Chapter Eight
He Had to Sacrifice Himself to Himself?
Fatal Flaw #7: The Jesus Story Makes No Sense
-Thomas Paine, “The Age of Reason”
There are many different denominations of Christianity, from liberal to conservative, from those who see the Bible as a source of metaphor to those who call for a strict literal interpretation. However, central to all of them is the story of Jesus, his sacrifice upon the cross and his role as the redeemer for our sins. He is the central icon to all of them, the primary theme on which all of these variations are based. All of Christianity rests upon the credibility of his story. Was he really the “Son of God”?
The story, we are led to understand, is that humanity fell out of fellowship with Yahweh when they were driven from the Garden of Eden. Yahweh can’t abide sin in his presence and therefore no human could attain salvation and be with him in the hereafter. However, Yahweh, in his infinite love, sent Jesus (or became incarnate in the form of Jesus, depending on your interpretation) to become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. By this sacrifice are we wiped clean of our sins and are saved from eternal damnation. We need only believe this story and become Christians to accept this gift of salvation.
From the previous chapters and our review of the mixed biblical message on human righteousness and path to salvation, we already know that this story is on shaky ground before we even begin our analysis. Central to this story is the concept that no human is righteous in the eyes of Yahweh and that none of us can come to Heaven except by this grace offered by the blood of Christ. This was why, we are told, Jesus had to suffer on the cross. If people could become righteous or attain salvation by their own works, the whole sacrifice for our sins would have been in vain.
Yet, we know from reading the Bible that it isn’t true that no human is righteous in the eyes of Yahweh. Both Elijah and Enoch were taken into Heaven long before Jesus was sacrificed on the cross (see Second Kings 2:11 and Hebrews 11:5). Also, the Bible declared the following people who found grace in the eyes of Yahweh long before Jesus walked the earth: Noah (Gen 6:8-9), David (First Kings 15:5), Asa (First Kings 15:14), Job (Job 1:1 and 1:8), Jacob (Amos 8:7), Abia and Elisabeth (Luke 1:5-6), Simeon (Luke 2:25) Lot (Second Peter 2:7-8) and Jesus’ adopted father Joseph (Matt 1:19).
More glaring than the biblical self-contradictions is the senseless nature of the bloody sacrifice, which we are told was so essential to our salvation. It begs a question, framed in the title of the next subchapter:
Why Does Human Sacrifice Make Everything Better?
Christians are often known to speak of the sacrifice of Jesus as essential for our salvation. “Without the blood of Christ, there can be no remission of sin.” What they can’t seem to answer is why.
When this religion was born, people probably didn’t ask this question. It seemed to be taken for granted by so many religions at the time that the gods enjoy having blood spilled upon their altars. Jewish traditions, as reflected in the Old Testament, often involved making animal sacrifices to appease the wrath of Yahweh or to gain his favor. Other ancient traditions all across the globe shared this practice of human or animal sacrifices as part of their religious rituals. No one ever seemed to question why such slaughter might be beneficial to the gods or how exactly it pleases them.
Given such a paradigm, that blood sacrifices make everything better, it makes sense that the way to take the traditions of the Old Testament of animal sacrifices to the next level would be a human sacrifice. The ultimate human sacrifice would be one either chosen by God or (if this is your view of Jesus) the actual avatar (worldly incarnation) of God. In modern society (now that we should think about leaving our superstitious beliefs behind), we should start to question this assumption.
Forgiveness: A Decision That Needs No Ritual
We are capable of forgiving others without killing our own sons. Why should we think that we are better able to forgive than God? Whether or not Jesus was supposed to be the avatar of God, if it was God’s will that Jesus be the ultimate sacrifice so mortals could gain God’s forgiveness, then the entire ritual of sacrifice becomes superfluous. Forgiveness occurs when the decision to forgive is made. If God had a plan to forgive mortals, then it was already done. Why is there the need to go through with the bloody ritual?
A Question for Christians: Does God make the rules or not? What higher power could compel God to go through a bloody ritual just to allow the changing of a rule that God made in the first place?
Inherent Injustice of the Sacrifice on the Cross
The entire story of human sacrifice to atone for our sins also flies in the face of modern concepts of morality and justice. If a criminal is convicted of a crime, that criminal alone must face the punishment. No one can take that criminal’s place in prison or in execution even if he or she wanted to. For an innocent person to take the punishment of a criminal is clearly injustice. No nation interested in justice would have such a system in place where people could even voluntarily take the criminals’ punishment for them. Do we suggest that human nations have a better system of justice than God?
If a governor or president ever pardons criminals, they are simply pardoned. The political leader doesn’t go to prison or execution in place of the criminal. Again, no one has to take the criminal’s place. That would be crazy. Should we suggest we have a saner method of pardoning people for their transgressions than God?
The story of the sacrifice on the cross for our sins is as morally bankrupt as it is logically absurd. This is no surprise, as what can be morally sound which is logically flawed?
Jesus vs. the Old Testament
Problems with the story of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins are compounded when we try to reconcile this central theme of Christianity with the traditions established by the Old Testament.
The Jesus Sacrifice Wasn’t Kosher?
If we’re to believe that the Old Testament god and the New Testament god are the same being, then why wasn’t the Jesus sacrifice done according to the very rules established by the Old Testament god? Bold emphasis added:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
This verse establishes the requirement that blood sacrifices offered to the biblical god for atonement must be done on a proper temple altar. There is no mention in the Bible about Jesus’ blood being sprinkled on the temple altar. Neither was there any mention of an ordained religious authority performing the rite. A Roman soldier, an outsider to the Jewish faith, would hardly be an acceptable choice to perform such an atonement ceremony.
Leviticus 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
This verse forbids the consumption of the blood of a sacrifice, either by those of the faith or outsiders. Neither is there any provision to consume sacrificial blood in a purely symbolic manner, as is done in the rite of Communion. This biblical rule flies in the face of Jesus’ words at the last supper:
Matthew 26:27-28 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
It also contradicts a strict command by Jesus that participation in this ritual is critical to salvation:
John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Christian apologists may say that the rules for sacrifice and atonement are Yahweh’s rules and he may do with them, change them or violate them as he pleases. Why then could he not dispense with the whole need for a bloody and painful human sacrifice?
