Jesus never existed. Yes, I get blasted, trolled, and chastised every time I use that sentence. However it’s as true now as it was 2000 years ago.
Even Christianity itself is not unique. It’s pretty much a heterogeneous mixture of all of the religions that where around at the time. Mixing and borrowing from pagan, Jewish, and other religions that where popular.
So, on what grounds do I deny that such a person as Jesus Christ existed as a man? My answer is two fold. First off it’s not the denial of existence from the Pagans that is most profound, but the denial of the smartest and well educated Christians in both modern times and in antiquity. Second, an individual of the human race that has truly existed has never had so much evidence to the contrary of their own non existence. Unlike the mythical Jesus, a real historical figure like Julius Caesar has a mass of mutually supporting evidence.
If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus’ life. Writing was not all that uncommon at this time. Particularly amongst Greek, Jewish, and Roman scholars. The very few references to Jesus that allegedly date back to his lifetime are clearly forgeries, forged no doubt hundreds of years later by people who realized this embarrassing lack of evidence needed to be rectified. Josephus and Tacitus in particular are notorious for being quoted by modern day Christians. However they are also notorious forgeries.
A History of Forgery…
The forgery of Josephus concentrated on the “Jesus” figure. His works have been debunked time and time again. Starting from a time before our Great ³ Grandfather was still in diapers. One work in particular called “DIEGESIS: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity” by Robert Taylor (1760 AD) makes some great points when it comes to Josephus:
- It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. (263–339 AD)
- Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother.
- It interrupts the narrative.
- The language is quite Christian.
- It is not quoted by Chrysostom (347 AD), though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text.
- It is not quoted by Photius (810 AD), though he has three articles concerning Josephus.
- Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.
- Neither Justin, in his dialog with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.
- But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ.
Another major support piller that a lot of Christians and Christian sympathizers rest on is the works of Cornelius Tacitus know by the name “The Annals”. He is made to speak of “Christians”, who “had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” Also taking from “DIEGESIS” most modern historians have this as a rebuttal:
- This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian Founding Fathers.
- It is not quoted by Tertullian (220 AD), though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.
- And though his argument immediately called for the use of this quotation with so loud a voice (Apol. ch. v.), that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounts to a violent improbability.
- This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely impossible that he should have spoken of him, had his writings contained such a passage.
- It is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.
- It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius (263–339 AD), who could by no possibility have overlooked it, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the passage in Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus’ ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.
- Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to “Christ” or “Christians.”
- The use of this passage as part of the evidences of the Christian religion, is absolutely modern in origin.
- There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.
- No reference whatever is made to this passage by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before that time, which, to say the least, is very singular, considering that after that time it is quoted, or referred to, in an endless list of works, which by itself is all but conclusive that it was not in existence till the fifteenth century, which was an age of imposture and of credulity so immoderate that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, whatever was foisted upon them.
- The interpolation of the passage makes Tacitus speak of “Christ,” not of Jesus the Christ, showing that—like the passage in Josephus—it is, comparatively, a modern interpolation, for
- The word “Christ” is not a name, but a title! It being simply the Greek for the Hebrew word “Messiah.” Therefore,
- When Tacitus is made to speak of Jesus as “Christ,” it is equivalent to my speaking of Tacitus as “Historian,” or George Washington as “General,” or of any individual as “Mister,” without adding a name by which either could be distinguished. And therefore,
- It has no sense or meaning as he is said to have used it.
- Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians had their denomination from Christ, which would apply to any other of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, as well as to Christ Jesus. And
- “The disciples were called “Christians first at Antioch” (Acts xi. 26), not because they were followers of a certain Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, but because “Christian” or “Chrēstian,” was a name applied, at that time, to any good man. And,
- The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called “Christians,” and his disciples “Bishops of Christ.”
Ignored by History…
The lack of history is best quoted directly from the book: “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviours” by Kersey Graves (1875)
The fact that no history, sacred or profane,—that not one of the three hundred histories of that age,—makes the slightest allusion to Christ, or any of the miraculous incidents ingrafted into his life, certainly proves, with a cogency that no logic can overthrow, no sophistry can contradict, and no honest skepticism can resist, that there never was such a miraculously endowed being as his many orthodox disciples claim him to have been. The fact that Christ finds no place in the history of the era in which he lived,—that not one event of his life is recorded by anybody but his own interested and prejudiced biographers,—settles the conclusion, beyond cavil or criticism, that the godlike achievements ascribed to him are naught but fable or fiction. It not only proves he was not miraculously endowed, but proves he was not even naturally endowed to such an extraordinary degree as to make him an object of general attention. It would be a historical anomaly without a precedent, that Christ should have performed any of the extraordinary acts attributed to him in the Gospels, and no Roman or Grecian historian, and neither Philo nor Josephus, both writing in that age, and both living almost on the spot where they are said to have been witnessed, and both recording minutely all the religious events of that age and country, make the slightest mention of one of them, nor their reputed authors. Such a historical fact banishes the last shadow of faith in their reality.
