unknown man who allegedly started
appearing to people after his supposed resurrection. It is possible that apparitions happened and
were claiming that Jesus had been put to death discreetly under Pilate and that
the apparitions were the first time Jesus was ever heard of. Perhaps some of those who had the visions
eventually pretended to have known Jesus before his crucifixion. If you are going to argue that some of what
Josephus has was really written by Josephus the simplest reconstruction is
this: “At this time there was a man called Jesus if it be lawful to call him a
man was a teacher of the truth and a worker of miracles and the tribe of
Christians named after him is not extinct to this day.” In the Testament as we have it we see that
the main point is that there was a man called Jesus and the other details are
just to support this assertion. The
forger wouldn’t insert this unless there were people doubting the existence of


It is
unthinkable that so shortly after saying Herod got rid of the harmless John the
Baptist just because he had a lot of followers and there was a fear that they
might rebel under his guidance that Josephus would write that Jesus was active
and was allowed to copy the Baptist by winning over many people for that
wouldn’t happen.


is depicted as calling the believers Christians when in fact the name was only
given to believers at Antioch and a host of names were used, Nazarenes,
Jesusers, the Way and so on. Only two
New Testament writers use Christian and it was given as an insulting nickname
which was why it was slow of catching on and also there was the problem that
there were as many Jesus faiths as there was followers of Christ. The official name used by Rome as late as 60 AD was Nazarenes (Acts
24:5) so Josephus did not mention Christians.


Top of the Document


Later he referred
to James as the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ which could mean that he
thought that James was the brother of some obscure man who had come back as a
ghost which would mean that Josephus did not claim to have any evidence that
Jesus lived. We have seen from Paul that
Jesus was entirely known through visions and so it might have been “revealed”
by some prophet that Jesus was an unknown brother of James’ through a long-lost
mother. It is possible that brother of
Christ or the Lord or whatever was a honorific title given to James. Josephus would not mention Christ without
trying to debunk him for he didn’t like false Christs and was devoted to Rome’s cause and it was
dangerous to draw attention to James being of Christ’s royal blood if the expression
is literal. That is why many believe
that the reference to Christ in the text is an interpolation. All agree that Josephus was tampered with by
a Christian copyist so there is no reason to take any reference to Christ at
face value.

It is certain
that some interfering person inserting the “clarification” that James was
Jesus’ brother. Hegassipus declared that
James was holy from birth, was allowed into the holy places of the Jews as a
unique privilege, and was so strict about the Jewish law that he wore linen and
wouldn’t touch wool, and he wouldn’t wash himself or cut his hair. Because his loyalty to Jewish tradition was
so rigid he was nicknamed James the Just or Righteous. The brother of a man who altered the Jewish
traditions and condemned them and who was believed to have been a false Messiah
and who yearned for the destruction of the Temple, the very life-force of Judaism, would
not have been so greatly esteemed among the Jews. The designation of James as Jesus’ brother,
if literally meant, is an insertion.
Early tradition was in the habit of describing people who looked like
Jesus or were like him other ways as brothers and even as twins. Thomas was reckoned to be the twin of
Jesus. Hegassipus wrote in the early
second century and had been a Jew before he converted to Christianity. Palestinian in birth, he knew what he was
talking about.


to the letter of Paul to Philemon Christians believed you could make somebody
you loved your brother or sister by blood even if they were not a blood
relation. Paul told Philemon that
Onesimus was not just a brother in the Lord but a blood brother from now
on. A brother in the Lord means a
non-literal brother but Paul’s saying Onesimus who was not related to Philemon
was more than that and a blood brother indicates plainly that you can become a
literal blood brother by adoption. This
practice could have confused people about James and made them think he really
was born a brother of Jesus’.


James is
certainly not the brother in any sense of the rebellious and turbulent figure
we have in the gospels. That he was
given this title of the just or the righteous proves plainly that the gospel
history is dubious. How could the
supporter of a heretic like Jesus been so greatly esteemed among the Jews of Palestine?


The fact
that somebody had to put a heap of dogmatic assertions about Jesus in Josephus
just to show he existed proves that Jesus did not exist. Paul clearly showed that the only reason to
believe in Jesus was visions so that supersedes anybody else who said that
Jesus lived for they came along after Paul’s time. Also Paul had the most influence in the early
Church and since he was an apostle and the apostles were special witnesses of
Jesus and the heads of the Church it follows that what any of them says comes
first. And by the way, there is no
reason to believe that any gospel was really written by an apostle and most
scholars agree. So if Paul says there is
no evidence for Jesus but visions that is the case. Period.