It’s easy to understand why the Jews, both ancient and modern, would refuse to have Jesus as their lord. There is a passage in Deuteronomy that sounds like it’s speaking of (and warning against) Jesus (bold emphasis added):
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
According to the legends, Jesus was a prophet, spoke of omens or portents, which supposedly came true (and Christians offer these alleged “fulfillments of prophecy” as proof he was the Son of God) and he asked people to follow other gods whom they had not known (Jesus and the Holy Spirit, neither of whom are mentioned in the Old Testament). The rest of the passage reminds the reader that “the Lord your God” is the only lord that you shall serve and he delegates this role of master to no one. It seems like this entire passage is warning the reader not to serve or follow Jesus.
“Barabbas”? The Man’s Name Was, “Son of the Father”?
Not every aspect of the story of Jesus’ sacrifice is in violation of the Old Testament rules. In fact, the oddly named “Barabbas” may have been an addition to the story, created to satisfy an old Jewish tradition involving two sacrificial goats.
The name “Barabbas” literally translated from Aramaic means “son of the father”. “Bar” means “son of” and “abba” means “father”.[2] The Book of Matthew calls this man “Jesus Barabbas”.[3] Bold emphasis added:
(NRSV) Matthew 27:15-17 Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At that time, they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” [4]
There is no historical evidence (outside the Bible) that such an unlikely Roman tradition of releasing any criminal the crowd called for was ever practiced. The notes in the New Oxford Bible admit as much.[5] It also seems exceedingly unlikely that the Romans would ever agree to release an insurrectionist and known killer of Romans.[6] Roman governors were sometimes known to have mercy upon petty criminals as a public display of their compassion but they generally did not trifle with rebellion.
Pilate in particular was infamous for ruling Judea with an iron fist. He was hardly the pushover the Gospels describe. Historian Philo described the governor as cruel and stubborn and his administration as corrupt and abusive, featuring frequent executions without trial. Historian Josephus echoed these observations, recalling his brutality when a “great number” of Jews were slain as they dared to protest his rule.[7] Robert Price notes how historians tend to regard Pilate as a “Jew-baiting tyrant”.[8] Yet this same governor kowtows to the Jewish priests?
Equally unlikely is the name “son of the father” for a man (for all men are the sons of their fathers) or the coincidence that two Jesus’ would be brought before the crowd, one named “son of the father” and the other named Messiah (or Christ or “anointed one”). One logical explanation is that the story is a mythical symbolic message that fits with the Jewish tradition of sacrifices to cover for our sins.
Leviticus 16:5-10 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
We can only speculate what the original mythmakers were thinking when they told the story of the two Jesuses, one “son of the father” who was released and the other, the “Son of God” who was sacrificed, but it seems quite plausible that the story symbolically reflects the Jewish tradition of the two goats outlined above. Pilate replaces Aaron in bringing the two goats (the two Jesuses) before the people of Israel for a sin offering. They chose to release Jesus Son-of-the-Father into the wild and Jesus Son-of-God as the sacrifice of atonement for the Lord.
Allegorical literature was very popular at the time the Gospels were written.[9] It seems plausible that the authors did not believe they were writing literal history but rather a symbolic message. Barabbas need not be a real person for the purpose of such allegory. If the story of Barabbas was mythical, what else might have been? Could the entire story of Jesus have occurred only in a mythical realm?
Jesus-Come-Lately
“Christianity was the great synthesizer of the ancient world’s religious ideas… Paul’s Christ Jesus bears too close a resemblance to the savior gods of the Greco-Roman mystery religions to allow it to be claimed that one has nothing to do with the other.”[10] -Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle”
“There are other similar ‘savior figures’ in the same neighborhood at the same time in history: Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Tammuz, and so forth and nobody thinks that these characters are anything but mythical and their stories are so similar (to Jesus’ story)… that it just seems like special pleading to say, ‘Oh, in this one case it really happened.’”[11] -Robert Price, Historian
“Why should we consider the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Mithras, and other Pagan Mystery saviors as fables, yet come across essentially the same story told in a Jewish context and believe it to be the biography of a carpenter from Bethlehem?” [12]
- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy,“The Jesus Mysteries”
“Many currents fed the Jesus myth, like streams and tributaries joining to form a major river.”[13]
-Kenneth Humphries, “Jesus Never Existed”
“…‘Defenders of the (Christian) faith’ were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit that Christianity was a rehash of older religions. …In fact, in their fabulous exploits and wondrous powers many of these (Pagan) gods and goddesses are virtually the same as the Christ character, as attested to by the Christian apologists themselves. In further inspecting this issue we discover that ‘Jesus Christ’ is in fact a compilation of these various gods, who were worshipped and who’s dramas were regularly played out by ancient peoples long before the Christian era.” [14]
-Acharya S, “The Christ Conspiracy”
The idea that a historical Jesus never existed and the gospel character is largely fabricated based on earlier Pagan myths is one that is increasingly considered and debated among historians. Indeed, it is suspicious that Christianity didn’t offer very much that was new. Perhaps the early church founders believed that their new religion could be sold more easily if they didn’t try to reinvent the wheel. It might also be that Christianity was not invented or founded but rather evolved over time. Regardless of the reasons why, there can be no doubt that the central figure of this faith bears a striking resemblance to the other savior-type gods that preceded him.
The Greatest Story Ever Copied
In examining the story of Jesus, we find many elements that seem similar to earlier myths and legends of the area. It’s easy to see how Jesus could be a composite of different religions that preceded Christianity.
