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