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. Trypho
was an informed and worthy opponent when Justin had to write a book to
challenge him. Justin, like Irenaeus
much later, believed that Jesus lived to be an old man (page 40, St Peter and
Rome) which conflicts with the gospels which we know Justin never knew for they
were hidden and we know from the context of the entire Dialogue that the bits
that spell out the massacre of the innocents and a couple of other gospel tales
in it are later insertions because not only did Justin not need to bring them
up where he did but they would have appeared earlier in the work to shut Trypho
up for saying Jesus was a total enigma and Justin gives many clues that he did
not acknowledge anything the gospels were saying. Justin himself then inadvertently gives
support to Trypho for Justin himself clearly knew nothing about Jesus. Thus we have a valuable witness to Jesus
being a legend. It is possible that
Justin thought the gospels were useful but did not take them very
seriously. That would mean that Justin
rejected the largest body of evidence for the existence of Jesus.


In Chapter
XXXIX we read, “Trypho said, ‘prove to us that the man who according to you was
crucified and rose into Heaven is the Messiah of God. For you have proved by the scriptures you
have recited before that the scriptures say the Christ must suffer and return
to rule all nations. Show us that your
Christ is the Christ”. Justin replies,
“It has been proved sirs. It has been
proven to those who hear and who have heard what you have heard and accepted by
you. But I return to what I was
discussing and will give the other proof later to you in case you say I cannot


says that the Christians are SAYING Jesus was nailed to the cross indicating
that there was no evidence for it but their word. Justin, in reply, tells the Jews that the
prophecies are proof enough. In other
words, the prophecies must have been fulfilled so even if there is no evidence
for Christ we know from the prophecies that the Christ story is true and can
work out the details of the story. In
other words, the prophecies are the only real record of Christ. In other words, if the interpretation is
wrong then Jesus Christ never existed.
The Gospels did the same thing, they used Old Testament verses out of
context to show that the Jesus story was in the Old Testament. Christians forget that the New Testament
teaches that the Old Testament contains the gospel and is superior. Jesus said it was better than anyone rising
from the dead (Luke 16:30,31).

There is no reason to believe that Jesus lived. There is reason to believe that he did not.

Top of the Document


from my
Skeptical Dictionary



An interpretation of Christian
history that denies that Jesus existed.
The main evidence for mythicism is as follows:


The gospel stories could have been
invented or influenced by true stories for they contain huge errors like saying
Jesus was publicly active while claiming to be the Messiah an act which would
not have been tolerated by the Jewish leaders or Rome for even a day in those
politically turbulent times. They cannot
be trusted as evidence that Jesus lived.
Maybe they are being truthful but what are we to do? The gospels are the only evidences for a
historical Jesus.


Paul never placed Jesus in a
historical setting or said when he lived and gives no reason for us to deny
that all he said about Jesus came from visions.
He indicated that there was no evidence when he required faith in the
crucifixion. You don’t need faith for
what is historical fact in recent times.
He told the Corinthians that he decided to know and hear nothing among
them but Christ crucified and this was to happen not by the wisdom of men but
by the inspiration of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:1-5).
When he put this faith on something so dangerous as the feeling that you
are inspired that shows that it was all he could do. He had nothing but visions and communications
from the Holy Spirit to tell him that Jesus was crucified meaning it was NOT
something a historian could accept. He
couldn’t refute the Corinthian believers who denied the resurrection except to
mention the visions of the risen Jesus that they scoffed at and say that Jesus
must have risen because the dead would be lost if he didn’t. The desperation proves that there was no real
evidence – he couldn’t say Jesus did miracles when alive and could have managed
to return from the dead. If Jesus lived
recently some of the sceptical Christians would have been saying that the
resurrection was a misunderstanding for the wrong man was nailed or Jesus
survived by trickery but he makes no effort to prove that Jesus was dead which
he would have to do to show the resurrection happened. He can do nothing.


Paul stated that Christ did not send
him to baptise but to preach the gospel and not with eloquence and wisdom so
that the cross would not be emptied of its power (1 Cor 1:17).
This means that wisdom and intelligence would be no good to get people
to believe in the cross and in its power but the cross has power to draw people
to believe in it. That would only be
right if there was no evidence for the cross but visions of a man who claimed
to have been crucified and raised from the dead.


In Galatians 5:11, Paul declares
that if he preaches circumcision the stumbling block of the cross is
removed. This is nonsense and he would
have known it for millions have believed in the cross as a vehicle of salvation
without believing that it abolished good works and religious rites as specified
in the Law of Moses. But why did
believers of his day go as far as to say that to accept circumcision was doing
away with the cross? It could only be
because when Jesus revealed in visions to the apostles that he was nailed to a
cross he stated it had to happen to free Christians from the Law of Moses and
circumcision for the gospels never portray a Jesus who was that emphatic about
doing this. There is nothing else that
could make the cross and the abolition of the law so inseparable.


Paul talked as if the risen Christ
was a mystical supernatural being who somehow was one person with the Church
which was his body so in a sense he and his cult were Jesus Christ (Galatians
2:20; 1 Corinthians 6:15-17; 1 Corinthians 12) which may explain the reference
to Jesus testifying to Pontius Pilate in one of his letters which most scholars
however think is not really his work.
Perhaps Jesus was thought to have had appeared to Pilate after his
resurrection. There were many Christian
legends from early times to that effect.