The idea of a sacred character who was supposedly the son of a mortal woman and a divine father wasn’t unique to the Christian faith. This happened quite frequently in Greek mythology. Zeus (known to the Romans as Jupiter), the head of their pantheon, was said to have fathered many of their demigod heroes with mortal women. A sexless conception was unusual but not unheard of. Zeus came to Danae, daughter of king Acrisius, in the form of a golden shower to sire the Greek hero Perseus.[15]
“We propound nothing different (about Jesus) from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
-Justin Martyr, Second Century Christian Apologist[16]
Many Christians believe that December 25 was originally made a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus. In reality, many other savior gods that predated Jesus, such as Mithra and Krishna, were also thought to have been born on that date. [17] The “Madonna with child” image of baby Jesus and Mary seems reminiscent of the earlier Egyptian gods, baby Horus and Isis.[18] The subsequent story of a tyrant’s attempt to kill him is found in other myths, including the story of Moses.[19] As with Buddha, Jesus was a child prodigy and taught at the temple at the age of 12.[20]
Like the Romano-Persian savior god Mithra, Jesus had 12 disciples.[21] Like Buddha, he was a traveling teacher of great wisdom and admonished his followers to renounce wealth and worldly desires.[22] Like Krishna, he preached a message of charity, peace and love.[23] Like the Persian god Zoroaster, he taught of Heaven, Hell and the resurrection.[24] Like the Greek god, Dionysus, he turned water into wine.[25] Like the Greek god, Asclepius, he performed healing miracles including raising the dead.[26]
The dying and rising savior-god Mithra seemed especially similar to Jesus in many ways. He had a last supper with his followers. His worshippers were admonished to symbolically eat of his flesh in order to conquer death. He promised on the Day of Judgment that all the dead would be raised back to life. He had sacrificed himself to redeem humanity, descended into the underworld for three days and rose again on Sunday, the holy day for Mithraists.[27]
All of these other mythical godly beings or central icons to other religions predated the alleged life of Jesus Christ by hundreds if not thousands of years. Is it just a coincidence that Jesus’ life story contains so many elements of theirs?
The Disadvantage to Copying the Predecessors
There was a great risk the early church founders took in absorbing all these other religious traditions. Essentially, they claimed that Mithra, Dionysius, Horus, Buddha, Krishna and others were all “false gods” and yet the story of Jesus was true. The Pagans predictably ridiculed this belief.
“Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.” [28]
-Pagan Philosopher Celsus
How could the Christians respond to these criticisms? They brought out Satan and blamed it all on him. Satan knew that the day of Jesus would come and so he counterfeited their savior-god multiple times in advance in order to confuse Christians:
“Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvelous tales, like the things that were said by the poets.”[29]
-Justin Martyr, Second century Christian apologist
You can’t argue with that “logic”.
Has there ever been a more useful character created by any religion? Any time Christian leaders find themselves in a theological quandary, Satan is there. Far from being the bad guy, he’s always ready to save the day. Go ahead and blame everything on him. He won’t mind. That’s his job.
Lee Strobel Tries to Explain
The modern Christian apologists realize that they can’t seriously resort to the “Satan-Counterfeit-in-advance” explanation anymore. This is a more skeptical age. Aware that they need to come up with something new, the argument they offer these days (as Strobel does in his book, “The Case for Christ”[30]) is to play up the differences between their Jesus and each of the savior-gods of the mystery religions. They also boast that, unlike the mythical gods of the Pagans, Jesus was someone who “actually lived”.
So why didn’t the early Christian apologists say so? Why didn’t Justin Martyr simply point out that Jesus was significantly different from Mithra, Krishna or Horus, if indeed he was? Could it have been that the Pagans would have known better, since they were more familiar with these gods than modern Christians? Why didn’t Justin Martyr simply point out that, unlike these other savior-gods, his miracle-working savior had walked the earth only a century before? Could it be that there was no evidence for such a claim? Why resort to invoking Satan unless it was absolutely necessary to do so? Could it be that there was no other option?
Was There a “First Coming” of Christ?
With so many questionable aspects to the Jesus story and so many ways it seems similar to other more ancient mythologies, it’s reasonable to ask: “Was Jesus a real person or a myth? If Jesus was real, how accurate are the Gospel accounts?” There are three basic possibilities:
- Jesus did exist and was divine as the Gospels portray him.
- Jesus did exist but only as a mortal religious leader and the myths of divinity and miracles were built around his story after his life ended.
- Jesus never existed at all. He was a mythical figure like Hercules.
The second possibility is certainly plausible. To use another example from history, we do know there was a Davy Crockett. However, it’s unlikely that he, as the song goes, “killed him a bear when he was only three.” George Washington did exist but the story of the cherry tree and that he “couldn’t tell a lie” is most likely fictional. It’s easy to see how folklore is fond of embellishing a true story with many fanciful additions.
The difference between the last two possibilities is largely moot. Whether Jesus is completely mythical or whether he was just a man and myths were built around him, it means very little to us today. If Jesus was just a man, then he’s no more relevant to our lives than Julius Caesar. His story might make an interesting movie and/or might contain a set of moral lessons for us to consider and that’s most likely the full extent of our concern. He’s not a living god who desires a personal relationship with us and who can save us. Therefore, the only important question is whether or not the stories of his divinity, and therefore his message of salvation, are true.
It’s important to remember that when we discuss “the real Jesus” that the historical data on this character is, at best, sketchy. We have no writings directly penned by Jesus so it’s difficult to establish exactly what he did claim, given the assumption that he existed at all. The story of the divine Jesus as we understand it depends largely on the four canonical Gospels that we find in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
The Plausibility of the Gospels
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make many fantastic claims about Jesus. We are told that he fed thousands with magically generated food, healed countless sick and injured people, exorcised demons before witnesses and even brought back the dead. Often, the witnesses to these events were said to be amazed and rightly so. How could such displays of supernatural power fail to astound even the most suspicious of skeptics? We should expect the fame of such a miracle worker to spread like wildfire.
Indeed, the Gospels do claim that Jesus’ fame spread quickly over Judea and Syria (bold emphasis added):
Matthew 4:23-25 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of all the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan.
“Great multitudes” came to him from all over to witness his healing miracles? No doubt those who had been supernaturally healed immediately told everyone in their respective home towns about it. We should expect that “his fame went throughout all Syria” and beyond. If these accounts of both his miracles and the reactions of all those who witnessed them are accurate, surely Jesus would be well known at least in the towns that he visited. How could such events not make history?
Historians and Philosophers of the Time: “Jesus Who?”
These claims about Jesus seem suspicious given that no historian or philosopher who lived at the time had anything to say about these alleged events. Neither did they record anything regarding Jesus as a religious leader. His Sermon on the Mount, his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the controversy that surrounded his ministry (so intense that the chief priests supposedly conspired to have him killed) seem strangely unknown to them.[31] Philo, the early first century Jewish historian who lived at the right time and place, who wrote extensively about religious and political matters of his day, wrote not one word about Jesus.[32] Even the Gospels weren’t written down until at least decades after his alleged death (an issue which will be discussed later).