It is true a few lines are found in one of Josephus’s large works alluding to Christ. But it is so manifestly a forgery, that we believe all modern critics of any note, even of the orthodox school, reject it as a base interpolation. Even Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of the Christian faith that ever wielded a pen in its support, and who has written ten large volumes to bolster it up, assigns nine cogent reasons (which we would insert here if we had space) for the conclusion that Josephus could not have penned those few lines found in his “Jewish Antiquities” referring to Christ. No Jew could possibly use such language. It would be a glaring absurdity to suppose a leading Jew could call Jesus “The Christ,” when the whole Jewish nation have ever contested the claim with the sternest logic, and fought it to the bitter end. “It ought, therefore” (says Dr. Lardner, for the nine reasons which he assigns), “to be forever discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity.” (Life of Lardner by Dr. Kippis, p. 23.)
As the passage is not found in any edition of Josephus prior to the era of Eusebius, the suspicion has fastened upon that Christian writer as being its author, who argued that falsehood might be used as a medicine for the benefit of the churches. Origen, who lived before Eusebius, admitted Josephus makes no allusion to Christ. Of course the passage was not, then, in Josephus. One or two other similar passages have been found, in other authors of that era, which it is not necessary to notice here, as they are rejected by Christian writers. It must be conceded, therefore, that the numerous histories covering the epoch of the birth of Christ chronicle none of the astounding feats incorporated in his Gospel biographies as signalizing his earthly career, and make no mention of the reputed hero of these achievements, either by name or character. The conclusion is thus irresistibly forced upon us, not only that he was not a miracle-worker, but that he must have led rather an obscure life, entirely incompatible with his being a God or a Messiah, who came “to draw all men unto him.” And it should also be noted here that none of Christ’s famous biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, are honored with a notice in history till one hundred and ninety years after the birth of Christ. [All four Gospels were written around 170AD]. And then the notice was by a Christian writer (Ireneus).
“We look in vain,” says a writer, “for any contemporary notice of the Gospels, or Christ the subject of the Gospels, outside of the New Testament. So little was this ‘king of the Jews’ known, that the Romans were compelled to pay one of his apostles to turn traitor and act as guide before they could find him. It is impossible to observe this negative testimony of all history against Christ and his miracles, and not be struck with amazement, and seized with the conviction that he was not a God, and not a very extraordinary man.” Who can believe that a God, from off the throne of heaven, could make his appearance on earth, and while performing the most astounding miracles ever recorded in any history, or that ever excited the credulity of any people, and be finally publicly crucified in the vicinity of a great city, and yet all the histories written in those times, both sacred and profane, pass over with entire silence the slightest notice of any of these extraordinary events. Impossible—most self-evidently impossible!! And when we find that this omission was so absolute that no record was made of the day or year of his birth by any person in the era in which he lived, and that they were finally forgotten, and hence that there are, as a writer informs us, no less then one hundred and thirty-three different opinions about the matter, the question assumes a still more serious aspect. From the logical potency of these facts we are driven to the conclusion that Christ received but little attention outside of the circle of his own credulous and interested followers, and consequently stands on a level with Chrishna of India, Mithra of Persia, Osiris of Egypt, and other demigods of antiquity, all whose miraculous legends were ingrafted in their histories long after their death.
Stolen or Borrowed?
Comparative Religion shows that the story of Jesus already existed in numerous religions prior to the alleged time of Jesus. Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. The motif of a Crucified Savior was already extant prior to the alleged time of Jesus. We’ll take one example that is tended to be used most often The comparison between Jesus and Horus:
Click Here for Full Size
Horus vs Jesus
It can also be said the story of Jesus is just an allegory for the sun passing through the Zodiac and the passage of the seasons of the year. Jesus travels throughout his one year ministry, and the description of his travels exactly match that of the sun traveling through the Zodiac during the year. Here we have the origin of the Jesus story. This common origin explains why all the stories of crucified saviors are essentially the same.
As for the “Virgin Mary” we have to look at a few things. First off, she was married. It was tradition that you lost your virginity at your wedding while the parents watch in order to confirm the consummation of the marriage. Plus the whole concept of the virgin birth is quite a common idea amongst lots of religions. When the Romans decided to adopt Christianity Mithra was the favored god in the Roman army and he was born of a virgin on December 25th so it was natural for this idea and date and idea to be passed on the the new religion.