The Christianity of the apostles and
Paul had nothing to do with a Jesus who provably lived but a visionary
one. This was the testimony of the first
Christian writer so it supersedes any evidence that allegedly shows that Christ


The idea that people would not say
embarrassing things about Jesus that he insulted pagan women with possessed
daughters and was nailed to the cross as a political criminal is incorrect for
all invented gods have unflattering tales told about them and the crucifixion
was turned into an advantage for it led to the heart-warming idea that Jesus
died for sinners in atonement and rose from the dead and showed himself
stronger than his killers.


Top of the Document


The secular references to Jesus, which
are very flimsy, could have come from hearsay that was understandably taken as
fact just like some people believe that Joseph Smith of the Mormons really had
golden plates even though that is part of the Mormon myth though without
accepting any of the other Mormon legends.
They take the plates as history and the rest as nonsense.


There is no evidence that the first
century Jewish historian, Josephus, mentioned Jesus for we know that a
Christian interpolator edited his work and inserted references to Jesus and
could have written all Josephus’ alleged references to Christ.


Even when he wrote about what
happened to “James the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ” it is unthinkable
that he would have passed by a chance to run Jesus down to please his Roman
sponsors like he did with all the other false Christs. Onesimus was an example of a person who was
not related to another man but who was designated as a blood brother and not
just a brother in Jesus. You can see
this in Paul’s letter to Philemon where the idea that blood ties can be created
by supernatural adoption and not just by being a real brother is put


It is a mistake for those who oppose
mythicism to disparage it. Even if it
simply shows that the evidence for Jesus is not great or very weak or that
nobody can know if Jesus existed or not or that it is one of the matters on
which competent scholars can choose to disagree it still manages to destroy
Christianity. If Christians would accept
weak evidence, then they have no right to object if somebody invents a new
creed on slender evidence and yet they intolerantly claim to follow Jesus who
called himself “the Truth”.


St Peter and Rome, JBS, Irish Church Missions,
Dublin, undated


Top of the Document

Evidence that Jesus was Mentally Ill


Even those who deny that Jesus
existed – and I am one of them – must agree that whether the gospels are true
or not they don’t give us any confidence in the sanity of Jesus Christ. Even if Jesus didn’t exist the gospels could
have been based on stories about eccentrics and fairly obscure prophets of the
time who did exist.


If we can prove that the Jesus
Christ in them was mad then that is all we need to destroy Christianity. It would mean that the apostles he chose and
the Church he founded were all very silly people indeed. It would mean that we have to be on guard
against any other religious movement because if Christianity was founded on the
ravings of a madman and was such a success any other religion could have been
the same.


We can be sure that there is
no evidence for Jesus’ sanity and plenty of evidence against it.


You will see plenty of
Christian books written in defence of the faith that deny that Jesus was mentally
ill and claim that he was the sanest person that ever lived.


It is possible that Jesus was
a manic-depressive. He said he was the
light of the world (John 9:5) and the only way to God (John 14:6) and the
unique Son of God (John 17). That is the
sign of severe mania. He was unnaturally
full of himself. The Church says he was
not being mad for it was the truth. But
that presupposes that Jesus was telling the truth. The information we have got on him is
selective so we cannot be sure of that. The declarations of Jesus
about the whole generation of his time being evil and sinful and nobody being
good is
indicative of the depression that follows the euphoria in manic
depression. Nobody can say Jesus was
telling the truth then about all people being evil and sinful for that is
nonsense. There is a lack of any real
wisdom in what Jesus said. We must also
remember that he had to get his teaching right some of the time because it was
stolen from other people anyway. Plus he
just gives the teaching and gives no convincing reasons why we should listen to
him which does not count for wisdom.
This makes any argument from his wisdom to be a waste of breath.


Jesus knew of the Old
Testament law of God which said that a prophet who makes any error in what he
says he was told by God proves that he is a fake even if everything else he
says is miraculously right (Deuteronomy 18).
Jesus knew the standard set by God.
Yet he made claims for himself beyond anything any Old Testament prophet
claimed and could make no fulfilled prophecy that was clearly fulfilled before
the event. By his own standard, there
was something wrong with him or he was evil.


Jesus used to hide away a lot
for long periods and it was allegedly to pray and he could have been severely
depressed during these times. Perhaps it
was to get away from the people a while for some peace and to prepare for his
mission to them again? But he went into
the desert for ages to starve himself and he even thought he saw the Devil


Jesus going forward to the
cross when there were easier deaths shows that he was mad and suicidal and
extremely masochistic. The Christians
say he was not mad for he had to die for the sins of the world. Again this is assuming he was telling the
truth and was right without evidence because if anybody else made the same
claim as Jesus they would dismiss them as insane.


Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ interviewed a
psychologist, a Christian one of course, who claimed that Jesus was so sane he
was amazing. The psychologist was Gary R. Collins Ph.D. The book admitted that many people seem to be
paragons of sanity and are really quite crazy (page 145) and gave the example
of a mentally-ill woman who had killed her husband. Appearing normal and looking normal and acting
normal until her trial was in progress, she began to say the craziest
things. Evidently the trial brought that
out in her. Otherwise she would have
been fine. Some forms of insanity can
lead to a person keeping the crazy beliefs and delusions to themselves. Insanity can make one do that more easily
than it can get one to lift a knife to kill with. It was entirely possible that even the
apostles never knew, at least for sure, Jesus was insane and Jesus took his
secret with him to the grave. The psychologist
claimed that Jesus was saner than himself.
As we will soon see he was not wrong about that!


We are told that since Jesus
did not dress strangely, cried at the tomb of Lazarus his friend, was angry with justification,  had friendships with a varied spectrum of people, didn’t have
an over-inflated ego, cared deeply for people but was not neurotically addicted
to being compassionate and was able to accept people but not their sin he
passed all the tests for perfect sanity with flying colours. His emotions were as normal as could be. Nonsense.


We are not told how Jesus
dressed or anything about how he looked at all.  How could Collins know he had a
normal appearance? His living rough and
making bizarre demands would so that he was an unusual person and how he
dressed was not important. What was
important was how he behaved. And his
behaviour was undoubtedly eccentric. The
gospels saying that Jesus had no privacy even when he wanted it suggests he, in
fact, was dressing strangely. People
were able to recognise him very easily.
Considering the voluminous and drab clothes that were worn by everybody
in those days, it should have been easy to become unrecognisable. Jesus was so recognisable that he must have
looked a strange character! And dressing
in a bizarre fashion and then seeking anonymity is a sure sign of

Collins, the gospel of John
which speaks of Jesus crying at the tomb does not say why he cried. When he planned to raise Lazarus up his
crying for Lazarus would indicate that he had mental difficulties. Insane people do cry at funerals.


Jesus said that a man who
looks at a woman with lust commits adultery with her in his mind and therefore
sins (Matthew 5:28). He didn’t say
married woman. He meant that looking at
any woman with desire was a sin of adultery.
What he meant was, if you allow yourself to
desire to use a woman for sex, naturally you cannot care if she is married or
not so you are no better than an adulterer.
The Churches following his teaching hold that having wilful sexual desires
or sexual fantasies about someone you are not married to is
a sin.


This bans talking about sex
for talking about it means you will be having pictures of it in your
unconscious if not your conscious. There
is no such thing as talking about sex and not thinking about it. You may not even be aware of it. This clearly indicates that if Jesus lived
then he was mad for the consequences of not mentioning sex are horrendous as we
know from the huge numbers of children raped and molested by religious and
clergy and how not talking about it kept this going on for centuries.

Jesus went into an insane rage
in the Temple
and endangered his own life and that of other people and his friends for it
drove him to cause a riot. And we are
told by Collins to think that this was justified anger! Jesus went berserk for the workers in the Temple were making money
out of religion and acting dishonestly.
He knew about it before for he was in the Temple often enough. So why snap then?


The Sermon on the Mount was
spoken to simple people therefore there is no room for denying that Jesus meant
what he said literally. In this sermon,
Jesus forbade sexual desire, forbade standing up for yourself and your property
and commanded helping your enemy though this was helping them to oppress
you. If that is not mental impairment
what is? Fancy interpretations are
brought up to avoid the implications of Jesus’ teaching. It is a whitewashing job for we must obey the
rule that the simplest and plainest interpretation is the correct one.


Albert Schweitzer held that
Jesus was insane. His Jesus believed
that the kingdom of God, the overthrow of all the nations and the replacement
with God’s kingdom, was about to happen any day and when he was on the cross he
cried that God had forsaken him for he was dying and none of what he had
predicted had taken place.  His Jesus gave insane teachings believing
that it was foolish to bother trying to stop somebody thieving for the world was
about to end.


Jesus’ anger against the
Pharisees and the scribes in Matthew 23 was definitely over the top. Nothing in the gospels indicates that he only
meant the bad Pharisees. No differentiation
exists in the gospels. And as for Joseph
of Arimathea though he is said to have been a member of the Pharisees and a
secret disciple of Jesus it is not said he was a good disciple. Back to you Jesus. Why get mad at people who are only going to
get more stubborn the more you rant at them?
Jesus said after his alleged resurrection that those who believed and
were baptised would be saved while those who would not believe would be
condemned. Some disliking the view that
Jesus would send you to Hell just for your opinions maintain that he meant
belief in the sense that if you really believe in love you will love. But you can believe in love and not love and
there is no need or justification for that interpretation. Jesus can mean belief and had plenty of words
in his vocabulary if he needed them but he said belief so he means belief. This is evidence of anger without
justification too.