We should expect such miraculous events, if they really occurred, would capture the attention of local authorities. Yet, Pilate, the governor at the time of Jesus’ alleged crucifixion, didn’t seem to know anything about Jesus according to all four accounts of the canonical Gospels.[33] Pilate seemed to have absolutely no idea who Jesus was or why the priests were so upset with him. Why? A governor of an occupied territory should be expected to get regular reports of unusual activities, especially since Judea was one of the most rebellious of all the Roman provinces. Why did such supernatural events not come to the governor’s attention, at least enough to tell him who this man named “Jesus Christ” was?
If the Roman governor was ignorant of Jesus, surely the Jews at least knew who he was. Why was it necessary for Judas to point out Jesus to the Pharisees’ guards? Matthew and Mark agree that Judas first told the guards, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him.” Luke affirms that it was with a kiss that Jesus was identified. [34] Shouldn’t someone famous for miracles be identifiable on sight?
Noted Christian apologist, Lee Strobel, tried to make the case for Jesus in his book, “The Case for Christ”. However, his very case admitted that Jesus failed to make an impression on “those who did not believe in him”. Even members of Jesus’ own family did not believe in him during his own lifetime.[35] How is this possible? Did Mary not relate to them the story of the angel that visited her, the virgin birth, the strange star, the wise men from the east and the heavenly hosts singing “Glory to God in the highest” at his birth? Did they pay no attention to the astounding supernatural feats that the god-man performed? What kind of blithering idiots were they to miss such signs that their kin was no ordinary man?
What about the citizens of his hometown in Nazareth? Did they ever hear about the singing angels, revering shepherds and traveling kings coming to bear gifts of gold? Did they notice anything unusual about the 12 year old boy teaching at the temple? Apparently not. They seemed to regard him as an ordinary man:
Mark 6:1-4 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Did the Disciples Have a Problem with Procrastination?
Apparently, Jesus was not famous among the Roman governors, Jewish guards, historians who lived at the time, his family or his hometown friends. At least we should expect his disciples to eagerly and immediately write of their experiences with him, if not during his life then immediately after his resurrection. Wouldn’t you?
Imagine you were one of the Disciples of Christ. You had the matchless honor of speaking with and traveling beside God’s earthly avatar. Your life has been touched by God in a way that the most devoutly religious can only dream of. You have seen the miracles this earthly incarnation performed and heard his message that he’s admonished you to spread to the entire world. You know this message is critical to the salvation of everyone.
After seeing him rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven, what force could pry the pen and parchment from your hand before you had finished relating your story to all of posterity? Would writing of your experiences with God and communicating Its message to the world not be your obsession to the exclusion of all else until that task were completed? What could be more important than spreading a message from God and saving the immortal souls of everyone on the planet?
How long did it take the disciples to write the Gospels? Four decades at least, quite possibly more.[36] Mark was the first Gospel published and he mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple (which occurred in 70 AD).
Mark 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Historian Robert Price discusses the publication dates of the Gospels in his book, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”:
“When were the Gospels written? The conventional dates ascribed to the Gospels are controlled by the agenda of apologetics: the goal was to date the documents as early as possible so as to shorten the time span from Jesus to the Gospels, to make the oral-tradition period as short as possible, betraying an acknowledgement that oral tradition is not after all to be trusted…
“So they chose the earliest possible date as the most likely date of composition. No one denies that Mark 13, the so-called Little Apocalypse, has the immediate destruction of Jerusalem in its sights, so apologists admit Mark must have been written in the general neighborhood of 70 C.E.”[37]
-Robert M. Price, "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man"
The 70 AD[38] date may be too generous a concession to the Christian apologists. Some scholars believe the Gospels were written much later. Acharya S makes the case that the Gospels were most likely penned in the second century, noting that no Christian apologist or founder makes any reference to them until then.[39]
Even being generous and assuming that the Gospels were written in 70 AD, the question remains, if it was all real, why did it take anyone so long to write anything down?
The Episodic Nature of the Gospels
Another problem with the Gospel stories is how the disciples seem to be like two-dimensional dunces at times. Their shallow nature is underscored when we consider the episodic manner in which the Jesus miracles are presented.
Imagine again that you are one of the disciples. You see this man, Jesus, heal the sick and cast out devils. Furthermore, he empowers you to perform the same feats (although not as well). Would you doubt this man if he ever said he would perform some other miracle? After a while, wouldn’t it occur to you that you’re not dealing with a mortal man?
Keep your answer in mind as we review the two virtually identical "Jesus-feeds-thousands-with-magically-created-food” stories in Matthew[40] (bold emphasis added):
Matthew 14:19-21 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Matthew 15:33-38 And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.
Now, if you had been a disciple at the point of the fifteenth chapter of Matthew, would you have asked such a stupid question, “Where are we to get the food?” Only a chapter ago, you saw this same man feed a thousand more families with even less food. You’ve also seen him heal the sick, cast out demons and walk on water. You’ve declared him “Truly the Son of God”.[41] What more would it take for you to eventually become jaded at any fantastic claim of what he’s about to do? Nothing should impress or surprise you any further for you already know that you’re dealing with a godly being.
Logically, there are only two explanations:
- The disciples had severe short-term memory problems and Jesus showed phenomenal patience by not smacking them in Matthew 15:34.
- A lot of miracle stories were retroactively added to the Jesus legend creating a sloppy patchwork yarn with no attention paid to continuity. As one miracle story is completed, all is forgotten and reset so the next miracle story can begin and the disciples and observers can be amazed anew.
The latter of the two is a staple of episodic story telling. At the end of an episode, everything is “reset” and all is forgotten so everything can start all over again with the next episode. Each episode thereby stands on its own and the episodes can be shown in any order. In the case of the miracles of Jesus, each time the disciples experience the same skepticism only to be amazed at the miracles that Jesus performs. The episodic nature of the Jesus miracles is perhaps the greatest indicator that they are fictional.
Attack of the Zombie Saints
Perhaps the most prominent “likely story” of the Gospels occurs in Matthew right after the death of Jesus.
Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out The graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Nothing else is said of this fantastic event except these two verses.
The opening of tombs and the raising of the dead should have been a most phenomenal event to say the least! Why do Mark, Luke and John make absolutely no mention of it? Why does no historian mention this event? Why does Matthew not give us more detail, such as who were these “saints” (so much for none being righteous), who were among the “many” that saw them, what did they have to say when they “appeared to many”, where did they go after entering the city and when did they return to their graves?
