Saturday, March 11, 2017

There is no evidence Jesus lived

Gospels no authentic document
The gospels, written in Greek-to propagate a religion-are the only source for the life and ministry of Jesus. He and his Jewish fishermen followers spoke Aramaic. There is no trustworthy evidence to show that any of these books were in existence before 100 years after the death of Christ. Even Christian scholars, admit that Mark was written sometime around 70 AD, Luke by about 110AD, Matthew by about 130AD, and John by around 140 AD. Hence they could not have been written by the guy's disciples. As layers and layers were added to the oral stories with elaborations, distortions, additions, interpretations borrowing from here and there, we cannot get the faintest outline of who Jesus was and what he did or said.    
How can something written more than a century after the person they describe lived and died, without any historical document to base what is written, become true? The original gospels no longer exist; they have been lost or destroyed. The oldest existing manuscripts belong to the 6th century which are copies of copies of copies. We do not know who, when and how they were copied. There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries: "the Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and many others. It is even argued that works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. They had many contradictory stories and they were all burnt after the Synod of Trent that accepted the four as canonical. There is absolutely no certainty or reliability about anything found in the Gospels.
The story of Jesus was not a new idea!  
There lived many men who bore the name, "Jesus" and many political leaders who had the title "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed too.  In all the pagan cultures there were gods born of virgins who performed miracles, gave new teachings, got killed or crucified and who ascended into heaven after resurrection. One could easily fabricate a story like Jesus’ from the literature of the time.  
Historians are silent on this guy
The Jewish and pagan historians of the 1st&2nd centuries are almost silent regarding Jesus. Flavius Josephus who died about 100 AD published "The Jewish war" in 77/78  and "The antiquities of the Jews" in 94/95. In the earlier Greek versions there is no mention of Jesus as such. But in the subsequent editions there are references to Jesus (which must have had been added later.) All leading scholars agree that the phrase “if it is lawful to call him a man’ found twice in later editions is simply a later addition. Cornelius Tacitus in about 116 AD mentioned in his manual: “ Nero was fiercely persecuting Christians on account of their crimes. Although the pernicious superstition was momentarily subdued, it again broke out not only in Judea but also in the city of Rome.” Tranquilus Suetonius who lived in the 2nd century alludes to Christians who adhere to a new and pernicious superstition in two passages in “The Live of the Caesars.” Around 112 CE, Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trojan, detailing how he was conducting the trials of those accused of being Christians.  A few years later, another historian, Suetonius, wrote that Emperor Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome because of the disturbances instigated by Chrestus. If Jesus were the guy described in the Bible--calming the seas, walking over water, curing lepers, making the blind see, the deaf hear, raising the dead, he would have been quite famous and the historians of the period would have written extensively on him. But they hardly mention about the guy. How come the Almighty was known only to handful of ignorant fishermen?
Contradictions on his birth stories
Matthew says Jesus was born when Herod was the King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. Herod died in the year 4 B.C. and Cyrenius,(Quirinius)did not become Governor until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, thus a gap of ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. No early Christian knew when Christ was born. Christmas (Dec.25th ) was a pagan festival adopted as such.  Christians have contrary opinions concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth. Nobody knew when the Almighty god was born! Was he born at all?    
The story of the Immaculate Conception and connected legends and the miracles were invented to picture him as a god like the mythical gods: Mithra, Attis, Osiris, Horus, Apollonius Dionysus and others. Many scholars find the genealogy given in the gospels totally wrong- obviously added to show that Jesus is the heir of the promise made to Abraham. But if he was born of a virgin and what is the use of giving the genealogy extending to Joseph? Matthew and Luke give a genealogy of Jesus, the names, and even the number of generations differs between the two-obviously added to show that Jesus is the heir of the promise made to Abraham. What purpose a maternal genealogy would serve in a Jewish (patriarchal) setting?
Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born in Bethlehem-the city of David- by making Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to it, two provinces away for registering in a Roman census.(there is no historical evidence) Even if there was one, only the head of the family had to go and not his fully pregnant wife. His birth is made to happen here to fulfill a prophesy of Micah. The stories of the shepherds and wise men who recognized the child as the son of god are preserved in Mathew and Luke. Remember David himself was a shepherd in the fields of Bethlehem. The narration could have been inserted to show the coming of the Messianic Shepherd from David’s line. Mathew describes the attempt of Herod to destroy the child and hence Joseph and Mary took flight to Egypt and returned back to Nazareth where they then settled down.
There was no city of Nazareth in the 1st Century
Gospels try to show that Nazareth was his home town. Was there a city of Nazareth in the first century? Historians do not think there was anything called Nazareth during the time. The Encyclopedia Biblical says, “We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." If there was no Nazareth in the 1st century, gospels are fictitious.  
The gospel writers did not know about his early life?
After his birth, nothing is known of the life of the Almighty until he reached the age of 30. Luke mentions Jesus discussing with learned people in the Temple of Jerusalem like Buddha did, when he was 12. There were stories of other gods having such discussions with the learned at young ages.
If Jesus was recognized as the promised King by the shepherds and Herod and the learned people, why did he emerge a stranger from Nazareth to begin his ministry? Why didn’t any one recognize him during his public life?  Why are the four gospels silent on the thirty years of the life of Jesus?
Inconsistencies in his public life
Gospels speak only about his ministry which lasted just one year according to the synoptic gospels and more than two according to John. John says Jesus was very much in Judea and went to the Temple of Jerusalem often. But other gospels say his ministry was in Galilee and he went to Jerusalem towards the end. Why should one betray Jesus who appeared daily in the streets and preached often in the Temple?  The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, what John writes about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
Was Jesus crucified?
There are many scholars who doubt the story of Christ's crucifixion. They mention that Roman civilization was one of the highest orders in the world. Their courts were models of order and fairness. None was condemned without a trial nor handed to the executioner before being found guilty. The judge Pontius Pilate found him innocent and no charge of wrong doing was brought before him. It looks improbable that a man found innocent could be punished, tortured and crucified. Why did the Jews a civilized people of the time want to crucify a man who were working so many miracles and doing only good?  
Is it not strange that during the first 8 centuries a lamb was represented as dying on the cross for the salvation of the world?  A lamb carried a cross and a lamb was on the cross. Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross at the close of the 9th century. Till then a lamb was on the cross. Did Jesus die on the cross at all? Remember, there is an amulet depicting the god
Dionysus on a cross, very similar to the way we see crucified Christ’s picture. May be, Christ was not crucified after all. Was the whole story of Christ fabricated from the mythical gods and the Church with its political and spiritual power made people believe it?
Jesus was fabricated!
The story of Jesus was certainly fashioned after the mythical gods like Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Mithra with some ideas taken from Buddha and Krishna. The narratives of some of these gods existed hundreds of years before Jesus’ story emerged and some others were almost contemporaries of Jesus. The preachers who wrote about Jesus and fashioned him were familiar with them and they drew from them extensively or rather they created a Jesus in their model. With the Pauline idea of redemption, he was made to die and later resurrect like many of the pagan gods. 


  1. No apostle would have been willing to get themselves executed for their faith in Christ in the most cruelsome ways if there had not been Jesus. As well, there are records of Jesus, found with Joseph Flavius...

  2. Who are the apostles who got executed? How do we know they were Jesus disciplines? From the gospels written by anonymous authors in Greek? So many gospels were burnt by the church and adopted those that suited it to spread a new religion. Flavius did not mention anything in his original versions.'If it is lawful to call him a man' is a later addition. Please read my blog.