Jesus didn’t say we are to
respect our neighbour as ourselves but to love our neighbour as ourselves
meaning we must adore our neighbour as much as ourselves.  Respect our neighbour
as ourselves means we can treat a person properly despite having bad feelings
for them.  The Christians say that Jesus in commanding such love of neighbour
did not mean that we must be crazy about everybody but only that we must treat
them as we wish to be treated.  They lie for he said love not respect.  By
asking us to do the impossible and by threatening curses and Hell and eternal
torment on those who naturally fail, Jesus was putting us on an eternal
treadmill from which there would be no reprieve.  We would be unable to think we
can do anything right or to please him.  And once we start thinking that about
ourselves our relationships will rapidly break down.  Jesus tries to force us to
be good in an impossible way.  His example will drive us to force our gospels
and versions of them on others.  And if we can’t do it, that will not stop us
wanting to do it.

Jesus’ foundational attitude
towards the people around him were that they were either for him or against him
(Matthew 12:30). He said that whoever
was not for him was against him as if there could be no undecided
category. He said that often
enough. Such an uncompromising hostile
and divisive stance smacks of fanaticism and megalomania. It shows he could only have attracted people
who were not right in the head or who preferred fantasy to fact. And especially when the gospels say the Jews
sought to kill him for blasphemy and persecute him meaning the followers were
in danger too!


Jesus said many irrational things
such as that God saying he was the God of the deceased Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
meant that God was God of the living not the dead so that the dead were still
alive. There was no reason to take such
a bizarre interpretation of what God said.
God said it in the Law of Moses, in the Book of Exodus, and the Law
never gives any hint of an afterlife. It
promises only material blessings for obeying God.


We are not told that the
people he associated with were really close friends. Everybody has friends even when they are
crazy. He did not accept everybody. He told a woman that she and her suffering
daughter were dogs (Matthew 15:26) and to confirm it he only helped he after
she admitted it.


The claim that Jesus was not
ego-bloated is untrue. But the book
would answer that Jesus made great claims about himself just because they were
true and he backed them up with evidence.
The Case for Christ maintains that Jesus gave unique teachings,
worked miracles over nature and did healings to prove that he was who he said
he was. But the trouble with miracles is
that all believers are selective in what miracles they will believe in. For example, the Protestant regards the
miracles unique to Catholics as psychic fraud, trickery or the Devil’s work as
he schemes to keep people away from the truth and get people damned in Hell
with himself and his angels. The
Catholic Church only recognises miracles as from God if they fit its theology
and if they don’t the Church ignores them.
So this is doctoring the evidence.
Also the gospel miracles are not as well backed up as modern miracles
are. And miracles are so extraordinary
that one can be forgiven for not believing in them unless one sees them – an
attitude the apostle Thomas had. The
bigger and stranger the claim the more evidence is needed. Jesus’ miracles would be no help for we
cannot have commonsense and believe in them.


It is absolutely certain that
if Jesus claimed to be God or to be the greatest prophet ever that he was
insane. Why? Because he left no reason for us to believe
in his claims. The Christians argue that
he couldn’t have been insane for he backed up his claims with miracles. But Jesus himself claimed that the resurrection
was the only real sign. The Jews asked
him for a sign and he said he would give them none but the sign of Jonah (Luke
11:29,30). Some scholars think this sign
was the resurrection or just the message of repentance. Jonah seems to have risen from the dead after
being swallowed by a fish and he preached repentance. But the context demands we take sign to mean
miracle. So it was the
resurrection. Mark says there will be no
sign full stop (Mark 8:12). This means
that no evidence will be given for his resurrection and it must be believed by
faith alone. Christians say Mark was
referring to the same talk as in Luke and just summarised it so there is no
contradiction. There is. The words do not agree.


Another problem is that the
crucifixion could have been a hoax.
Another man could have taken Jesus’ place on the cross which would rule
out the resurrection being a sign. The
gospellers may say that Jesus died on the cross but that was only their
interpretation of events. They could
have been honest but wrong. Christian
faith is not based on the resurrection but on what men said. It is based on reports about something not
the something itself. Irrationally, the
men are considered to be right just because they made an interpretation for which
there is no evidence for.


For the resurrection to
succeed as a proof it needs to be something that only an honest God could
do. It is also curious that the
resurrection was not a resuscitation but a return from death that transmuted
Jesus into a totally transformed mode of existence meaning Jesus had to reveal
it in visions. The resurrection failed
to be proof for the proof he offered that the Devil and magicians couldn’t
duplicate was visions!


It is no less equally certain
that if Jesus did not claim to be God but to be the greatest man ever or the
supreme messenger of God he was still insane.
Strobel’s book tells us that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the
greatest man ever meaning he thought he himself was better than John for in
other places he claimed to be superior to John.
Jesus should have said nothing and let others decide. After all, if God was with him God could
influence them to see that so that Jesus wouldn’t need to say it. His saying it was therefore boasting.


Jesus was suffering from
neurotic compassion at times. We shall
see this from the following example.