If the saints did appear to many, they could have testified as to the truth of what Jesus had to say. They could have told people what awaits us on the “other side”. They might have explained the nature of God and their experiences in Heaven. Their testimony as Jewish saints should have carried a great deal of credibility with the Jewish audience.
“Had it been Moses and Aaron and Joshua and Samuel and David, not an unconverted Jew (would have) remained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the time then the present, everybody would have known them, and they would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles.”
-Thomas Paine, “The Age of Reason” [42]
In Which Decade Was Jesus Born?
The four books all have their points of disagreement. A certain level of discrepancy is to be expected anytime four people tell a story, especially decades after it occurred. Except that the Gospels are supposed to be part of the inspired “Word of God” and therefore should be free of error, we can understand that they may differ on little details like the color of Jesus’ robe (Matthew says “scarlet” while Mark and John say “purple”[43]) or even exactly what the last words of Jesus were on the cross (Matthew says they were “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”, Luke says they were, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”, and John says they were “It is finished.”[44]). However, they should agree on important points as “in what decade was he born”?
Matthew cites that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Herod the Great died in 4 BC, [45] so Jesus would have to have been born before then.
Luke says that Mary was pregnant with Jesus during Quirinius’ (also spelled Cyrenius) administration as governor of Syria (bold emphasis added):
Luke 2:2-5 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Quirinius (Cyrenius) wasn’t governor of Syria until 6 AD [46] and Mary was allegedly with child during his administration, so Jesus must have been born after then.
So how could Jesus have been born before 4 BC and after 6 AD at the same time? How could men who supposedly knew him so well be so wrong about his age (roughly a 10 year gap, possibly greater) and the circumstances of his birth? If at least one of these two accounts is wrong, how is it they can both be part of the “Word of God”?
Josh McDowell Tries to Explain
Christian apologists, aware of the contradiction between Matthew and Luke regarding the date of Jesus’ birth, are known to resort to the claim that Quirinius was the governor of Syria on two occasions, the earlier of which coincided with the reign of Herod the Great.
“We find evidence that Quirinius was [also] governor of Syria around 7 BC. This assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing this post to Quirinius. As a result of this finding, it is now supposed that he was governor twice – once in 7 BC and the other time in 6 AD.”[47]
-Josh McDowell, “Evidence for Christianity”
This assertion doesn’t bear historical scrutiny.
“The attempt of apologist Sir William Ramsey to make Quirinius governor of Syria on an earlier occasion, though much cited by fundamentalists, is totally unfounded. All Ramsey discovered was an inscription saying Quirinius had been honored for his aid in a military victory, and Ramsey gratuitously guessed that Quirinius’ reward had been a previous tenure as governor of Syria. Besides, there’s no room for it. We know who occupied the post in Herod’s time, and it was not Quirinius.”[48]
-Robert M. Price, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”
Neither is such an assertion consistent with the Gospel of Luke. Luke claims that Jesus was “about 30 years old when he began his work” (Luke 3:23). If Jesus had been born in 7 BC, as McDowell implies, than he would have been “about 30” sometime around 23 AD.
All three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) claim that Jesus began his ministry after John the Baptist was arrested. [49] Luke specifies that John the Baptist didn’t even begin his ministry until “the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius” (Luke 3:1), which would have been 29 AD. Already we’re six years too late and John’s just getting started.
We can easily assume that John’s baptizing career lasted at least a few years if not several. After all, Luke says entire crowds came to be baptized by him (Luke 3:7). Mark says these crowds came from all over Judea (Mark: 1:5). John’s Gospel has the crowds asking if he’s Elijah (John 1:21). This is quite a successful ministry to say the least. Such a following can’t be built overnight, especially since he apparently didn’t have miracle working powers. It would be reasonable to place the end of his career somewhere around the mid-30s AD. Therefore, a 6 AD birth date for Jesus would have made him “about 30” at that time. This must be the date for Jesus’ birth that Luke had in mind. Luke’s Gospel can’t be reconciled with Matthew’s.
If the four disciples who wrote the Gospels were brought to court to give testimony as to what they knew of Jesus and their testimonies were reflected in the Gospels, we should expect their testimonies to be thrown out because of the way they contradict each other. In any event, all four are of dubious historical value. The fantastic claims about the divinity of Jesus are therefore brought into serious question as they now stand without a credible source.
Many Other Gospels – Many Other Christianities
The contradictions between the canonical Gospels pale in comparison to the wild variety of early Christian beliefs. As we study the history of Christianity (as well as all the different Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypses that didn’t make it into the New Testament), we find that there was no unity on even the most basic theological issues (such as “how many gods are there?” or “Did Jesus die on the cross?”). It begins to look more like Christianity started as many divergent beliefs with one of them eventually emerging triumphant over all the others.
It may shock Christians today to know this but during the second and third century AD, there were people who called themselves “Christian” who might have believed any of the following things:[50]
- There is only one god, or two, or 30, or 365.
- That the world was made by God, or by an inept subordinate, or by an evil god.
- That the Old Testament was inspired by God, or it was inspired by an evil god, or it was inspired by the Jewish god who was neither the true god nor the devil, or it wasn’t inspired at all.
- That Jesus was both God and man, or that he was completely divine and not man, or that he was a mortal adopted by God as a son, or that he was a man who harbored the spirit of God.
- That Jesus’ death brought salvation to the world, or it didn’t bring salvation to the world, or that Jesus never actually died.
“Why did they (these early Christians) not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament? It is because there was no New Testament.”
-Bart D. Ehrman, “Lost Christianities”[51]
A full discussion of all the sects of early Christianity (Docetic, Ebionite, Marcionite, Valentinain, etc.) would require its own book. What’s important for the reader to understand for now is that there was no orthodox belief among Christians until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The doctrinal differences between these early Christian factions would make the distinctions between Catholic and Protestant look like petty theological hair-splitting in comparison.
Condemnation of Heterodoxy in the Bible
Some of the early Christians, such as the Docetics, didn’t believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus who lived on this earth. Echoes of the early struggles between these different Christianities can be found in the Bible:
First John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby, know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist…
Note the interesting choice of words. The reader is admonished to “believe not” certain “false prophets” who “confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh”. Believe? Confess? This passage argues for the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus using the language of faith. If Jesus had been a historical character who had recently lived, those who claimed that he had not “come in the flesh” wouldn’t be antichrists. They would simply be ignorant or deluded.