Jesus Christ condemned wealth as sinful full stop. A rich young man came to Jesus and he told
Jesus he kept all the commandments.
Jesus said that there was one thing he lacked. What he lacked was his not giving away all
his wealth to the poor. The Church says
that Jesus was only recommending that the rich man become perfect by giving up
his wealth. He was not commanding him to
do it. The young man went away sad and
Jesus said that it was hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God
and it was easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle. He said then that only with God could
salvation be possible for a rich man. Regarding this the Church says he only
means it is hard for a rich man not impossible.
But he said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God. The way he says it is so difficult and only
God can save the rich man suggests that the rich man must part with his wealth
to be able to enter the kingdom and only God can give him the strength to do
that. Also, if he was only making a
suggestion to the rich man why didn’t he call him back and explain that? He let him go away indicating that he didn’t
want this man to serve God with him for he wouldn’t give up the wealth.


Collins admits that the
opponents of Jesus felt that he was raving mad but says they were not
professionals and so they had no competence in judging Jesus’ sanity. He quotes John 10:20 for support saying that
the people were accusing Jesus of being mad because he claimed to be the good
shepherd. The critics of Jesus are being
said to have proved themselves to be too silly to rely on because they accused
Jesus of being mad just because he said he was the good shepherd. This would be tantamount to saying Johnie was
mad for claiming to be a good mechanic.
Collins is totally unfair and it is terrible that the ancestors of the
Jews have to be insulted to save Jesus.
That is insulting the Jews of today.
Why is he unfair? For Jesus was
not condemned because of his use of the good shepherd title at all. He was condemned because in John 10:19 he
said he would die and rise again. He was
making outrageous claims for himself.
Jesus himself said that miracles proved nothing (Matthew 7:22) and yet
he expected the Jews to believe he would die and rise again. Surely he would concede that if he could say
such things anybody could?


The Jewish rabbis and leaders
considered Jesus to be insane and we must remember that they were the
counsellors and psychologists of their day.
You don’t need to be a professional to judge
somebody insane and nobody can deny that we don’t have the right to accuse
these people of not intelligently and honestly believing that Jesus was
crackers. People with a good talent for
rational thinking and rational habits have as much right as psychiatrists to
judge somebody insane for insanity is in essence simply a failure to see or
like reality. So people who knew Jesus
and said he was mad are not to be listened to and Collins comes along twenty
centuries later reading a few books on Jesus has the right to say they were
wrong! Maybe they were but what right
has he to demand authority and knowledge of Jesus’ mind? Jesus own family
believed that he was mad (Mark 3:21) and they could hardly be accused of being
unfair to him for they were deeply ashamed of him which proves they really
sincerely believed he was mad. Also they
were so sure, they even brought scorn and stigma on themselves by admitting
they believed Jesus was mad to everyone.
They didn’t care for they were so sure.

Jews when they accused Jesus of being mad often meant he was demon possessed
(John 10:20). They were not saying he
was a madman foaming at the mouth. Jesus
was not that kind of madman. They were
saying he was very eccentric. Perhaps he
seemed normal most of the time. That
would make them feel he was possessed for nobody can see a demon and not all
possessions are necessarily gruesome and tormenting. Satan might possess a man to use him to lead
people away from the truth and ruin God’s plan.

declares Jesus sane just on the basis of four short books three of which used
largely the same material and repeated what each others said when you need more
than that. Collins needs help.


Collins says in the book that
there are some psychiatric patients who won’t respond to treatment and blames
demons for that. This was said to get
around the fact that nobody reasonable believes in possession these days and
yet Jesus performed tons of exorcisms of demons. But not getting better only means that
medicine is imperfect not that demons are involved. To tell mentally ill people that they even
might be possessed is downright criminal and cruel. You would be more terrified of evil
supernatural forces than you would be of natural ones for the former have more
freedom to do the evil they want. There
is no doubt that Jesus was guilty of great insensitivity and self-absorption
when he advanced the view that demons can take over and harm people. Collins needs to see that he himself is
guilty of this too.


Collins ignores the evidence
of paranoia in Jesus when Jesus said that the vast majority of people are
demon-possessed. Jesus told the Jews
that if Satan cast out Satan that his empire would collapse (Mark 3:24). Clearly then Satan couldn’t work without
possessing as many people as possible at least to some degree. Logically, most possessed people must just
act normal with nobody knowing the evil forces that are controlling them or
influencing them. Why couldn’t Satan put
a demon out and send it to somebody else when it suited him? That Jesus rejects the suggestion while
believing that the Devil was extremely powerful in the world indicates that
there was nobody else to possess! So
everybody in the world must be possessed.
He wasn’t sure of his own mental health when he had to believe that
everybody was possessed. He stated in
Matthew 12 that a demon can be exorcised and come back to take over the victim
with seven others when it finds nobody else to possess though the victim will
have got his life together and be a good person. When it can happen to a healthy and decent
person who came through a demonic attack far stronger there isn’t much hope for
the rest of us! And especially when the
demon that did the tormenting before comes back with seven friends! It is obviously better to put up with a demon
than to try and get rid of it. He said
that these visitations from demons would happen to the generation he was a part
of which he described as an “evil generation”.
He also stated that nobody was good or to be called good but God alone
(Mark 10:18) and indicated that he trusted nobody at all for he said that
people who go wrong in small things should not be trusted in greater (Luke
16:10). All this is a classic sign of
severe mental illness.