To underscore this point, we’re supposed to believe that this passage was written by one of the very Disciples of Christ and, by extension, it must have been written within the lifetimes of those who would personally have witnessed the events described in the Gospels. If the author of these verses really had been someone who had traveled with Jesus, we should expect him to dismiss the Docetics as crazy. Not only would he have known Jesus personally, others of his generation would have as well. Did Jesus not have family members, such as nephews and nieces, who could have attested to his existence? Were there not neighbors and townsfolk of Nazareth who would have known of the godman growing up in their midst? Perhaps they might have denied his divinity but they would have at least believed him to have been a real person.
Modern Christian apologists often claim that the “True Christians” of the “early church” had always believed that Jesus was both a flesh-and-blood historical character and God incarnate. These other heterodox sects of Christianity are to be discounted heretical splinter factions. If the apologists right, it would be curious. It would mean that entire sects of Jesus devotees chose to ignore the obvious realities about their lord and savior and instead fabricated different fantasies about him, ranging from the belief that he only “seemed” to be on this earth (Docetic) to one where he had no childhood, that he came down to earth one day as a fully grown god (Marcionite).
If Jesus had lived as a flesh-and-blood human being, how can we account for either the forms of Christianity that said otherwise or the faith-based language of those who condemned these heretics?
So Much For The “Too-Soon-For-Legend” Argument
The history of early Christian theology and its lack of cohesion flies in the face of the myth that Jesus’ ministry “got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly”. One of the common arguments used by Christian apologists is that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection and his message of salvation developed too quickly after his death for his story to be dismissed as a legend. Indeed, if it were true that a single unified theology suddenly came out of nowhere in the early first century, this argument would be profound. However, as it stands, we can see the roots of early Christianity (i.e. from what earthly sources they likely got their ideas) and the diverse branches of the faith that grew out of them.
It was only through the persecution of “heretical” forms of Christianity (made possible through imperial Roman support), that a single “orthodox” form of Christianity came to be forcefully established. The denominations of Christianity that exist today are variations on the brand of Christianity that emerged victorious over all the others.[52]
How could a religion established by the Son of God produce such variations within centuries after his death and resurrection? Did the divine Jesus not make these matters clear to his followers?
Why Is There No “Book of Jesus”?
These discrepancies in the Gospels, canonical and otherwise, call into question what the real story was. Why didn’t Jesus himself write anything down? We are led to believe that this man was the Son of God, having a mission on this earth to deliver a message of critical importance to our eternal salvation. Did he have nothing to write down for posterity? If we must believe the Gospel of Jesus, wouldn’t it be best if we get this story “straight from the horse’s mouth” so to speak?
Compare the absence of Jesus’ writings to the volumes of letters we have from the mortal Paul or the books attributed to the mortal Moses. If Jesus was a great prophet or Messiah, he was unique among the prophets for writing nothing about his own teachings.
The Spiritual Christ
Some historians offer one explanation for the lack of writings by Jesus and the variation of beliefs about him: the earliest Christians did not believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus. By this theory, the Christ was originally conceived of as a spiritual bieng, one whom Paul claimed to have seen in a vision. The different ideas about Jesus Christ's life on earth came later.
“If we had no other documentary record than the New
Testament epistles, we would probably regard the Son of God preached by
apostles like Paul as a divine being like all other gods of the day, or
indeed any other day: confined to the supernatural dimension and
communicating with believers and spokespersons through inspiration,
visions and other spiritual manifestations.”[53]
-Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle”
Is this hypothesis a plausible explanation? To test it, we should examine what non-biblical sources have to say about Jesus.
Jesus: Man of History or Mything in Action?
“This is why you don’t hear many Christian leaders talking about the early days of Christianity. Because once you assemble the facts, their story is that Jesus lived, everyone forgot and then they remembered.”
-Brian Flemming, “The God Who Wasn’t There” [54]
What does secular history say about Jesus? Not much. We have not a single testimony that dates to the time of the god-man’s alleged life which might confirm that he really existed (never mind the issue of whether or not he did what any of the Gospels claim he did). Evidently, if he did exist, he wasn’t noteworthy as a religious leader at any point during his lifetime.
Neither do we have any artifacts that date to the time of Jesus’ alleged life that prove he existed. “The James Ossuary”, a box that has an inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”, once touted as the only such artifact, turned out to be a forgery.[55] The “Shroud of Turin”, the supposed burial shroud of Jesus, was proven by three independent radiocarbon dating tests to have been manufactured sometime during the Middle-Ages.[56]
What few secular historical references to Jesus we do have are dated well after the time of his alleged life (the end of the first century or beginning of the second). Perhaps the most famous secular historian that allegedly confirms the existence of Jesus is Flavius Josephus. In his “Testimonium Flavianum” (written circa 94 AD), Josephus seems to rave in uncharacteristic hyperbole about how Jesus was the Christ (i.e. Messiah), performed miracles and was resurrected. This seems an odd testimony from one who remained an orthodox Jew.[57] Christian apologist Lee Strobel’s book, “Case for Christ” admitted that the passage was subject to forgery by later Christians and that it seemed to contain “interpolations” (i.e. it was likely doctored).[58]
So why would the Christians need to doctor a historical document to support their claim that Jesus existed and was a wonder-worker? Only lies require lies. A truth usually generates its own evidence without the help of forgery.
Despite this admission of Christian “interpolations” in Josephus’ work, Strobel still tries to make the case that Josephus’ testimony should be regarded as corroborating evidence for Jesus. However, once evidence is admitted to have been tampered with, shouldn’t it be thrown out? If parts of the Testimonium are admitted to have been tampered with, could the whole passage have been forged? Does this appear a likely scenario considering that not one Christian writer prior to the fourth century makes any reference to this passage?[59]
There are a few other pieces of “corroborating evidence” that we’re usually offered from Christian apologists (remarkably few and brief considering the fabulous nature of the Gospel story we’re told to believe). Sometime around the beginning of the second century, a Roman historian Tacitus apparently wrote:
Tacitus: “[nothing] availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to supress the rumor, he falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called "Christians"… Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius…”[60]
Odd thing about this testimony: Pilate was a prefect (a military offical), not a procurator (a financial administrator). Christian apologist, Josh McDowell, presents Tacitus as “one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.”[61] Why did Tacitus make such a mistake? Is this testimony really his? Is it another Christian “interpolation”?
An additional problem with the Tacitus reference is that this passage revolves around the folklore that Nero blamed the Christians for the fires of Rome and then persecuted them. This persecution is strangely unknown to any other sources, Christian or otherwise, until the fifth century.
“No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it appeared almost word-for-word in writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths.”
-Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”[62]
For the sake of argument, let's put all those doubts aside and assume the passage isn't another Christian interpolation. Even still, it's a weak piece of evidence for a historical Jesus. Tacitus was apparently commenting on the Christians and may have heard that their founder was crucified by Pilate. Since Pilate was known for his brutality toward the Jews, this claim would have seemed plausible and may have just have been accepted. Fact checking was not the science it is today. This is why late evidence (second century and beyond) should be considered suspect.
During the second century, a secretary to Emperor Hadrian apparently wrote:
Seutonius: “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”[63]
Was “Chrestus” supposed to be Christus? If so, this document would put Jesus in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD). That’s odd. Even the New Testament doesn’t establish the Jewish expulsion from Rome until Acts 18:2, after the Gospel life of Jesus. A simpler explanation is that “Chrestus” was a different man from Jesus.
Also during the second century, one of Emperor Trajan’s governors apparently wrote:
Pliny the Younger: “…[the Christians] sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god”[64]
There’s nothing in Pliny’s letters that confirm anything about the Gospel life of Jesus. It only confirms that there were Christians who worshipped Christ around the year 112 AD. Why is this testimony touted as evidence for Jesus?
Sometime after 70 AD, a stoic philosopher apparently wrote:
Mara Bar-Serapion: “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?”[65]
The “wise king” is never named. He could be anybody. Remember that the Jews had many would-be Messiahs during the era that Jesus allegedly lived.
We have no first century Jewish writings that confirm the existence of a historical Jesus, despite the great controversy that supposedly surrounded the god-man’s ministry. However, McDowell and other apologists present a circa 300 AD entry into the Jewish Talmud which they claim is a reference to Christ:
Babylonian Talmud: “On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover.”[66]
This entry doesn’t say what year this event took place. If it’s a reference to what was at the time a nearly two hundred year old case, why did it take so long to be recorded? Or was it a reference to a more recent case? Yeshu (Jesus) was a common name and the charges of heresy and sorcery weren’t uncommon during that time. The trial of this Yeshu was apparently forty days long (not exactly consistent with any of the Gospel accounts) and this Talmudic entry goes on to describe him as “connected with the government” (royal or influential, something that the Gospel character was not). It also says he had five disciples (Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah) none of whom are the twelve Jesus supposedly had. The two characters shared the same common name and the similarity largely ends there.
In a truly shameless moment in both of their respective books that try to build a case for Jesus, McDowell [67] and Strobel [68] both present the first century Roman historian Thallus as an eye-witness to the darkness that allegedly fell upon the land after the death of Jesus (See Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44). However, both Strobel and McDowell admit that Thallus’ works are lost to us.[69] We only know of Thallus’ report of a solar eclipse supposedly at some point around the time when Jesus allegedly was crucified as it comes to us through a third century Christian named Julius Africanus.
Africanus: “This darkness Thallus, in the third book of History, calls, as it appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”[70]
This brief hearsay testimony (written nearly two centuries after the alleged event) is all we’re given of what Thallus might have written. We have no idea whether Thallus mentioned Jesus at all, whether he simply wrote of a solar eclipse that Africanus assumed was around the time of the death of his savior or whether the entire reference is a fabrication. This is as close as Christian apologists come to presenting even a shred of evidence to support their claims of the supernatural events that fill the Gospel stories.
“The only information we have about (Thallus), even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late second century, and that information is plagued with problems.”[71]
- Richard Carrier, “Thallus, An Analysis”
Overall, the Christian apologists present a short list of historical references to Jesus, all of which come well after his alleged life and each of which looks dubious in some way. This is especially strange considering that they’re asking us to believe that he was a great miracle-worker, popular religious leader and controversial figure.
Also, it’s important to remember that during the Roman Empire’s last century, the Christian bishops all but ruled the realm through weak-willed Caesars.[72] They had the means, motive and opportunity to forge whatever documents or other evidence they needed to in order to provide legitimacy for their religion. By the very admission of Christian apologists, they appear to have taken this opportunity with Josephus’ work. Consequently, the few and brief mentions of Jesus in other historical documents should be taken with suspicion.
Again, none of this “corroborating evidence” dates to the time of Jesus’ alleged life, which indicates that Jesus was at most an insignificant religious splinter-faction leader who was made a legend only after he died. If that’s the case, we’ll never know the true story for all the folklore it’s buried under.
On the other hand, it might be that Jesus never existed at all. Suggesting this is not to say that anyone “just made up Jesus one day”. From the time of Paul to the Council of Nicaea, we have roughly 250 years for the story to grow. This is more than sufficient time for an urban legend to develop.
In fact, we can piece together the evidence to construct a plausible scenario where the Jesus myth developed over time. Jesus Christ started as an ethereal spirit who visited Paul in a vision, then later he was brought down to earth in stories that were originally intended as parables and over time these parables came to be thought of as literal history. A church was then established, which grew until it gained the support of the state. Some of the Church leaders might have been blinded by their own zeal while others may have knowingly played along for their own benefit. Historical documents were forged or doctored. Heretics were persecuted and detractors were silenced. The rest, as they say, is history.
Offsite Links: (jesusneverexisted.com by Kenneth Humphreys)
- How little evidence there is for Jesus and why each piece looks suspicious
- Compare this to how much evidence there is for Julius Caesar.
- The circus of Christian apologetics.
Conclusion
The entire story of Jesus as “the lamb of God” (John 1:29), the supreme sacrifice for our sins, makes no sense because there’s no logical reason why human sacrifice makes anything better. The Jesus sacrifice is also incompatible with Old Testament teachings and his story is remarkably similar to those of Pagan gods that preceded him. The entire religion consequently appears to be a blending of Judaism and Paganism. The Gospels, the only detailed accounts we have of the alleged life of Jesus, were inexplicably not written until at least decades after that alleged life and they contain improbable and contradictory assertions that make them unreliable sources.