The fact that Jesus set his
feet on the way to the cross instead of hiding from the people who would put
him there, is evidence of suicidal tendencies.
The gospels make it plain that he refused to take any measures for his
own safety at that time. Jesus predicted
his death by violence and he didn’t need
to be a prophet to see it coming. The
gospels say he knew that he was going to be arrested and put to death and said
so hours before it happened. Today we
take it for granted that religious beliefs are no excuse for committing
suicide, for risking your own life or that of others and rightly so. Yet the crucifix is reverenced and so is
Jesus though they represent the right to walk into death if you believe that
God commands it. This is evil at worst
and insanity at best. No decent God
would make such demands, he has to understand that people are convinced of many
things that are wrong for many different reasons. When Jesus didn’t hide during his arrest he
was saying, “I believe that God wants me to die on a cross.” In other words, he was dying for his beliefs
rather than for God. It was totally
selfish and crazy.


Jesus was deliberately
provocative during his trial. The high
priest asked him what his teaching was and Jesus sarcastically replied that he
should go and ask his hearers (John 18).
The high priest was asking Jesus and it was a trial and Jesus knew he
couldn’t go and ask people. The rest of
the time he refused to answer and defend himself. He acted like he actually wanted to be
crucified. If Jesus had sex the Church
would be outraged and in denial. But
when Jesus refused to try and defend himself even if it was hopeless it’s a


Despite the fact that his
disciples were living in a turbulent country and needed money to make a new
life somewhere else if war broke out Jesus demanded that they surrender all
their possessions. He said in Luke 14
that no king going to war sends his men out without making sure that they can
stand up to the enemy so in the same way nobody can be his disciple without
giving up all his possessions. In other
words, you have to go to war against what is around you to follow Christ. It is a spiritual war. Note the violent imagery: it shows that the battle is going to be just
as tough as real war. You have to give
up your possessions to prepare for the war so that you might win it. There can be no doubt that he is not just
referring to detachment from possessions here, having them but them not meaning
much or anything to you. He is saying
they must physically be abandoned to prepare for the battle. Detachment is what you are fighting for, it’s
the goal of the war so that you will be attached only to Jesus. You must painfully and agonisingly part with
everything so that you have a chance of really being detached for giving up
possessions does not mean you don’t love them any more. You give them up so that you can stop loving
them. That is what Jesus is saying. Jesus is also saying that nearly the whole of
Christianity is a fake for they ignore his directions. He said that nobody is a disciple of his
unless he gives up everything. Jesus
said that he who was not for him was against him and you need to be a disciple
of his to enter the kingdom
of Heaven. Obviously then there is no salvation for
anybody who does not abandon all he has.
Jesus did ask his disciples to do that – they were called just to drop
everything and follow him. He told
Matthew just to leave his job and follow him for example. So all must be forsaken for Jesus
Christ. A wife can be more dangerous
than material things for all materialists are unhappy and it is easier to
prefer your wife to Jesus than your money so by implication Jesus is advocating
celibacy as well. This kind of morality
indicates an extreme fanaticism in Jesus, his followers and his fans. Like many fanatics they might have been able
to hide it well just like somebody acting normally doesn’t mean they are sane.


That people listen to Luke
being read in Church and then take religious leaders seriously is astonishing
for it makes it plain that the leaders only pick and choose what they like out
of Jesus’ teaching and then claim to be his honest representatives! The Christian theologian FF Bruce defends the
doctrine that Jesus forbade us to keep anything and wanted us to part with all
and give it to the poor in chapter 46 Sell what you have Hard Sayings, FF
Bruce, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1983.


Assertiveness means you stand
up for your own rights without violating another person’s rights and expressing
your needs and desires and opinions in an honest and plain way. In Christianity, the only rights you have is
to be abandoned by God and sentenced to death by God and sent to Hell forever
when you die. Jesus said that when you
were struck on one cheek turn the other.
So you are not allowed to feel any aggression. To be assertive is a sin as well for he
didn’t say, “If anybody hits you on one cheek and you can’t get away, turn the
other cheek. Don’t say like an assertive
person would that you are going to report them to the law if they hit you
again.” He would have seen assertiveness
as sinfully affirming rights you don’t have and therefore as a form of


There is no doubt that Jesus
would lose all his fans if they could see that the choice he left them was
between aggression and letting people walk all over you. He would want you to take the latter course
for he said to turn the other cheek. To
let people walk over you is worse than aggression so Jesus gave such bad advice
it might be evidence for insanity.


Jesus attracted people who as
far as rationality was concerned had problems.
Most people are weak at rationality especially when it comes to
religious claims they want to believe in and so they would devote themselves to
lunatics who seem relatively sane. Jesus
failed to attract people of great intellectual calibre, though he brought in
some who thought they had, which often happens when lunatics run a sect.


We read in Patricia Cornwell’s
Portrait of a Killer that the psychopath has an abnormal desire to be admired
(page 273). Each psychopath is
unique. He might strictly avoid certain
antisocial actions such as stealing or fighting and be a rapist (page 27). There could be any combination of good and
bad behaviour. Jesus could have been the
epitome of morality with the psychopathic disorder emerging in the form of him
claiming to be God or the Son of God or the Saviour. The moral image would have been necessary to
evoke trust in him so that he could indulge his behavioural disorder. Like all psychopaths, he would have been
incredibly cunning and would have faked love and compassion (page 29). The arrogance of those who say he is sinless
is compounded by the fact that only Jesus could know if he really was or
not. To believe in Jesus you have to
oppose the correctness of modern insights into mental illness. I always believed that Christianity was
anti-progress in its essence.


The same book argues that the
Ripper was an artist. And not just any
artist but Walter Sickert whose art is so violent that it is clear that he was
a psychopath. Theology is a form of
art. The Christian canvas has false
charm all over it like the paintings.
The violence is there and cries out for the destruction and eternal
torment of sinners and loathes babies who are not baptised and has a violent
Bible and a blood-drinking God. I could
go on for ages. The Christian faith has
the hallmarks of being created by psychopaths and if Jesus originated its theology
then he was the biggest psychopath of the lot.
It is futile for Christians to say that they do not want to believe in
these vile tenets but that they have to for they are true for if they wanted
rid of their faith they would be able to get rid of it and if and thought
enough they would not have to believe.
The evidence for the divine origin of the claims of Christ is so flimsy
that there is no denying that anybody who believes in Christianity wants to
believe. They may have been conditioned
but they still want to do it.


Jesus taught that we must love
the Lord our God with all our power and strength and that this was the greatest
commandment and that loving others and ourselves was secondary (Mark 12:30,
31). Let’s translate Jesus here: Belief
in God, trust in the authority of religion comes before the welfare of yourself
and your loved ones and even a helpless child.
It is really the theories and laws of religious leaders such as Jesus
that are being put first. If religious
authority is that binding who can complain when it commands evil having dressed
it up as good? Religion is a delusion
based on the failure or refusal to admit that to serve any god is to serve what
man has made. Nobody denies that most
religion is based on delusion so why can’t they admit that their own is no


The concept of God itself
betrays the psychopathic mentality of those who embrace it. It signifies a disguised hatred of humanity
for God is given the right to take all from us including our lives meaning that
God alone matters and if others are to be helped it is for the sake of obeying
him and not for their good. God being
God does not need our devotion and it is totally frenzied madness to approve of
a being that kills and makes flesh-eating bugs for it is those who have needs
that come first. When Jesus claimed to
be the Son of God he confessed that he was a psychopath.


People joke that somebody is
touched in the head or mad but nobody jokes that somebody has cancer. There are many nasty names for people with
mental problems. Nutter, nutjob, looney
sicko, and so on. There are no
derogatory terms for people with physical illnesses. Why the antagonism towards people with mental
illness? People say it is because they
fear what a person with mental illness might do. But we know that mental illness relatively
rarely causes its victims to do harm. Others
say it is because people fear mental illness for they have no idea of what it
is like. They do not fear physically
sick people because they have a little idea of what they are going through. But this is hard to accept because people do
get depressed and think they are going mad.
It’s a universal thing. We do
have some idea of what it is like.
Religion, especially Christianity, has traditionally loathed mentally
ill people. It has suggested they may be
demonically possessed. And when they are
not they were suspected of being demonically obsessed. That means that demons are not possessing
them but meddling with their minds and causing their illness or they are just
taking advantage of an existing disorder.
The fear of demons was then projected onto the victims of mental
illness. The victims were seen as pawns
of evil. Accordingly they were feared
and inevitably hated. The belief in
demons has waned but centuries of hatred for the mentally ill has still left
its mark. As long as the Church promotes
the gospels it automatically seeks to revive that hatred. People still fear demons even though they
don’t deeply believe in them and the fear of demons still produces prejudice
against people with mental illness.


The Church cannot rule out demonic
obsession in any case of mental illness.
Clearly out of respect for the victims of mental illness, the concept of
demons and Jesus the exorcist need to go. This evil faith of Christendom
teaches that the sin of Judas and the Pharisees Jesus said were destined for
Hell for their sin was unforgivable was the sin of despair. That is a helpful doctrine for depressed
people I must say! It is bad enough to
suggest to people with psychotic tendencies that demons exist and can afflict
people but that shows that psychiatry should oppose religion. Despair is listed as a sin against the Holy
Spirit in the Catholic Catechism of Christian Doctrine.


The Christian system was
designed to produce psychopaths and neurotics. Gaze
at its
bloody history.  It has been very successful.


The gospels indeed have failed
to convince us that Jesus was sane.


11 January 2008


CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins/Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998

Cornwell, Little Brown, London,




Top of the