Clearly, the Jesus that is the divine savior and living lord of humanity doesn’t exist. Perhaps his story is based on a real mortal religious leader who was deified in death by his followers but it makes no difference. Such an explanation falls under the category of “it might be so, and what then?” This mortal leader isn’t around anymore, he can’t be our savior and his true story will most likely never be separated from the layers of folklore.
Yet, because so many people believe in the mythical version of Jesus, he becomes real in their minds, much like an adult version of an imaginary playmate. Beliefs influence our actions and so they have an impact on the world we live in. Even though he’s not really there, this Jesus has power over our world. He can block scientific and sociological progress, cause religious wars and sow division in our society. It all begins to seem reminiscent of a famous poem:
“As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today.
I wish that man would go away.”
-William Hughes Mearns, “Antigonish” 1899 [73]
Perhaps one day Jesus will just go away. It will be a great day for human civilization when he finally takes his place alongside Hercules and Gilgamesh. It will be like a heavy albatross has finally been removed from our necks and we can at last progress uninhibited by that dead weight.
|| PREVIOUS CHAPTER || TABLE OF CONTENTS ||NEXT CHAPTER ||
[1] Thomas Paine, “The Age of Reason” (with a biographical introduction), Editor: Philip S. Foner, (New York, 1974), p 67
[2] Robert Price, “Deconstructing Jesus”, Amherst, NY: 2000, p 203
[3] The King James Version omits the first name “Jesus” from “Jesus Barabbas”.
[4] New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition, New Revised Standard Edition, Editor Michael D. Coogan, (New York, 2001), p 52 New Testament
[5] Ibid. p 53 New Testament.
[6] Robert Price, ??The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, Amherst, NY: 2003, p 313
[7] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, pp 192-193
[8] Robert Price, “Deconstructing Jesus”, Amherst, NY: 2000, p 245
[9] Brian Flemming, “The God Who Wasn’t There”, Beyond Belief Media 2005, Chapter 5 [15:02]
[10] Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle”, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada, 2005, p109
[11] Brian Flemming, “The God Who Wasn’t There”, Beyond Belief Media 2005, Chapter 9 [20:54]
[12] Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries: Was The ‘Original Jesus’ A Pagan God?”, New York: 1999, p9.
[13] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, p88
[14] Acharya S, “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, Kempton, Illinois, 1999, p105
[15] Webster’s Millennium Encylopedia on CD-Rom, “Danae”, Webster Publishing, Seattle: 2003.
[16] Acharya S, “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, Kempton, Illinois, 1999, p56
[17] Ibid, p116
[18] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, p209
[19] See Exodus chapter 1 and 2.
[20] Acharya S, “The Christ Conspiracy”, p109
[21] Ibid, p119
[22] Ibid, pp 108-111
[23] Ibid, pp 116-118
[24] Ibid, pp 122-124
[25] Ibid, p112
[26] Ibid, p124
[27] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, p111
[28] Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries”, New York: 1999, p 27.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Lee Strobel, “The Case for Christ”, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, pp 120-122
[31] Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries”, New York: 1999, pp 133-158
[32] Kenneth Humphreys, “The ‘Witness’ Who Saw and Heard Nothing” http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html accessed on July 28, 2007
[33] See Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, Luke chapter 23, and John chapter 18 (later half).
[34] See Matthew 26:48, Mark 14:44 and Luke 22:48
[35] Lee Strobel, “The Case for Christ”, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p 77
[36] Brian Flemming, “The God Who Wasn’t There”, (Beyond Belief Media, 2005), Chapter 4, [11:25]
[37] Robert Price, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, Amherst, NY: 2003, pp 31-32
[38] CE or “Common Era” is sometimes used as an alternative to AD.
[39] Acharya S, “The Christ Conspiracy”, Kempton, Illinois, 1999, pp 25-26
[40] These identical stories are also largely repeated in Mark 6:37 and 8:1.
[41] See Matthew 14:33.
[42] Thomas Paine, “The Age of Reason” (with a biographical introduction), Editor: Philip S. Foner, (New York, 1974), p163
[43] See Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2
[44] See Matthew 27:46, Luke 23:46 and John 19:30
[45] New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition, New Revised Standard Edition, Editor Michael D. Coogan, (New York, 2001), p 11 New Testament
[46] Robert Price, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, Amherst, NY: 2003, p60.
[47] Josh McDowell, “Evidence for Christianity”, Nashville, TN: 2006, p 94
[48] Robert M. Price, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, Amherst, NY: 2003, p 61
[49] See Matthew chapter 3-4, Mark chapter 1, and Luke chapter 3.
[50] Bart D. Ehrman, “Lost Christianities”, New York, NY: 2003, p 2.
[51] Ibid, pp 2-3
[52] Bart D. Ehrman, “Lost Christianities”, New York, NY: 2003, p 4
[53] Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle”, Ottawa, Canada, 2005, p 23
[54] Brian Flemming, “The God Who Wasn’t There”, Beyond Belief Media 2005, Chapter 5 [14:40]
[55] “James Ossuary Opens a Pandora’s Box of Suspected Fakes”, USA Today, November 26, 2003, accessed at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-25-ossuary-usat_x.htm on July 28, 2007
[56] David van Biema, "Science and the Shroud", Time.com, April 20, 1998, accessed on June 7, 2008, at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988184-1,00.htm
[57] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, p 306
[58] Lee Strobel, “The Case for Christ”, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, pp 79-80
[59] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, p 306
[60] Josh McDowell, “Evidence for Christianity”, Nashville, TN, 2006, p 171
[61] Ibid, p83.
[62] Kenneth Humphreys, “Jesus Never Existed”, Uckfield, UK, 2005, p 314
[63] Josh McDowell, “Evidence for Christianity”, Nashville, TN, 2006, p 83
[64] Ibid, p 87
[65] Ibid, p 174
[66] Ibid, p 88
[68] Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ", Grand Rapids, MI 1998, p84
[69] Author's Question: Due to the efforts of Christian pyromaniacs?
[70] McDowell, p 87
[71] Richard Carrier, "Thallas, An Analsys", published online at Infidels.org, 1999 http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
[72] Humphreys pp 384-389
